2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th 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)

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: In the gallery this afternoon is David Turnbull, the CEO of Hillsborough Resources. I’ve just had a very informative and pleasant lunch with Mr. Turnbull talking about Quinsam Coal and discussing its importance to the province and to Campbell River. I know he’s got meetings with ministers this afternoon. I hope that they are fruitful and work for the best interests of the company, the community and the province. I hope the House will make him very welcome.

D. Plecas: In the House today we have Dee Regala. Dee is a police officer from Hunan province in China. She is visiting the precinct this afternoon with the Sergeant-at-Arms staff. Will the House please make her feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In this chamber calling committee debate on Bill 11; in Committee A room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Justice; and in Committee C room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: Perhaps we’ll start with the minister’s introduction of the staff that’s assisting him today.

[1335]

Hon. P. Fassbender: With me today is Dave Byng, Deputy Minister of Education; Ian Rongve, the assistant deputy minister, knowledge management and accountability division; and Dave Duerksen, the executive director of the knowledge management and accountability division. We look forward to committee debate.

R. Fleming: I have some specific questions about section 1. I do have to express some regret that — unlike what we’ve seen with even Bill 20 this morning, where there were some amendments published in the orders of the day — there has been nothing of change throughout the stages of debate so far with Bill 11, even when we have such a universal condemnation from all of the major stakeholders in public education.

We have the School Trustees Association, for example, representing the 60 districts in British Columbia, specifically calling for the minister to withdraw sections of the bill on which they were not consulted — a reminder from those school districts that the minister himself, on December 4, just recently re-ratified a memorandum of understanding which committed, promised, obligated the minister to consult with school districts as co-governance partners in education on any major “legislative” change. That was not done in the case of Bill 11.

I have still not seen the minister show any acknowledgment that he violated not only the spirit but the letter of the memorandum in that regard. Nothing that has been said so far — and I think this is unfortunate, when you shut people out of debate and fail to consult at the beginning end of the legislative process — has so far had any influence on the minister’s thinking. It’s full steam ahead on this bill.

I think it’s really regrettable that we’re at committee stage now without any acknowledgment from the minister that his major education partners — be they the teaching profession or the elected trustees who govern the public schools in our great province — have any bearing on his legislative agenda. They were excluded from the get-go. When their opinions have been made, they continue to be ignored.

We may on this side, during committee debate, make some amendments that allow him the opportunity to respond to the major concerns that have been voiced. We’ll get there.

On section 1, with regards to the Independent School Act, I wanted to ask the minister if he can explain the meaning of this section change. The explanatory notes simply refer to the committee making standards with respect to continuing education activities. I wonder if the minister can elaborate on what the rationale and meaning of this change to the Independent School Act is.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This particular change clarifies the role of the minister and the committee in terms of professional development. It says that the committee will not be making decisions relative to professional development, that that will be the purview of the ministry and the minister. That is in keeping with the other changes made to the School Act as well.

R. Fleming: Knowing that none of the amendments around professional development for public education in this bill came upon the consultation or recommenda-
[ Page 8358 ]
tion of the province’s 41,000 professional teachers in the public school system, I’m wondering if the minister can indicate whose, if anyone’s, recommendation the minister received to determine that an amendment like this was needed in this bill.

[1340]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What’s very clear is this act is intended to provide the framework for moving forward in professional development on both the public and the independent side. We will be consulting with the public BCTF and we’ll also be consulting with the independent schools in terms of professional development moving forward.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister just about the certificate standards committee in the independent schools and, again, about the meaning of this change.

Reading the current Independent School Act, section 5(2)(a), which is amended here in section 1 of this bill, reads that the “teaching certificate standards committee must (a) establish the standards that are required to be met in order to be issued an independent school teaching certificate and to maintain an independent school teaching certificate.”

This amendment here, section 1, adds text regarding continuing education activities within the meaning of the Teachers Act and changes section 5(2)(a) in the manner I’ve just described.

I want to ask the minister exactly what that means. Is there a dichotomy being created here between continuing education activities? The purpose of it in terms of what the standards committee’s mandate will be — is that being altered in any way? If you could provide more details.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The purpose of this change is to ensure that there is consistency for all teachers in the province, whether they be in independent or public schools. The change is that the committee will not be having any work with respect to CPD, but that will be consistent, as I said, with all teachers, whether they be in the public system or in the independent system.

R. Fleming: Again, though, I’m just asking the minister if he could explain the significance of the change.

[1345]

I don’t understand how we’re moving from something that exists now to something that is substantively different around the issuance and maintenance of independent school teaching certificates. I wonder if he could just add more detail to his answer in that regard.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Let me try and make it as clear as I can. The entire purpose is to have consistency throughout the province in both the public and the independent system to ensure that continuing professional development is being mandated by the minister and the ministry and that the committee will continue to do the work that it is currently doing. The only change is with respect to continuing professional development.

R. Fleming: Can the minister describe what kinds of professional development activities are typical of independent schools today, what professional development looks like in independent schools — just so we can have a better understanding of what it may look like when it’s under ministerial control.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As I said at the beginning, one of the roles, moving forward, once the bill is through, is…. We will be consulting with the public system, with the BCTF. We’ll be doing the same with independent teachers throughout the province.

The real key here — and I’ll use an example — is with the B.C. ed plan and the new curriculum. It is going to be critical in continuing professional development to ensure that all teachers are given the support that they need in order to implement the new curriculum. So again, we’re looking for consistency, whether it be in the independent system or in the public system.

R. Fleming: I asked what kind of activities are the responsibility of private schools right now around professional development. I don’t think I heard an answer from the minister about that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The professional development in the independent system is very much the same as it is in the public system. If I can use an example, things like project-based learning, the use of technology…. They will identify those supports that teachers need in anything relating to the curriculum. They will have professional development days, and they will bring in leading experts in certain areas. It is very similar to what happens in the public system.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister, then: in the current legislation who determines private school professional development — the school, the teachers? I just wanted to make that clear.

[1350]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Currently under the act, the Independent School Act is silent when it comes to professional development. It is the independent school authorities who determine that along with the schools and with the superintendents of those schools. That is done by them and with their teachers.

R. Fleming: If the legislation is silent, as the minister has characterized it, on professional development of pri-
[ Page 8359 ]
vate school teachers, are there standards or guidelines that exist within the ministry that outline what is expected to be part of professional development for teachers who are in the private school system?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality is that within the independent system the curriculum and the learning outcomes that are established by the province and that we inspect are the criteria. Because we are looking at a transformational agenda in education in both systems, both independent and public, the purpose here is to ensure that the ministry can set the guidelines in the future to ensure that it meets the needs, based on our B.C. ed plan. Again, we’re looking for consistency in both the independent and the public systems.

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering if there is anything the minister could point to that shows that the ministry has, for a period of time presumably, been dissatisfied with a private school–led, professionally led professional development program in the independent school sector that has created a situation which was so urgent, so drastic, so dire that legislative action had to be taken immediately in this spring session, with no time to consult with either the independent schools and their boards of trustees or with the owners of those schools or any of the teachers themselves.

I’m just not aware that there was a situation that was so critical that it precluded the minister from having the courtesy to talk about his transformational agenda, part of which apparently is to take local autonomous control from the private school sector and the teachers that they employ, who make those determinations locally — I’m sure I don’t have to tell him that the types and categories of private schools differ significantly — and to now bring it under ministry control.

Is there a body of information that shows that professional development that was being done by independent schools over the teachers they employ was wholly insufficient and had to be brought within ministry control?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The answer is no.

R. Fleming: Okay. Presumably, it was a satisfactory or maybe even a commendable professional development set of practices that were in the independent schools amongst those teachers employed. So the question becomes: why is this now going to go from a system that is determined by those who participate and pay to participate in these schools and who are employed by these schools to something that is remotely controlled in the Ministry of Education offices?

[1355]

I don’t understand. If there’s no urgency or purpose, nothing motivating it in terms of this professional development regime failing its constituents that it’s responsible to, why would the minister now propose to remove control over its determination and give that determination to himself?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m not going to use the language that the member opposite did to characterize the issue. What is very clear is that around the world education is changing. We’ve seen it here in British Columbia. We have one of the best systems in both the public and independent systems.

We are looking at, through the B.C. education plan…. The member attended a forum in Vancouver where we talked about the future of education and the changes necessary. This is all about moving forward. This is not about fixing a problem. This is about creating opportunities for learning outcomes for students throughout the province. That is the motivation, that is the reason, and that is why we’re going to work with the sector to make sure that we have a clear vision for the future.

R. Fleming: I’m glad the minister referenced that conference that his ministry sponsored, because I think it was interesting. We did hear from a number of international experts that were talking about some of the things that innovative jurisdictions hold in common about improving student outcomes.

One of the things that was mentioned by international guest after international guest who presented to the British Columbians that were there, from all walks of life and all different sectors…. The common thread was that the jurisdictions that were making the greatest improvements were the ones that had given the teaching profession the greatest degree of autonomy over their professional development — something that seems completely at odds with what Bill 11 represents.

We’ll come back to that at a later point. I just want to get back to the question that was asked to the minister. I didn’t quite hear an answer. I asked him why it was not at all possible to consult with private schools broadly — and private school teachers specifically as well — prior to the introduction of these changes, which will be significant, over who now controls the content of professional development in private school education in B.C.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have, over the last three years, as we’ve developed the B.C. education plan, had extensive discussions with the public and the private systems. There has been a great deal of work done by ministry staff in the development of the new curriculum and discussions as it was being developed, with input from the public and the private systems as well as post-secondary institutions.

The reality is that, moving forward, there will be extensive discussion with both the independent and the public systems on the development of professional development as it moves forward.
[ Page 8360 ]

R. Fleming: Just on that point, then, I would ask the minister: isn’t it a more normal state of affairs in the law-making process that before you make a significant change like this, which governs the professional development of an entire certified profession in our province, consultation would happen before or at least during the legislative drafting process?

Here we have a situation where there’s a bill before the House, where there are thousands of people — private school teachers, tens of thousands of public school teachers — on the outside looking in on changes over who administers their professional development, their partnerships that they have at a school district level in the public school system and at a school-based level in the private school system.

[1400]

It just seems, to those who have been watching the Bill 11 debate, that this is completely backwards and contrary to a number of commitments that this minister has made time and time again on consulting — even a protocol that became a memorandum to do exactly that.

I would ask him philosophically, I suppose, whether he thinks that getting people’s views, consulting them on a formal and informal basis, is best done at the beginning of the law-making process or whether what he’s in fact doing is — making the law, making the change, with a commitment to consult them after the fact? Does he understand that that may have the unsettling impact that is indeed happening right now across B.C.?

Hon. P. Fassbender: For the member opposite, I think what’s important here is that this legislation creates a framework for flexibility, for the ability to change as education continues to change. It was clear to me in all the discussions I’ve had with other leading experts around the world that the absolute requirement is to be able to move quickly as the world changes.

This legislation creates a framework for ongoing work with the profession to develop professional development and change professional development as the needs of the system dictate, as the world changes dictate. The suggestion that this legislation is limiting — absolutely the opposite. It is enabling for freedom to change as change is identified, and validated based on learning outcomes for students, because that is in the best interests of those students and, quite honestly, in the best interests of teachers — to give them the supports they need.

R. Fleming: Well, there are a couple of problems I have with that answer. I don’t mean to be obnoxious here, but the idea that the world is changing so fast — so fast that maybe even since February it’s changed again, when this bill was presumably contemplated in the middle of this current school year and that it has to be in place by the next school year that begins in September — I think is ridiculous.

Also, the characterization from the minister I think is problematic. To say that he’s giving greater flexibility and control to the teaching profession, when they already have that, and that’s being removed from the legislation into some great unknown where it will now be more and more determined by the ministry, seems to me to be what we’re debating here in these legislative changes.

How does it give teachers more self-control over the profession when the ministry will be assuming more responsibilities and rights to determine what professional development looks like in both private schools and public schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s very clear — and I’ve said it, and I will say it again — that the work of the ministry is ongoing. The communication level between the profession and the ministry has vastly improved over the last number of years, in the development of the B.C. education plan, in the development of the curriculum and in the future modification of those things. This bill allows for that flexibility, but it also ensures that the standards are consistent across both systems in the province and that we can provide the support in all areas of the province, whether it be in the large urban areas or in the rural districts as well.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I can ask the minister how long he contemplates the consultation that will happen after the bill becomes law….

[1405]

I have heard in a briefing that the ministry gave me —and I thank them for that — about this bill that it could be three years. I’ve heard in the public realm, in media discussions that were based on either quotes or paraphrases of quotes, that the minister has committed to something like a two-year process.

Is that sort of the timeline, a two-to-three-year consultation process, that after this bill becomes law there will be consultation with teachers, presumably both in independent schools and the public school system?

Hon. P. Fassbender: What’s very clear is that any timelines that may be in the public did not come from the minister or the ministry. We will, as I said, work very closely with our partners in education. That includes the Teachers Federation in the public system and the independent teachers organizations. We’ll work with all of our stakeholders to make sure that the consultation is complete and as robust as it possibly can be.

I’m not going to put a time frame on the end of that. We have already begun discussions in the development of the new curriculum. Professional development was one of the discussions on the curriculum writing teams, as to what would be required. A fair amount of work has already gone on.

Once the bill is through the House, then we will ramp up that collaboration and discussions in drilling in on
[ Page 8361 ]
what we’ve already heard. When we are ready, we will make the appropriate announcements of the steps that are going to take place.

R. Fleming: I’m a little puzzled by that answer because there have been so many media articles, both clippings I have from radio and print, that have given an approximate number of a two-year consultation on the regulations that will be consulted upon with the teaching profession. I even think that the minister used that term himself when he did a briefing on Bill 11 to the media in the press theatre.

I don’t ask him for a quarterly by quarterly timeline for the consultation on professional development, but is up to two years, or potentially even longer, approximately the timeline that he envisages before the professional development regulations for the teaching profession will be completed?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The two-year comment, I think, was attributed to the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. That is not a comment made by the ministry or by myself in public comments. We will take as long as it’s going to take to get it done. I’m not going to put a time frame on it. Those dates were not ours and are not ours.

R. Fleming: Well, perhaps that was the understanding of the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. I think, by his account, he had a phone call — what? — about 15 minutes before the legislation was tabled, advising the union that represents teachers in the public school system that Bill 11 was going to be tabled.

Is it inaccurate, then…? His description, that the minister had made a commitment to consult with the BCTF on behalf of teachers for up to two years — is that an inaccurate characterization of that conversation that he had?

[1410]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is not inaccurate is that I did speak to the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. I committed to a very extensive consultation process, moving forward. I did not use “two years” in my discussion with him. He did receive a subsequent technical briefing on the content of the bill that reinforced what I said to him. But two years — he either heard that or interpreted that, not from our conversation. I was very clear in what I said to him at that time.

R. Fleming: So if we could just be a little bit more precise from the minister. He is disputing that he said two years, but presumably he is not disputing that he committed to a timeline that would be reasonable, that would not be pushed through immediately. The assurances he gave both the president of the BCTF and others, through the media, were that there’d be an extensive consultation after the fact. After he uses his majority to ram through Bill 11, there would be a consultation period.

I just want an indication of how long that would be. He’s now getting into the dangerous area where he’s got out there in the public realm that the government envisages up to two years of consultation. He’s denying that that’s the case. So we should really have something a little more precise. Now is a chance for him, on the record, to say what he thinks a reasonable amount of time to accomplish the work of consulting with the teaching profession might be before those regulations are completed.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Let me be as clear as I can for the member opposite. When we spoke with Mr. Iker — a technical briefing was given to him after I spoke to him; my conversation was very short — the commitment I made, with the bill coming in, is that there would be deep and robust consultation on the elements, moving forward. In the technical briefing, to be fair, it may have seemed to him that there was a time frame put on it, but there was none given by the ministry or myself.

Our commitment was, and remains, to make sure that we work closely with all of the partners, including the BCTF and the independent school system, to ensure that the consultation that moves forward as we develop the framework and the regulations that come out of it are based on good and healthy consultation.

As I said during the development of the new curriculum and the framework for the educational transformation under the ed plan, it was clear that professional development and consistency of professional development across the province was at the heart of where we need to go. Our commitment was, is and will remain working closely with our partners to get there.

[1415]

R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister, though, about this robust consultation, as he calls it. He’s basically asking all of the education partners — teachers, in particular, but all of them — to take him at his word that there will be a consultation, when we have seen, prior to the tabling of this bill, there was none at all.

There is nothing in this bill that obligates the minister to keep his word that he’s had, by his own admission, in telephone conversations just before the introduction of this bill. Now we have to believe that there’s going to be an extensive, thoughtful, inclusive consultation, when there’s a record that that never has happened before, and there’s nothing in this bill that guarantees that it will happen.

I think people are going to need a little bit more out there from the minister. If this is going to be a deep consultation that relies upon the judgment and skill of the teaching profession to inform the ministry of what they’re doing with regard to professional development and to work on some goals, how long is that going to take? It’s
[ Page 8362 ]
a fairly simple question. The minister has to do a budget on a fiscal year. He has to look at curriculum changes on a calendar year. The education plan, as well, has an implementation schedule. This is really no different.

I want to ask him again. I’m not going to commit him to an exact date, but what is the approximate timeline whereby the teaching profession will be consulted formally and engaged by the Ministry of Education on the changes that are now going to be codified in law as ministry property around professional development in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to help the member understand how we got to where we are today. First of all, I think it would be presumptuous to build a timeline into legislation or even to stand in this House today and give a timeline.

But I will tell the member this. We have been working over the last 3½ to four years with hundreds of teachers provided by the BCTF to work with us very closely on the development of the new curriculum, hour after hour committed by these teachers to writing new curriculum for K to 9. We had consultation after the first draft. The second draft received more input from teachers, opened it up to every teacher in the province to have input, through the process that we established for them to have input on line and so on, to the new curriculum. The same thing is going on right now with the 10-to-12 curriculum.

I think it would be presumptuous to come in here and say: “We’re going to put a deadline on ongoing consultation moving forward on professional development.” We are going to work with the teaching profession and other partners to develop that framework. That’s what this legislation allows us to do. I am not going to be so presumptuous as to say, “It’s going to take this long,” or to speculate. We are going to work with them until we know that we have the best framework, moving forward.

[1420]

R. Fleming: I think the minister actually gave a great example of how the teaching profession is the pillar of curriculum change and curriculum review in this province and how he has relied on their expertise, their filling up of the committees and their volunteers shaping the K-to-9 curriculum change. Their service is critically important. They’ve had an opportunity to work through a couple of drafts.

Now, contrast that…. The content of the curriculum change is one that is consultative — that necessarily involves teachers. When it comes to the content of professional development, no such courtesy is extended by the minister. We have by his own admission that there was no consultation with the teaching profession about what professional development will look like.

How can he have a curriculum program that is open and reliant upon and respectful of the teaching profession and then, when it comes to the professional development of teachers — something that they currently determine to a great extent themselves — dramatically change how that is potentially seen in the future of British Columbia without even involving them in that until the law has changed?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I understand the member opposite has trouble grasping the concept of how we got to where we are. We clearly, in the B.C. education plan, worked with the system, worked with the partners to define the goals of the future of education. We developed a framework for curriculum revision. We worked with the BCTF, with teachers throughout the province. We worked with the independent school system as we did that, with post-secondary institutions. We are doing exactly the same thing.

And this legislation is creating a framework which will be populated by the professionals working with the team and the ministry to develop professional development that will be consistent throughout the province.

I can say this: the curriculum revisions we have are as good as they are because of the consultation that the ministry did with the profession. We will do exactly the same thing with professional development, so in the end the best interests of the students and the best supports for teachers can be provided.

R. Fleming: The confusion that the minister attributes to me is broadly shared out there in the rest of British Columbia. I mean, I have a letter here from the Fort Nelson school district, and I’d like to read it to the minister. It’s is about Bill 11:

“To begin with, we are dismayed at the disrespect you and your government have displayed towards trustees in the province, despite repeated public statements and the signing of a memorandum of understanding in December 2014 committing to collaboration and a genuine model of co-governance. We continue to see a succession of significant decisions on policy, budget and legislative initiatives which give no evidence of such an approach.”

[1425]

That’s what the question is from all of the educational partners. Right now we’re discussing a section that changes the professional development of teachers. Again, no consultation was done. The minister insists here again today: “Don’t worry. There’ll be extensive consultation after this bill becomes law.”

I want to ask him again: what does extensive consultation mean? Surely, if he can have a timeline around curriculum change, a timeline around a fiscal year for a budget, a timeline around any initiative he wishes to cite in the ministry around this — even shared services themselves…. We’ll get to that later. There was a Deloitte report that had a calendar. Give the teaching profession some indication.

Right now he’s retracting something that’s on the public record which committed to up to two years. Give them
[ Page 8363 ]
some indication that they will be engaged and be able to decide and shape what professional development looks like in the future. They’ve had no opportunity to comment on the transfer of powers over to the ministry from the current situation in the school system. Give them at least some indication as to how long their input will be gathered to make any changes that come in regulation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I’ve responded, and I’ve responded again. I’m not going to repeat myself.

R. Fleming: The minister hasn’t responded. He hasn’t answered the basic question. We’re asking for an approximate timeline.

It’s in the public realm that he’s committed to up to two years. He’s now disputing that here. That’s interesting. He didn’t write a correction to the editor of the Vancouver Sun when he was quoted in that publication. He hasn’t corrected any of the other media sources that have attributed to him that timeline. Let’s ask him here on the record, in Hansard, what the timeline looks like.

Surely, there is one. The minister doesn’t want to leave the public with the impression that he’s flying blind here, does he? There must be a plan behind all these significant changes that are being made. After all, the globe is changing so fast that these changes have to be made now. There must be a timeline to manage the incredible speed of change that is happening in the world that must be responded to by Bill 11.

Give people some kind of indication. There’s already an expectation out there of up to two years. The minister has got to land on something that’s approximate between zero days and two years’ time. I’d ask him to do so this afternoon at this point in debate.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I’ve answered it the same way each time. It will take as long as we work with the partners and we determine we have the appropriate results — period, full stop.

R. Fleming: This is interesting. Previously he said he had no time to consult — probably no desire to consult, I think, is fair — any of the education partners in the school system, whether it’s teachers or whether it’s school districts, about the sum total of changes that are in Bill 11. The world was moving too fast. “We had to act legislatively immediately.” Didn’t have time to talk to anyone that actually, on a daily basis, will have to live with this legislation.

Now we’re hearing that there’s no timeline whatsoever. “We’ll consult as long as it takes.” We go from the furious pace to the completely undecipherable fog of what comes after, in terms of consultation. Not good enough.

So I would ask the minister one more time to give people in the public education system, anyone who has to deal with professional development as it relates to their lives — whether they’re parents, teachers, administrators, principals —— an indication of how long the consultation will take before there are changes in regulation.

The Chair: While the member may not like the answer to the question, I believe the minister has already answered. I’ll ask him to move on, please.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve answered it. I’m not going to repeat myself. It’s very clear. We are going to start the consultation process, which has already been going on for quite a period of time, in the development of the curriculum. There are many things that are in that that have been identified. I can tell the member opposite that we will work with the system to make sure that we make the right decisions at the right time, and that will become obvious as we move forward.

[1430]

A. Dix: A couple of questions with respect to section 1. As the minister will know, section 1 amends section 5(2)(a) of the Independent School Act and addresses two sets of issues the minister emphasized in speaking to this section. Both words begin with the letter “c.” One is consistency, which the minister has used ten times. I guess that’s something that he’s consistent about. He consistently uses the word “consistency.” The second is consultation.

The minister has suggested that even though he had no time to consult on the legislation with either public school teachers or anyone else in the public school system or the independent school system prior to bringing in the legislation, what he is committed to is a process of consultation with respect to the substance of this section and these issues of consistency and curriculum in the future.

I wanted to ask him with respect to that, and I wanted to say just a couple of things by way of background. First, some specific questions both with respect to consistency and with respect to consultation. The minister will know, because it’s been widely reported in the public media, that there was an issue with respect to St. Michaels University School and with respect in particular to complaints by students about a set of teachers in the athletics program.

That’s been the subject of a story on W5. It’s been the subject of other stories in the media. There was a process before the teacher regulation branch — kind of an inconsistent process, in that it took a very long time. There was a massive delay. I think even the commissioner described that delay as a “cancer of justice.” In that case, the commissioner, I think rightfully, acknowledges that when you have a case where there are complaints of that nature, waiting, with everyone still in the school, for a couple of years is not the appropriate course.

There’s no occasion here to debate the substance of that case, but some issues, broader issues from the system and for this section, come out of that. The first is this.
[ Page 8364 ]
It appears to me in reading successive annual reports of the commission of the TRB that there is a two-tier system, of sorts, with respect to private and public school systems, in the nature of discipline in the school system and in protecting students. I’ll tell the minister what I mean specifically, because I think he’ll be interested in it.

In the 2013 school year, for example, there were 141 complaints referred to the TRB by school boards, but only 14 by independent school authorities. However, in terms of complaints to the TRB by the public, there were 55 in the public schools and 28 in the independent school sphere. In other words, when the schools are left out of the equation, there is a way higher proportion of complaints about independent schools in this year, as there has been over the past three years. So when it was up to parents, there was way more concern about that system than another.

Now, those statistics may even out over time. We don’t know, and we’ll see. But what’s interesting is that in public schools there were 2.8 complaints referred for action for every one made by the public. In independent schools it’s the reverse: two complaints put forward by the parents or the public compared to one put forward by the schools.

The duty of those schools to report is the same. I think the minister would acknowledge that. That’s consistency. But the role of the public school principals and boards seems to be different in the way that they deal with those complaints — very significantly different as you look across the three years. These are the three years with this system, this model that we have. The result has been way more discipline for public school teachers but also, presumably, way more action on the part of public school agencies in defence and in protection of individual students.

I guess I wanted to ask the minister: is this not a two-tier system? Doesn’t the substance of it speak to a two-tier system? Both systems are funded by the ministry. Both systems are legally bound by the rules under the School Act and the Independent School Act. But on the independent school side it’s apparent that the authorities are operating under a different standard, or they appear to be. Is this of concern to the minister, and will this be a subject of the consultation to which he referred?

[1435]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I was going to ask for a point of order through that speech because I don’t think it has anything to do with professional development. I’m not prepared to get into a discussion while we’re in section 1 about what the member was asking about. If he wants to ask that question in question period, I’d be happy to answer.

A. Dix: The question was very straightforward — and the minister can answer no to it if he wants — whether the issues that I have raised, and I’ll be raising some more, will be the subject of consultation and action by the minister. In light of his concern and his emphasis on consistency, I was hoping that he would answer that question, but apparently he doesn’t want to, so I’ll ask him another.

Does he think that those sets of issues are issues that are appropriate for the consultation he’s talking about, which is to engage with teachers both in the independent and the public school system about those very issues? These are fundamental, and I can’t imagine issues that are more fundamental to the system.

I wanted to ask the minister if he thinks that such issues should be raised in a consultation, either in the consultation he envisions or other consultation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: What we do know, as part of professional development, is conduct in classrooms and management of classrooms and all of those issues are definitely going to be part of our ongoing discussions with the independent and the public system.

We absolutely believe, without question, that every student should be treated the same way and that learning outcomes, whether it be in the independent system or the public system, are consistent.

A. Dix: I think we’re making progress.

The ruling in this case made a distinction between teacher conduct in the classroom and on the sports field. I think this is relevant, both to curriculum and to the approach of both teachers and other authorities in education to those issues.

It made a distinction. It suggested, I think, that the nature of competitive sports was a justification for conduct that wouldn’t be acceptable in a math class, basically. You see this, by the way, in other rulings by the TRB.

I guess I’m asking about those issues because I think the minister has spoken to those issues, the ministry has spoken to those issues, and the TRB has spoken to those issues. They do relate to curriculum and approaches to education, both in sports, because I think we’ve always taken the view that the sports field is an extension of the classroom…. If we don’t take that view, we ought to take that view, and I’m sure the minister would agree with that.

Does he think, given concerns about those issues that are taking place not just in our school system but elsewhere in North America, that that would be an appropriate subject for the consultation he referred to in response to questions about section 1?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The answer is yes.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister some questions about professional development as it currently stands in the independent school sector. If he could tell me what the activities currently look like in terms of designated in-service school professional development.

I’m just trying to understand the distinction between
[ Page 8365 ]
public and private. He’s trying to talk about how there will be consistency across the school sector, both private and public, but my understanding is there are quite significant variations now about the delivery of professional development.

I’m wondering if that’s likely to change, to be standardized — whether, in effect, the private school system will become more like the public school system, in terms of the delivery of professional development, or whether it’s the other way around.

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, let me repeat a couple of things that I think are very important.

We have curriculum and learning outcomes, which we’ve been doing a lot of work on with the profession, both the independent and the public system. We want to ensure that there is consistency in terms of the definition of those learning outcomes. We’re doing the same on graduation programs and those kinds of things.

We’re looking to ensure that the outcomes and the opportunities for every student are the same across the province. There are issues of codes of conduct and practices that we want to see consistency in across the system, independent and public.

What there is also is the flexibility for independent schools or public schools, depending on their cultural environment, their geographic issues, the issues in those communities — in the rural communities as compared with urban communities. We are not mandating that everything be done exactly the same, because that is not realistic, nor is it appropriate.

We are building in…. Part of the process moving forward with this framework is to define those things that should be consistent across the province and those things where independent flexibility for schools, whether they be in the public system or the independent system, are built into it. Again, that is going to be part of the process in our consultations moving forward.

R. Fleming: With indulgence, I will try not to get into another section of the bill here. But the amendment here to the Independent School Act basically excludes continuing education activities from the teaching committees that are in the independent school sector. That will be changed. So basically, where they’re allowed to deal with issues of licensing and certificate maintenance for the teacher….

That will remain, except for continuing education activities, which are basically professional development. They will no longer be allowed to discuss or have authority over the participation or presentation of training, educational programs, courses or seminars — I’m going by the new definition that’s added into this legislation — providing mentoring or participating in a similar learning activity that is relevant to the training or qualifications of certificate holders.

I just want to make sure that I’m correct, after some debate here, that this is the crux of the change. There is now an exclusion of a whole host of activities that are called continuing education activities — that is professional development, in the common vernacular — that will no longer be permitted to be overseen by these committees in the Independent School Act. Is that correct? Is that the sum total of the changes here? They really will not have any ability…. In fact, they will be precluded, excluded from having any participation in any determination of that broad area of what is commonly known as professional development.

[1445]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is very clear: the change removes the authority of the committee to set those standards, but the committee will, as will the rest of the profession in both the public and the independent system, be able to provide input as we move forward in developing the regulations.

R. Fleming: I’m just trying to understand if there’s any relation between these legislative changes and the budget that’s also before the House. We saw an enrolment increase in independent schools this year of 6 percent, but inexplicably, we saw a 10 percent budget lift for the independent school sector.

I’m wondering if the discrepancy between enrolment and the per-pupil funding FTE formula for the different categories of independent schools and the overall budget increase for the entire sector could be explained by some kind of fund here for the professional development of private school teachers?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The answer to that is no.

R. Fleming: Could the minister give an indication, then — if there’s nothing there for the professional development of teachers in the private schools — of what the discrepancy is all about?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I think it’s a little off this section. But the bottom line is that the formula hasn’t changed in 25 years. The increase in funding to the independent school system is as a result of the increased enrolment, based on that same formula, and there is no other criteria that’s been involved.

R. Fleming: Well, it’s not quite true because the formula has been amended about four times in the last few years by this government, around distributed learning and in a number of other areas. It’s causing an increase in funding for that sector. It’s significantly different in public schools, where funding is only increasing by 1.8 percent in this current budget year —10 percent in the private schools, 1.8 percent in the public schools.
[ Page 8366 ]

I wanted to ask the minister, though, about a situation where…. I know he said that his legislation is responding to a fast-changing, fast-moving world. There have been some concerns about privately delivered distance learning courses by private entities. I’ve got a list of some of these schools. I don’t know if they’re amongst my papers here.

There have been some media reports about grade inflation, essentially. There are concerns about unsupervised exams. I’m just wondering whether the authority to look at what kind of teaching professional standards may have been violated…. Whether these amendments will touch upon the ability to deal with concerns around those practices that have come to light.

The Chair: If the member could illustrate the relevance to section 1 to the Chair, that would be of assistance.

R. Fleming: Yeah. The relevance is that the governance of teaching certificates will be changed — the professional development of teachers, amongst other things. While this is, I appreciate, not the disciplinary committee for any violations, it would presumably change a committee that talks about activities within the private school teaching profession.

One of the emerging issues that has come to light is that there have been some inappropriate practices around distance learning courses delivered by private entities. I’m wondering whether anything in this section of the act would remove from the purview of this committee the ability to discuss issues around this.

[1450]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The answer is no.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister to explain the meanings of the deletions, to give the rationale for why, from the lexicon of public education, we are going to see the rollback of the great revolution of 2003, when the school system was going to be dramatically changed, where we were heading towards a charter school future of parent-owned and -operated public schools, apparently, or something like that. I’ve been reading some confusing speeches, from decades gone by, of the Education Minister at the time, who’s now the Premier.

I couldn’t help but notice that many of the deletions in this section of Bill 11 are really an admission of failure by the government. That all these bold, new, largely conceptual elements of what was required in the public education system — achievement contracts that were to be done districtwide annually, district literacy plans, school planning councils that were to exist side by side with parent advisory committees….

All of these things, which were part of a bold new era of innovation in public education — accompanied by unconstitutional stripping of negotiated contracts and all the turmoil that followed, I might add…. The content that the government was trying to insert upon that time seems to be drifting away. It seems to be being stripped out here in Bill 11, to be removed.

I’m just wondering if the minister can describe why the achievement contracts are being abandoned, why district literacy plans will no longer be required. Those definitions are being removed from the act — and school planning councils. I’m just trying to understand why the ministry has had a sudden change of direction, when what was heralded not too many years ago is now, apparently, being rolled back.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve said it a couple of times, but I’ll repeat it again. This legislation is all about moving forward. We’re a long way today from where we were many years ago. What we are doing is we’re recognizing that we need the flexibility. We need to be able to adapt to an education system that is in transition and that will continue to be, and we want to give that flexibility. That’s what the legislation is all about.

[1455]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister to describe what, if anything, the school districts and the public, who were reported to about achievement contracts, might be losing by their deletion in this section of the bill.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The question gives me the opportunity to clearly outline for the member opposite that we have been working very closely with the BCSTA, the BCSSA, the BCCASE, FNESC, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the BCTF, BCASBO, Student Voice and the Ministry of Education.

All of these parties have been involved with us in talking about an accountability framework that has the following principles. I’d like to read these in the record, that they (1) be grounded in the belief that together all educational partners are responsible for student success; (2) create a system-wide focus on student learning and success, helping to ensure that each student in B.C. achieves his or her full potential; (3) be meaningful, impactful, flexible, realistic and sustainable; (4) address the differences in performance among particular groups of students — most notably, aboriginal students and children in care and students with special needs; (5) be strengths-, support-, evidence- and results-based; (6) reflect a system-wide commitment to continuous improvement and lifelong learning; and finally, continue to build public confidence in the B.C. education system.

That is at the heart of this. I know that in discussions with the ministry team, there is not one school district that has said: “We want to keep the same reporting pro-
[ Page 8367 ]
cesses that we’ve had for years.” We want to change them so that they are more meaningful, more realistic and meet the student outcomes that we’re trying to achieve.

R. Fleming: I am just going back to the debate around the introduction of school planning councils and the views of the then Minister of Education who chided those who were scrutinizing debate at that stage about what purpose the school planning councils would have and whether they would be workable. She said:

“I understand why the opposition wants to oppose this. I understand that they will desperately try and concoct any excuse to try and oppose it. The fact remains that the accountability contracts will provide far more information and far more useful information. They will be required, and they will be monitored. The data will be made public, and parents, most of all, will be included.”

I just want to get a sense from the minister, before we ditch the now Premier’s bold experiment, as to what happened. There was an incredible amount of hype, trumpet playing, that accompanied the introduction of both the achievement contracts and school planning councils as being remarkable innovations in public education.

[1500]

For them to be just jettisoned in this bill I think requires some more understanding. So I would ask the minister, then: what has happened with achievement contracts? What’s the experience here? He didn’t mention any consultation with the B.C. parent advisory councils in the list that he just read out, I would note.

But the BCCPAC were big fans of the school planning councils. They were willing to support that initiative at the time, and it would seem that they haven’t been significantly consulted because I don’t have their views as to their removal at this time.

I’ll ask the minister to just characterize the experience over the last ten years. What kind of compliance was there with achievement contracts at the district level? What was the penetration of the school planning councils? Did it become embedded in the typical school culture in British Columbia, or was it an experiment that failed badly? I think we have to know that before we continue debate on a bill that would remove these entities going forward.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality is that parents have been engaged and need to continue to be engaged. BCCPAC has been part of developing the new framework and have been consulted.

Mr. Puddifoot has actually come out publicly and said that he supports the change, because we’re at a place, moving forward, where they want to see more realistic, flexible frameworks that allow us to deliver on student outcomes. So they are totally supportive of this and have been engaged in the process throughout.

R. Fleming: I want to just describe the consultation, as I understand it, with BCCPAC, because I was up in Nanaimo when BCCPAC had its first engagement opportunity around the potential changes to the accountability framework. By the way, at no time during that consultation was it mentioned that there would be, potentially, legislative changes coming forward.

There were three questions that were put up on a slide in the front of the room. I participated at a round table with one of the groups of parents. Was it a well-attended event? There were probably 50 or 60 people there. Given that there are 550,000 kids in school and however many hundreds of thousands of parents in British Columbia, you could call that a broad consultation if you wish. I’m sure the minister will. I wouldn’t.

There were eight round tables of participants, and there was a slide put up. We had a consultation exercise. Three questions. The first question was: “In terms of education, what is most important to you?” Interesting question. Quite general, I think you would agree, Mr. Chair.

The second question was: “We” — being the ministry — “want each student in B.C. to be successful. What does success mean to you?” Again, a fairly general question. I think you’d agree, Mr. Chair — not really making parents that happen to be in the room understand that they’re in some kind of legislative consultation for changes, I don’t think. I don’t think the first two questions give any clues to that.

Then the final and third question was: “Based on your answers” — to the above — “what would you like to see, and not see, in our improved K-to-12 accountability framework?” That was the sum total of the consultations as far as I can tell, and the only official one that the BCCPAC has been able to have its delegates participate in.

The answers were quite interesting, because they weren’t really about achievement contracts and school planning councils. They were about very specific concerns within public education, within their lives as parents.

There was tremendous concern around individual education plans and whether those were being developed in a timely fashion for students. There was tremendous concern about scarce resources for special needs learners — the absence of speech pathologists, in particular.

There was concern around where IEPs or unfulfilled IEP requests get recorded. Is there data on the backlog of special needs education assessments? And if so, how do we hold the ministry accountable to that? Those are the kinds of things that parents were asking about.

[1505]

They were definitely interested in accountability — accountability of the ministry to live up to the lofty goals that are outlined in the education plan, which, on the ground in the school system in British Columbia in real communities, look quite substantively different than the prose of the education plan.

Consultation? Kind of a broad, far-ranging discussion. No indication that it was related to legislative changes
[ Page 8368 ]
that were in the minister’s mind. And I’m trying to understand now how, with such a limited consultation, it has become instructive to roll back all of the reforms around the golden, new era of school planning councils and parent empowerment that the then Minister of Education, now Premier of the province, envisioned.

It seems to me that if the minister is going to explain the rationale for why these are being struck from the School Act through Bill 11, he should give an indication of what data was derived over the last several years of experience. How was it used? Was it incomplete? Which districts participated and which didn’t?

Those are the kinds of details that I’m looking for that weren’t shared with parents at the consultation that was done that I think need to be aired in the process of looking at legislative changes here today.

Hon. P. Fassbender: There have been extensive discussions with all of the organizations I mentioned, including BCCPAC. All of them, including BCCPAC were part of the co-creation of the guidelines that are presently there. They have been given those in draft form. Then they were modified, based on feedback.

It was up to each of those organizations to go out to their membership, provide the feedback. But to suggest one meeting was all there was is not correct. There have been extensive discussions, and they continue and will continue as we move forward under this new framework.

[1510]

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, just so we can get an indication of what he’s now proposing to get rid of, what the achievement contract requirement was of districts and how it was tracked by the ministry — when that will be suspended, presuming this bill comes into force. Maybe I’ll just begin there.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member is aware that the achievement contracts and the reports were required to be submitted by districts by July 15. With the passage of this new legislation, that requirement will be removed.

R. Fleming: I wonder how many years that…. I’m trying to remember. I think it maybe first came into effect in ’04. I’m just wondering if there’s a decade — or is it nine, ten, 11 years? — of achievement contracts that were submitted annually by July 15. The question is: what is the ministry going to do with the data that was provided in those contracts?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality is the reports were valuable in helping us to frame where we are today. What we are doing and what is more important are the student outcomes that we’re working on together. The reason we’re changing it is the desire on everyone’s part to now, as we develop new curriculum and the new education plan, move forward in a way where we have a robust opportunity to focus on student outcomes, and that is the goal.

R. Fleming: I’m just reading through the section that’s going to be eliminated around achievement contracts. I just want to ask the minister about what will replace it, in essence, to inform the ministry of how well schools in different regions are performing.

There was a requirement for the achievement contract to report on standards for student performance; plans for improving student achievement in the school district; literacy; early learning programs; and, in section (e) of this achievement contract, “any other matter ordered by the minister.” I don’t know what may have accumulated under that subsection over the years, but undoubtedly, there may have been other matters ordered by the minister.

I’m trying to understand the standards for student performance. If the achievement contract is no longer being required by districts to report out on that, to make it available — that it had to be on line, I think, was another requirement — for parents to be able to view, what will essentially replace it? You had real data here, and I’m wondering what comes thereafter.

[1515]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What will be in place is that every district will be developing single multi-year district plans that will replace the district achievement contracts and the district literacy plans. It’ll include specific sections related to improving student outcomes for aboriginal learners and children in care, as I mentioned before. Each school will develop a school plan that will be in consultation with local partners, including parents through their PACs. It will be consistent with the practices in the local district, and the school planning council structures may be used for that purpose. Each school will determine how they do that. That will no longer be maintained by the ministry.

I think the key is that all the plans must be relevant, understandable and accessible to the local community and use meaningful evidence to increase the understanding of student success, to inform the actions moving forward and to ensure that there is a culture of continuous improvement in each district and each school.

R. Fleming: I’m just trying to understand the apparent dissatisfaction with the achievement contracts. Obviously, they weren’t working. Perhaps they were required too frequently. The minister has said they’ve gone to a multi-year format from an annual format. Really, I would like to be able to have more information about how the achievement contract requirement, as it was made under the School Act, was followed by the school districts — the partners in submitting these contracts to the ministry.
[ Page 8369 ]

What was the compliance rate, in a typical year, of the 60 districts, both submitting the achievement contracts and submitting the achievement contracts on time, by July 15, as was required?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member, I’m sure, is aware it was a statutory requirement, and we had compliance.

R. Fleming: Sorry. I didn’t hear the minister’s answer. Did you say that you had 100 percent compliance every year, for every year that the statute was in effect?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes.

R. Fleming: I’m wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit more about school planning councils. This was something where there was a lot of skepticism upon their introduction but a lot of insistence that this was going to deliver something very, very different in schools. This was going to be an empowering mechanism for parents and for those that are part of a school community.

We have approximately 1,600 schools today. That’s down a couple of hundred, of course. I’m just wondering, for as long as the requirement existed to have school planning councils, what the approximate participation rate was out of, say, 1,600 schools — if you want to use a large, rounded number. What at any given time typically…? How many of those schools actually had a planning council that was functional, in place and met regularly?

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: While they were a statutory requirement, we don’t have the data of how many actually were in place and functioned. But again, the achievement contracts were a requirement. We received compliance on the submission of those. You have to presume that the districts and the schools had the input through their planning councils in order to present those.

R. Fleming: Let me just try and understand this, though, because the section that’s going to be struck, the law as it exists today, clearly says: “A board must establish a school planning council for each school, except a Provincial resource program, in its school district.”

It would seem to me that if the ministry wasn’t keeping data on something that was a statutory requirement, that’s a problem in and of itself. But you would think that the government would want to know. Surely there must be some figures about how many school planning councils existed in — maybe I’ll just pick a year — 2008 or 2009 or 2010, where the ministry is able to evaluate whether these changes to create a new structure were having any impact or any takeup on the ground.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, for the member, I’m going to clarify this. School planning councils were put into the legislation to provide input to the local districts, to the local schools. We did not require reporting on how many times they met and how often they functioned. That was not something we required. We expected them to work with the planning councils as they developed their plans moving forward.

R. Fleming: The minister has said that for the changes in this section of Bill 11, there was consultation done with all of the major stakeholders. I’m just wondering, given that it was a requirement that the principal of the school had to be a standing member of the school planning councils: what did, for example, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association say in terms of how school planning councils were working out in B.C.’s education system?

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is clear is that the principals and the vice-principals, in their engagement in developing the new framework, are fully supportive of the shift to the new framework because they believe that that will provide a clear focus in the schools, in the districts and in the province on learning outcomes.

[1525]

R. Fleming: I have no doubt that the principals and the vice-principals told the minister and the ministry to dump this requirement because it wasn’t working in schools. But I want to go back to the achievement contracts that were required by the districts.

There were a lot of performance indicators, if you want to call them that, that were required by districts. The idea from the government at the time was that this was going to open up a new era of accountability, that parents in a district would be able to read about the performance and bring pressure on the district to create a culture of continuous improvement, I think, to paraphrase the minister.

I’m just wondering how it all worked. How many types of information were required under a typical achievement contract? All of that. There was a body of, I think — I just can’t remember when it came into effect — data that is at least a decade long, and I’m wondering if the minister can describe what kinds of things were required in those contracts. Who is aggregating all of that activity for the years in which the ministry collected it? How will it be used in the future? Or whether it will be disposed of?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The data was collected. It is stored by the ministry. We know that various researchers from time to time have come to take a look at some of that data. We will continue to maintain that. More importantly, the reason that we’re moving forward is, again, focusing on learner outcomes in the future and having a more flexible and robust system. That is what we’re focused on.
[ Page 8370 ]

With that, Mr. Chair, I would ask that we take a 15-minute recess, if that is appropriate.

The Chair: The committee will be recessed for 15 minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m.to 3:44 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

R. Fleming: I just want to get back to the idea about the specifics of the achievement contract, some of the things that were contained in there and what will come after. We discussed the school planning councils a little bit. We may come back to that.

[1545]

The achievement contracts around the standards for student performance — there was a great deal of interest in that when it was introduced by the government. There was a lot of fanfare and promise. Part of it was an assurance that parents, no matter where they lived in British Columbia, would be able to get the same kind of baseline comparisons between districts around British Columbia, that it was going to lift up the standards of each district and improve student achievement in those districts that were not doing as well as others. That was the promise.

I want to sort of get the minister’s opinion here of what is going to replace the legislative requirement for an achievement contract. This requirement will be dropped. By July 15 this year there will be no further achievement contracts submitted to this government. What comes after that? What kind of performance standard regime or performance measurements are going to be available for parents in my school district, district 61, or for any other parent in a given district around B.C.?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I already answered the question in terms of the plans that are going to be developed. I’m not going to repeat that. What is important in all of this — what’s going to be replaced has been agreed to by all of the stakeholders — is meaningful and effective communication of evidence. That will be based on student outcomes. The districts will identify and use multiple different forms of evidence, that they and their education partners know are meaningful and relevant, in their planning, communication and improvement efforts.

R. Fleming: A multitude of meaningful and effective outcomes. I’m just wondering if we can get a little bit more specific about that. One would have thought that the achievement contracts covered what you might characterize as meaningful and effective outcomes around student performance. I’m trying to understand the difference and whether we’re losing something here in the legislation.

I’m sure the minister can understand the need for diligence on a section like this. When achievement contracts are no longer going to be required, there needs to be an assurance that something improved is going to replace it.

Again, a request for some details about what these outcomes might look like. If they’re going on an exercise to create something new, why didn’t they consider reforming the achievement contracts that already exist, as opposed to eliminating them?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve said it already. In consultation with all the stakeholders, some of the keys were to have the flexibility to be able to adapt those, based on agreed-to learning outcomes, based on the new curriculum. Each of the districts, in terms of their annual plans, will be reporting out to their stakeholders and will be reporting on how they’re doing on student achievement. On an annual basis, they will be updating those, based on what has transpired in the year before.

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering if the 2015-16 school year will essentially be a skip year, if there’s going to be something developed that will replace the achievement contract era that we are now leaving behind, and whether there will be consultation done in time to create a set of indicators and meaningful and effective outcome measurements, as the minister has described them, for the coming school year.

Hon. P. Fassbender: There is discussion right now, and there has been, with the stakeholders. We are planning to have guidelines out by the end of June that will be distributed to all of the districts and to the schools and that will be communicated to their various stakeholders in their communities. We’re not skipping anything. We’re actually moving ahead in a very meaningful way.

[1550]

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering if the minister can describe what happens after the guidelines are distributed to school districts — how long they will have to reply to them and whether there is going to be in regulation or on a voluntary basis some kind of requirement that there be a new reporting regime, whatever it is going to be called. I don’t know if there’s a working title on the set of guidelines that’s being developed — just some indication that a collection of statistics, a set of measurable classroom and school objectives in a district are going to be captured.

Of course, you can’t begin to measure the data if you have already begun. You could risk losing the ability to gather effective data once a new cohort of students has been admitted this year. I’m wondering what the timeline might be for the minister’s replacement of the achievement contract.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The guidelines will be out by the end of June, as I mentioned. There will be a ministerial order that will then follow that, roughly at the same time.
[ Page 8371 ]
Then we’re expecting that further into the 2015-16 school year, there will be a reporting out. Those details are being worked out with our education partners as we speak.

R. Fleming: I’m just trying to get a sense of the big picture that is being receded all at once here. We had school planning councils, achievement contracts. We’re getting to superintendents of achievement, as well, in this section.

This was sort of the infrastructure of trying to create a new accountability system in B.C. education, and here it is, wholesale, being put on the chopping block, no longer a statutory requirement. It came in with a tremendous amount of fanfare, as I mentioned, by the government, and now it’s being dismantled.

I’m just wondering. There has to be a reason why the government is doing such a dramatic climb-down. This was the favourite of the government around ’02, ’03, and now it’s being shunted out. I’m wondering why.

There must have been an evaluation that suggested that none of these ideas, combined or in part, were working very well. Or was there some kind of record of greater accountability introduced into the education system? If that is the case, why would the minister get rid of it now? I’m just trying to understand. There might be something behind the amendments that are contained here in the legislation that the public may not understand too well.

[1555]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member opposite is well aware of what a great system we have currently and how well we perform on the world scale. We have done some amazing things over the years. What we also recognize is that moving forward…. Again, the consultation with all of the partners that have been involved in this new framework has said that we now need to look to the future.

We need to have the flexibility and have meaningful output and input in order to be sure that we meet the needs of every single learner in our education system. There are classic examples where, today, what we have available through technology, through distributed learning, through other mechanisms…. We need to be more flexible than we have, perhaps, in the past, but the bottom line here is this is all about the future.

R. Fleming: Let me just go back to the past for a second. When this was being introduced, around the achievement contracts, here’s what the Minister of Education had to say. She was basically explaining why the minister was going to a mandatory, standardized process around achievement contracts for each district.

“The legislation requires every district to sign one, and the purpose of that is to require districts to publicly set goals for improvement. I think it’s probably fair to say that some districts haven’t consistently set goals for improvement, and many that have haven’t been public about those goals. I think everyone’s interest is served when we set goals for improvement as government at any level, and then we make those goals public so that we can be held accountable for whether or not we’ve met them.

“That’s a fundamental way of approaching management of any large enterprise, whether that’s a public enterprise or a private enterprise….”

The opposition critic at the time asked the minister: “why legislate it?”

I suppose here we are, more than ten years later, and my question is, really, why take it out of legislation if the government was so adamant that it was correct to have a common set of reportables for every district and to make it mandatory? We’re now moving to a system that appears to be voluntary and appears to not be standardized at all.

Again, I would ask the minister whether he finds it odd that on the one hand, he’s taking over control of professional development — the minister and the ministry will take control over that — in the interest of standardization across districts, but on the issue of accountability, he’s reducing the standardization of what were called achievement contracts or the set of reporting requirements of districts.

There just seems to be quite a dichotomy here. I’m wondering why that glaring inconsistency — because we’ve heard the word consistency used all afternoon — is so apparent here in this section of the bill.

[1600]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I will repeat myself again, and I’ll try and do it in a way that the member opposite can understand.

The consultation with all the stakeholder groups has come to the place where they say we want consistency and goals that are focused on learner outcomes. We also want the flexibility, because of the diversity of this province, the diversity of cultures in various communities, to have the ability within the districts, and within schools even, to be able to meet those goals and outcomes — which will be agreed to, and they are required under the legislation — and to do it in a way that recognizes some of the differences.

Those are not incompatible. They are not in any way, shape or form inconsistent with our goals for ensuring that student outcomes are at the heart of everything we’re doing.

R. Fleming: Just following up on the minister’s answer there, then. Would he describe the current achievement contracts as being too inflexible and too unable to measure the differences between the regions of our province and, therefore, the priorities or the challenges that each district is grappling with? Is that the problem, that we had a cookie-cutter approach that never worked, that the ministry was told would never work, and that’s why it’s being done away with?

I’m just trying to get a straightforward answer as to why something that was once a shining jewel in the government’s legislative agenda around public education is
[ Page 8372 ]
being discarded in this bill. I think I’ve got an acknowledgment from him, in a roundabout way, that it simply didn’t work. It didn’t account for the differences that we have in the school districts around British Columbia.

Maybe if he could round out that answer a little bit and provide some more details.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think what is really clear is we have great outcomes in this province. That’s because of the commitment of this government, of teachers throughout the province over the history of education in British Columbia, to achieve and be recognized as the third-best jurisdiction in the world. That’s based on learning outcomes.

I’m sure that the member opposite likes to drive his car looking out the rearview mirror. We like to look out of the front and move us forward to a new paradigm in education, because we’ve seen the world is changing. Yet we are one of the best performing districts because of the good work that’s been done up to now.

R. Fleming: I’d like the ask the minister just about the section that removes the references to the definition of “district literacy plan.” This was a requirement of each school district to look at that and to submit a plan on improving outcomes, measurements of literacy. I think it was inclusive of not only current students but graduated adults as well.

What’s going to replace the literacy plan? Is there now an overarching provincial plan that will incorporate what formerly were district-based literacy plans?

Again, just trying to understand — to those who may read the bill and erroneously think that the government that once had a goal to make B.C. the most literate jurisdiction in North America is now completely abandoning that by reducing requirements to have district literacy plans.

[1605]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Literacy is absolutely at the foundation of our education plan. When we talk about individual student outcomes in individualized learning, we recognize, as we do with aboriginal learners and special needs learners, that literacy is at the foundation of everything we need to do for them.

We are developing an ongoing commitment to literacy. We fund significantly outside of the school districts in some of our early literacy programs, in working with other partner agencies. There is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that there is any less focus on literacy. It is still a foundational element of our education plan and of our individual student learning outcomes.

R. Fleming: I’m just trying to understand whether the public library system, which receives its provincial contributions through the Education Ministry, was part of, typically, the district literacy plans and, since schools are no longer going to be required to have this type of plan, whether that’s a partnership that will be, presumably, wound down in different parts of B.C.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m not sure it’s relevant to this section — the question. But the reality is that our funding for libraries remains consistent. We see them as an important part of the overall community impact on a number of fronts, including literacy.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to go back and ask…. Without district literacy plans, if I heard the minister correctly, there will now be a provincewide literacy plan that is coordinated through the Ministry of Education, presumably. I’m just wondering how different parts of British Columbia will feed into that, if they don’t have their own locally based plans.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is probably aware that the ministry funds millions of dollars to other community agencies that work with the school districts and communities on literacy, dependent on the needs of that community — if they have a higher percentage of English-as-a-second-language people because of immigration and other factors.

[1610]

The provincial literacy strategy that is being developed will be mirrored by school districts based on a number of elements, but the foundational element of literacy will remain consistent.

R. Fleming: I’m just going back to the achievement contracts. There was a contention or a commitment, I think, by government that the data set would improve over time, that achievement contracts would be expansive. There was even a suggestion by the Minister of Education at that time that things like police reports where there were incidents involving schools or students would become a part of the feedback that informed the data of the achievement contracts.

I’m just wondering, again, because I didn’t clearly hear it: where is the data that was promised to be gathered and that was in fact gathered going to be housed, and what will it be used for, for the future planning around public education in the years to come?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The Ministry of Education over the years has collected data of various types through various functions. Part of the restructuring in the new framework for learning improvement for students is the ability to access information, whether it’s based on a provincewide basis, regionally, by districts or even school by school.

[1615]

We are going to continue to access that information so that we have the ability to use that as we continue to move
[ Page 8373 ]
forward in redesigning and looking at student outcomes and achievements — in all categories, as I mentioned, with our aboriginal students and special needs students — and through all of the various aspects of the system.

R. Fleming: I can’t help but wonder how much of this was not possible because we had the BCeSIS system that simply didn’t work very well in terms of how data was gathered and managed in government. We’ll be talking about data systems later in this bill as it relates to student privacy, so I’ll save any questions until that time.

I wanted to ask again, in section 2 here, about superintendents of achievement. I think it was probably one of the most perplexing bureaucratic titles ever created in the history of this government. Nevertheless, there was such a thing as a superintendent of achievement for a long time.

The section that is going to be amended here will remove the title and the description of that position from the School Act. It clearly outlines that the minister had the power, by order, to appoint one or more superintendents of achievement.

I’m just wondering: what was the largest number of superintendents of achievement British Columbia had at one time?

[1620]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Because we are changing the framework on the accountability contracts, what we are doing is setting up a new structure to deal with that and to make it more flexible and responsive to the system’s needs — and with the new education plan and also with the new curriculum, having the ministry team work with districts as they move forward. The need for those particular positions is no longer relevant with the new framework moving forward.

R. Fleming: I’m just trying to understand, again, what is being given up here, what the changes represent. The question was very simply: how many superintendents of achievement does B.C. have currently, and what is the greatest number it’s had in previous years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the largest number we had was four. We have none presently, because it is a permissive part of the current act. And again, as we’ve evolved and we’ve seen the changes that are necessary, it has become clear to us that that particular position is not relevant with the new framework that we’re developing. As I said, we will be doing a different process as we establish the standards moving forward.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister’s comments. I think that’s the point that we were trying to make, which was that this accountability framework, which apparently satisfied no one and is being discarded by the government, was very, very expansive in addition to being not incredibly useful to government. It didn’t live up to its promise, and now it’s being quietly disposed of.

I think what the public needs to know is that these changes represent an investment of millions and millions of dollars, thousands and thousands — tens of thousands — of hours of accountability achievement contracts that were then overseen by superintendents of achievement. This vast structure that was contemplated in legislative changes over a decade ago is now being wound down and thrown out.

I think it’s reasonable to try and understand what the sunk costs are, what the investment that has been made was. A superintendent of achievement, including salary and benefits…. We’re probably talking about a quarter of a million dollars a year. I’m not sure. It seems to me…. I recall that the highest expense account of any bureaucrat of the entire public service of British Columbia at one time was held by a superintendent of achievement, if I’m not mistaken.

So I’m just trying to understand. The minister said there were at one time four superintendents of achievement in government. What was the cost of having four — all in, in terms of salary, benefits and expenses — to oversee a system that is now being dismantled?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the member is going into areas that are, quite honestly, irrelevant to what’s before us. What is before us is: we are moving ahead. But if you look at the history of where we are today…. The achievements of this province in the educational world are seen as the third best performing and the result of a lot of effort and time put into a system that has got us to where we are today. What we’re talking about is now moving to where we need to be in the future.

That is why this bill is here. That is why the changes are being made. But to suggest that we have not achieved that…. The record does not say that. The record is clear. British Columbia is one of the best performing education systems in the world, and we’re going to continue to be that because of our forward thinking and the moves that we’re making.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister what the typical salary and pay for a superintendent of achievement was in his ministry service plan.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’d ask the Chair to rule whether that’s relevant to the section that is in front of us.

[1625]

The Chair: Members, I think the question is relevant. The member has the right to ask questions about the position being deleted or any similar position being created — how much the government has saved and how much it could cost.
[ Page 8374 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the critic might have been able to ask that in estimates. We don’t have the figures here. We’re happy to provide them at the end of this.

R. Fleming: I think it would be appreciated, and important to the debate, to have those numbers. I’m sure that the resources of the ministry can provide that in this stage of debate.

I just want to read through the job description, as it is under the School Act, for the superintendent of achievement. Under the section it says:

“A superintendent of achievement assigned to a school district or francophone school district (a) must review (i) student achievement and early learning programs in the school district or francophone school district, and (ii) the district literacy plan or francophone district literacy plan, as the case may be…, (b) may make recommendations for improvement of student achievement, early learning programs and literacy in the school district or francophone school district to the board…, as the case may be, (c) at the minister’s request and on or before the date established by the minister, must submit to the minister a report on the superintendent of achievement’s findings and recommendations for improvement…, and (d) perform other duties the minister may assign….”

I’m just wondering. Where are those functions going to go from? I know that the definitions and the required reporting that are being deleted in this section are one aspect. But in terms of that supervision — in terms of the ministry oversight of different regions of the province, where the ministry had four of these superintendents of achievement at one time — who is going to absorb those responsibilities in the ministry?

Presumably, these positions weren’t useless. They performed some function that was recognized as valuable by government. The work that was done by those positions, which will no longer exist, will have to be redistributed somewhere to other staff in the ministry. I’m just wondering where that may go, where that work may flow to.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Approximately a year ago a new accountability branch was established within the ministry, led by a director. The responsibility of the director and the branch is to review the new framework and the elements as they are developed. They will be doing that and working with the districts and the other ministry team to ensure that, again, the learning outcomes that have been established under the new framework are being met.

[1630]

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister has an answer now to the cost of each superintendent of achievement in previous years to the ministry.

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, we don’t have that yet.

R. Fleming: I’m trying to understand what functions the superintendent of appeals will assume from the former four positions of superintendent of achievement. Certainly, the title suggests a narrowing of the job description.

There are not a lot of details here about a fulsome definition of the superintendent of appeals. Could the minister outline the sort of primary responsibilities that will fall to this new position, the superintendent of appeals, and which of those responsibilities, job performance responsibilities, may overlap with the former position of superintendent of achievement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: With the restructuring and the elimination of the superintendents of achievement — who had a fairly broad responsibility, including student appeals — the new superintendent of appeals’s responsibility will be much narrower. It will be to hear appeals that come from a variety of different things, whether it be disciplinary issues, suspensions, issues relative to student IEPs and so on. So it will be a much narrower scope, and that will be the responsibility of that particular position.

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering. I know the responsibilities that are listed under the superintendent of achievement’s job description currently around appeals. I’m just wondering, when there were four of them, whether they drew straws to adjudicate these appeals or whether there was a tribunal plus one of superintendents of achievement that sat upon these appeals and issued decisions.

Again, I’m just trying to understand how you could go from four superintendents of achievement to one superintendent of appeals and how that may change, actually, the appeal process for those categories of appeals that are applicable under this section of the act.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think I just said it. The reality is that when you have an individual in a position where they will be dealing strictly with appeals — where in the past, superintendents of achievement had a variety of different functions, which are now going to be handled within the new framework within the ministry — the superintendent of appeals’s scope will be very clear. The appeal process, quite honestly, will probably be much more efficient because of that.

[1635]

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering if the minister can describe the relationship between the superintendent of appeals and the adjudicators of the complaints that will be received from superintendents.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Previously — and currently, as well — if there was a particular appeal that came forward and there wasn’t a resolution, an adjudicator who was contracted to do that work would be utilized. That will remain. Depending on the outcome of that adjudi-
[ Page 8375 ]
cation, it may be sent back to the board. There may be other remedies that the adjudicator might suggest, and that process is going to remain, if required.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister whether, just after the bill has passed, he will be contemplating changes in how the appeal process works. Currently, under the guise of a changed job title and job description, the superintendent of achievement, soon to be renamed, is allowed to exercise discretion and act under the subsections of section 11 of the School Act in accordance with guidelines established by the minister.

They are allowed to make orders “subject to the orders of the minister,” and on it goes throughout this section of the act. I’m just wondering whether there are any changes contemplated in terms of the superintendent of appeals, as it will be renamed, and its relationship to the minister’s ability to, essentially, prescribe what that superintendent is able to do or not to do.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The bill only changes the name, not the process.

R. Fleming: So then, the minister is not contemplating, by regulation through order-in-council, that there will be changes to how this position functions?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No.

R. Fleming: I know that the minister probably still doesn’t have the cost of a superintendent of achievement, but will the superintendent of appeal be of a similar salary and benefit comparative to a superintendent of achievement? I’m just wondering whether there’s an increase in costs or a decrease. You’re taking up to four positions down to one — but also a narrowed scope of responsibilities. Is it roughly equivalent, or is it a position that will be considered of lower responsibility and, therefore, lower remuneration?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Suffice it to say, until the bill passes, there is no position. The job description, of course, as I’ve mentioned, is much narrower than a superintendent of achievement was.

[1640]

Once the bill is passed and we go through the hiring process, within public sector wage guidelines and so on, a salary level based on the job description will be established. I don’t have that figure because until the bill passes, we’re not in a process to do that.

R. Fleming: I’m just trying to think about the workload for this new position once the bill passes. I’m wondering if the minister can give any indication of whether there’s a typical number of appeals that are heard each year by the superintendent of achievement or referred to mediation and arbitration, as they’re empowered to do. I’m just not aware of how many cases, typically, used to be before a superintendent of achievement and now will be the responsibility of the superintendent of appeals.

I wonder if he can give an indication of whether that is a number that goes up and down year to year, whether there’s some kind of steady pattern and how many decisions or orders this person is going to have to issue annually.

Hon. P. Fassbender: There is no fixed number. Some years I think we’ve had four. Sometimes we’ve had five. Part of what we’re doing as the assessment and with support from the public sector council — we’re going to be looking at what might be involved and whether that position, indeed, would be full-time or perhaps even contracted.

R. Fleming: That brings me to a question about who is hearing those appeals now. The minister, a few answers ago…. I think he said on the record that there are no superintendents of achievement currently in his staff organization being paid by the province. So I’m just wondering where current appeals are brought to conclusion or where new appeals will be heard prior to this bill becoming law.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Currently that’s being contracted for the very reason that there are a limited number. Again, until the bill passes and we look at the scope and the potential workload, what our approach will be…. It will be done after that.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister. I find it hard to imagine that this wouldn’t have been tracked. Again, just to go back to the number of schools that had school planning councils in them. There are about 1,600 schools. I’m just wondering what the greatest number of schools was, in terms of the takeup rate, in the past decade or so.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I answered that question. We did not track that. We assumed that because it was a legislative requirement, those districts complied. What we did track, of course, was the information that came back from the school districts in terms of their reporting.

R. Fleming: So even in the earliest years, once the legislation had been brought into force that heralded this great new structure that was going to democratize education and expand parent participation through the school planning councils…. Even in those earliest years there were no records kept of how many schools actually had a school planning council in place. Is that what the minister has just said?
[ Page 8376 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, again, it was a legislative requirement. I’m assuming districts may have kept track, but the ministry did not track it.

R. Fleming: It’s the ministry’s responsibility to ensure that there’s compliance with legislative requirements, so I’m finding it hard to understand that there would have been no awareness of this new accountability framework — no information coming into the ministry about school planning councils.

[1645]

Is the minister saying that even though the district was required by statute to have school planning councils, the ministry of the government that required them to have these was not prepared to have any monitoring oversight or, I suppose, enforcement as to whether this statutory requirement was being fulfilled?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I will make it very clear that our expectation in the legislation at that time was that the school planning councils were a part of a local district requirement. It was in legislation as such, and we intended — and believe — that they worked in the districts.

What we measured, as the ministry, and continue to do is student achievement, as a result of the achievement contracts and the information that was provided and required by the ministry.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about subsection (b) here around “administrative directive.” I’m trying to understand both the apparent need for the definition to be repealed and the substitution of a new definition.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s very clear in subsection (b) that it’s being moved to another section of the act.

R. Fleming: I thank him for the answer, and I think I’ll stand down on this section.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister to outline the explicit addition of a new definition in section 3(b) here around a “designated service provider” and how this is a substantive change under the current School Act and what the rationale for the amendment is.

[1650]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What this clearly says is that we will be working with districts on business cases for shared services. If a clear business case is developed on any given service — and I think, in there, there are some examples — where it makes sense to have a provincewide approach to it, that can be seen as in the best interest of the districts and the taxpayers.

A good example is the new information system, MyEducation B.C. It is seen as providing valuable information to the entire system. That is one — in that case, where the business case is clear — that would be a mandatory requirement across the province.

R. Fleming: Just reading this section that’s amended, it appears that the language is around a designated service provider. The minister has explained in his comment just now that what he was referring to in the sector is referred to as shared services.

The powers here are that the minister may enter into an agreement with the school authority. I’m trying to get to the substance of the change here, because it seems to go from something that’s quite broad to an added specificity around what kinds of contracts or financial arrangements are being referred to in the legislation.

I’m just wondering why this change is needed at all if the minister, with or without the board or the Francophone Education Authority’s consent, can enter into such an agreement, any type of agreement, for these kinds of services now, if I’m reading the School Act correctly.

Hon. P. Fassbender: What we have seen in other sectors, whether it be health care or advanced education, is there will be times where there are services where there is a clear business case that there is a benefit to the entire province and to the individual districts as a result. Currently under the act the ministry cannot mandate those services. With this change, we will be able to do that.

R. Fleming: Well, just going into the minister’s answer there, I think this is the problem that school districts have. First of all, quite naturally, they don’t like to be compelled to do things. They have their own autonomy, and have had for several decades, over administrative matters. Government creates the budget, of course, and local boards administer it.

Just from what the minister said, I think he’s put his finger on the tension here. There will be some districts that see business arrangements that benefit their district, or a series of several districts, that will be different than arrangements that will be provincewide, for example, where a district that is maybe rural or suburban will have a different interest than an urban district.

One can think of, for example, utilization rates of a shared-service agreement on legal services. A district that has horrible labour relations will save money, and one that has amicable relations will pay more, potentially. I use that as a hypothetical example, although I don’t think it’s an exaggeration.

There will be differences of opinions, in other words. I think the concern is that the minister will now have
[ Page 8377 ]
the sole power to determine, and determine in his interests, how those differences will be resolved. He’ll be able to make orders that designate these service providers, whether it’s a person or whether it’s a company that will get a contracted service.

[1655]

This is a huge concern. I hope that the minister’s had an opportunity after he has blindsided — I think that’s the word — school districts that this legislative change was coming…. They had no warning about it. They’ve asked him to withdraw not this section particularly but all of the sections in the bill that touch upon this change in ministerial power.

I’m just going to ask him at this point in debate whether he has reflected on the widespread call from school district administrators and elected officials to have something that is more co-determined and co-governed around administrative matters.

Before the minister intrudes further into what has been the traditional responsibility of school districts, has he heard their concerns at this point in the debate? Has he contemplated putting in amendments that will soften this, perhaps create a dispute resolution mechanism where there are competing business cases between school districts and what the Ministry of Education thinks the bottom line of a particular service will provide? And has he entertained a compromise that may be more satisfactory — I won’t say entirely satisfactory — to his education partners, who are quite frankly outraged that he’s moved ahead in this matter without their consent?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, the characterization is totally incorrect. For the two years since I’ve been minister, this government has made it clear in many meetings we’ve had with school districts, at their AGMs, at their regional meetings, at meetings and discussions that the committee that ministry has. The deputy has been in many meetings, and one of the messages that has been clear is that school districts are not opposed to shared services. We have made it clear again that we will work with the school districts. This change does not preclude individual flexibility in districts. It’s very clear that we are going to continue to provide flexibility based on local, regional and provincial requirements.

But there will be times, like with MyEducation B.C., which I just said, where the business case is absolutely clear. And in that particular case even the BCSTA executive suggested to me, in a meeting we had on that particular one, that there were four districts that were saying they weren’t prepared to consider participating, and the BCSTA executive clearly said to me that it should be mandatory that all districts are on the same platform in order to assure the information for students can follow them no matter where they might be going to school in the province.

We are going to work with the school districts. They were not blindsided. They absolutely knew shared services was going to be an issue and that it was going to be, in some cases, mandatory.

R. Fleming: Now, I take issue with the way the minister has characterized a consultation or a working relationship on shared services. I think in one respect he’s correct. Districts have been interested in achieving efficiencies in order, in part to be able to pay for, if you will, the unfunded cost pressures that total in the tens of millions of dollars from the ministry not keeping budgets funded for all kinds of cost drivers — whether it’s B.C. Hydro, whether it’s WCB, whether it’s unfunded costs and pension provisions for support staff and even whether it’s for settling the contract for the 25,000 support staff last spring, which was entirely absorbed through “administrative savings.”

Districts have a lot of experience in shared services. Some of them have municipal government partners, for example. Some of them have relationships where they’ve been able to find savings with private sector suppliers. In fact, I think districts have a lot to teach the ministry and the minister about shared services if there was a listening mode that was, in fact, possible in the ministry, but we don’t see that very often on display. It seems to be a one-way monologue the other way, and now it’s being put into legislation.

[1700]

I go back to the 2012 Deloitte report when school districts sat down with the consultant on this and the ministry participated — the Deloitte report. The backdrop to that was that government encouraged it. Government sent out a very clear signal that any savings achieved through shared services would be kept by the school districts. That was the incentive to keep going, and there were recommendations in that report in 2012 — I know there was a follow-up report that was delivered in 2014 — that broke these recommendations down into tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 savings.

One of the points that was made in the Deloitte report, however, was that in order to save money, in order to move to different types of shared-services agreements, there are incurred upfront costs often. Often there are costs to establish these services.

None of the implementation costs for the next series of shared-services agreements that are envisioned by the minister have been helped along by any ministry directive or any statement from the minister that those costs will be actually shared with the Education Ministry. This is a section that’s of concern to school districts because by imposing the ability to push any agreement on a school district, along with it comes a potential huge cost — not just the business case that may conflict with the ministry but the upfront implementation costs.

I would ask the minister if he can comment on this concern that school districts have. There will be signifi-
[ Page 8378 ]
cant implementation costs that can be forced upon them now because these new powers are included in the law. Where’s the discussion been? Where’s the consultation been with school districts in this regard? It’s a huge fear. I hope he’s heard it by now. Before we pass a bill that will become law that gives him the power to potentially put millions of dollars of start-up costs onto the backs of school districts, what has he heard and understood from those districts about this issue?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Clearly, we have been working over the last two years, specifically since I’ve been the minister and even before that, in discussions with school districts about shared services. We clearly recognize there are some very good practices going on in the province currently, and there are some opportunities that have been realized, whether it be to neighbouring districts, on a regional basis. We see some very good best practices.

We also recognize that shared services is a long-term initiative. It’s not something that is going to happen overnight. The work that has been done between our ministry and school districts and the discussions…. All of those issues have been talked about.

Any business case — I appreciate the member may not have had any business experience — is based on a sound look at all aspects: costs to implement, costs to run and outcomes at the end of it. That is clear in every sector of our society. It is very obvious that this government and the public sector have done amazing work in the realization of efficiencies through shared services.

Working with the school districts, based on the good work they’ve done and what we have learned as government and within the public service, I think we can find a system that will ensure we find the efficiencies that can be invested in student outcomes and learning outcomes, which is why we’re all here.

R. Fleming: I just want the minister to contemplate what a post–Bill 11 world will look like. That’s what school districts are looking at in terms of the liabilities that could be forced upon them.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

We’re moving from a voluntary, discussion-based, collaborative, I think we can say — I know the minister likes that word, and often it means the opposite of what he suggests — approach, where there has been a report done with an international accounting firm to look at savings potentials. The update of the original report re-examines some of the opportunities that were originally identified in 2012 to achieve savings around non-instructional functions.

[1705]

It now lists at least eight, perhaps a dozen, functions that were identified as perhaps being areas where savings could be achieved as now being out of scope or not an opportunity, in the language of the Deloitte report.

Now, the fear is that what has been considered by an accounting firm that reported to school boards, that the ministry participated in, that was a cooperative endeavour…. The conclusions they made about a whole host of areas that said the promise of shared services had its limits in a number of areas and were unlikely and out of scope for a number of activities…. Now, instead of reaching that conclusion together with the help of the consultant, the minister can ignore them.

If this bill becomes law, the minister can ignore what the consulting report says is unachievable and impossible and too high risk to be considered. There is no iteration or dialogue anymore. The minister has sole power to make things compulsory for districts to enter into agreements that are high risk or deemed out of scope.

I’m just wondering if the minister can clarify if these items that were identified by the Deloitte report, part 2, as being out of scope, no longer opportunities, are going to be revisited should Bill 11 pass.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member has done his homework, but the Deloitte report actually set much larger targets than we have even contemplated at this stage, because we felt that that was onerous and not achievable for a number of reasons.

What we have committed to and what the committee that’s been working with representatives from across the sector is working hard at looking at are realistic and achievable targets, recognizing that those will not be realized overnight. They are going to take time, and they will be bathed in current best practices to make sure that we take advantage of the good work that’s already going on.

V. Huntington: I’d just like to explore the issue of what kinds of goods and services may be on the minister’s mind. If he could just run through again what specifically he’s considering, because I’m sure it’s a broad bag of things. Is it the traditional goods and services that we think of — payroll, delivery of maintenance services, purchase of goods and books, etc. — or is it going to go further into looking at private sector delivery of some educational services themselves, such as we’re starting to look at in the home-schooling sector? I wonder if the minister could define for us a little bit more carefully what is being contemplated over the longer term.

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, the member was all over the place, but let me be specific: things like payroll, human resources, information technology, some forms of procurement. For example, there have been discussions with the Ministry of Transportation on collaboration on the purchase of school buses or other equipment.

There may be opportunities with local civic governments for similar kinds of collaboration on procurement,
[ Page 8379 ]
but all of that will be bathed in the effect of any of those steps on local economies, local businesspeople. We are not anticipating not looking through every lens. We recognize clearly that in smaller, rural communities, a lot of businesses depend on the work that they get from local school districts. Of course, we will look at those implications as part of developing any business case on any shared-services initiatives.

V. Huntington: With respect, Minister, I certainly didn’t mean to give the impression that I was all over the place.

[1710]

I was asking whether you were looking at specific types of procurements, such as the technology sector, the book sector, the buses — all of those things — as opposed to whether you feel, in the longer term, that you’re also considering the possibility of designated service providers being more in the field of delivering education itself; i.e., private sector suppliers in a kindergarten environment, private sector suppliers in the home-schooling environment, such as we’re starting to see now.

I wondered whether there was any consideration being given to a longer-term supply requirement for private sector services delivering education itself.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Clearly we’re protecting the integrity of the public education system and the independent education system as we look forward. The shared-services initiative is strictly oriented towards the backroom, or business services within the education system. That is not to suggest that we don’t already, as part of our skills blueprint, have cooperation with post-secondary institutions in helping to provide dual-credit programs and things which absolutely are of a benefit to the education system and to student outcomes.

R. Fleming: The minister characterized something that I think is of huge concern to districts, especially rural districts. They worry that by being forced into shared-service agreements for procurement for, let’s just say, vehicles, vehicle fleet purchases, etc., they will be overruled in situations where there may be no cost savings of any significance to going to a centralized purchasing system in conjunction with other districts over their local supplier, their traditional suppliers.

In fact, there will be difficulties created locally by surrendering their autonomy on these kinds of procurement practices — so no help on the bottom line but a loss in terms of local employment and tax base and the non-financial benefits of having a relationship that may provide all kinds of sponsorship and in-kind support for school parents and other fundraising initiatives locally. That’s a concern that they have.

The minister has just suggested that that shouldn’t be a concern, that in fact, even though he’s taking power for himself to be able to overrule and intrude upon procurement decisions by school districts, he is not going to strip local districts of having that control, when that’s exactly what this law does.

I’m just wondering if the minister could, maybe for the sake of accuracy, explain very carefully that the changes in this section and later in the bill, around shared services, centralize and give him final authority to potentially impose shared-service agreements in any manner.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, let me reiterate that there has been a committee made up of representatives from all over the province that has been working with the ministry team, looking at realistic, achievable and affordable options. What those are, are being fleshed out as we speak.

Again, I will reiterate that we will look at business cases, not a one-sided issue. It looks at all of the aspects — local impact and all of those. There is no suggestion here that that will be eliminated, and the work and the collaboration that have gone on up to now will continue in the future.

[1715]

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could explain whether it was his idea or the committee that’s been working on shared services to expand the minister’s powers to impose shared-services agreements on school districts. Is that something that was a recommendation of the committee that’s been working on shared-services agreements and the discussion that’s been occurring, or does it come from someplace else?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, let me repeat what I said just a couple of minutes ago. That is that in those discussions there was agreement that there may be instances where a mandatory approach across the province is the right decision, based on good, solid business case and consultation. That is the position. That is what will be done.

Those discussions and the recommendations of the committee are that we need to dive into that and we need to factor in all of the elements in making any decision based on all of the implications. I’ve detailed what those are, and that is what will go forward from here.

R. Fleming: Let me be clear. Is the minister suggesting that the B.C. association of school board officials, or the trustees that have been working on this committee, or the superintendents and the secretary-treasurers that have been part of this committee, are recommending that power be given to the minister, as outlined in this section and other parts of Bill 11, to overrule, in some cases, local objections to a procurement arrangement? Is he suggesting that that was a consensus decision or even a recommendation — that the minister create legislative changes giving him those powers?
[ Page 8380 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think I answered it previously, but I will say it again. It is very clear, and in the discussions, that from time to time that step may be necessary. There are two clear points there — “from time to time” and “may be necessary.”

MyEducation B.C. is a classic example where the BCSTA executive said clearly to me and to ministry officials that there is a need for consistency in the system across the province and it would not be appropriate for one or two or more districts to decide not to participate in something that is clearly in the best interests of students and teachers and parents in this province. So there may be opportunities where that is necessary, but that is down the road significantly in terms of developing business cases on shared services.

We’ve seen that in other sectors of the economy within the province and the health care sector and the post-secondary institutions, and we believe that same model will operate here after fulsome discussion and a clear and concise business case that would validate that that is the right decision.

R. Fleming: Just to pick up on the example that the minister used there, MyEducation B.C. — has that got the full participation and compliance of 60 school boards in B.C.?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality is, I believe, that at this stage we have 58 of the 60 districts that have agreed to come on board. There are two…. I don’t have all the facts in front of me here today, but I can say this. The ministry team has been working very hard with all the districts to have them all come on board. I believe we will achieve that goal.

[1720]

There are some issues with a couple of districts because of some platform issues that they have to deal with, but there is a classic case where the ministry worked very hard with the districts to ensure that they understood the benefit. I would suspect that by the time this bill passes, we may have all 60 districts already complying with MyEducation B.C. as a provincewide shared service that they will all participate in.

R. Fleming: Well, I think it’s interesting that MyEducation B.C., as the example the minister used, may achieve full participation of all 60 districts without the law being changed which can give the minister the power to order all districts to comply to something. I think that’s interesting, because he’s changing the law — even though, by his own example, he doesn’t need to. He’s been able to achieve full participation without having a legislative club to force districts to be involved in, in this case, an IT program.

I want to go back to his characterization, though, of the BCSTA’s position, where he said — and I think he’s paraphrasing slightly what the BCSTA’s position is — that there was agreement from school trustee representatives that “from time to time it may be necessary to compel school districts to participate in shared-service-type agreements.” It’s interesting that the minister would say that at this stage in debate, because there’s a letter I have, dated April 20, 2015, from the BCSTA.

It very clearly says — it’s addressed to the minister himself: “That BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education — specifically where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special adviser provision, and where shared-service providers are designated by the Minister of Education.”

That’s a motion that was passed by the BCSTA. It’s a letter that was written to the minister. So to say that he has the support or enjoys the goodwill and benefit of discussions from the BCSTA, that somehow these powers are necessary, is completely untrue. They have been explicit that this is their central problem with Bill 11. That’s why they’ve asked him to withdraw it.

I’m just wondering if the minister would like to clarify his remarks that somehow the BCSTA has a position that this amendment in the bill, giving him more power, is, in their view, necessary from time to time — when in fact they’ve said that they do not wish to give the minister those explicit powers.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am well aware of that letter. I did receive it after the most recent AGM. But I will reiterate that this work has been going on for quite a period of time. The particular example I used was MyEducation B.C. That was a meeting with the previous executive of the BCSTA. I’m sure the member is very clear that, in politics, things change and pressures change.

I accept the letter coming from the BCSTA membership after the last AGM. However, we have been working very closely with the districts and with the BCSTA up to now, and we’ll continue to do that.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister can describe the exact date when he informed the B.C. School Trustees Association of when he would be introducing legislation to give him the powers, outlined in this section and other parts of Bill 11, to designate service providers and to compel districts to enter into shared-service agreements of any type imaginable. It’s a blank-cheque section of this bill.

The bill was first read for introduction, I believe, on March 24. I’m wondering if the minister can tell…. He’s described it as a long consultative process. Was the first mention of these controversial additions into Bill 11, these legislative changes giving him new powers of compulsion here…? Was the first time he mentioned that to the BCSTA on or about March 24? Was it March 23?
[ Page 8381 ]

I’m just wondering how much notice — because I don’t think notice is the same as consultation, by the way — was formally given to the B.C. School Trustees Association.

[1725]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, let me repeat that we have been in discussions with the school districts, with the professional groups within the school districts — superintendents, secretary-treasurers — for well over two years, talking about initiatives like shared services.

I gave the president of the BCSTA notice that the legislation would be introduced. I made that phone call two days before I brought the legislation forward. I did not get into details of the legislation, because that would not have been appropriate at that time, but I did want to give them notice that it was coming forward. I did say, as I did with the president of the BCTF, that there would be a technical briefing on the various elements once the legislation had been tabled in the House.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister wishes to clarify his previous answers. He’s said on so many occasions, here and outside of this House, that there was a years’ long consultation process about, essentially, he’s trying to say, the contents of Bill 11 — specifically around these controversial sections — when in fact he’s just mentioned that the first time the BCSTA president, as the representative head of that organization, was not consulted but notified that these changes were coming forward was two days before the introduction of this bill in the House.

I would just ask the minister. I think by any standard — Webster’s or otherwise — dictionary definition of “consultation”, two days’ notice of significant changes is not, by anyone’s reasonable definition, “consultation.”

Would he acknowledge that now that he’s just gone ahead and done it, without soliciting their views, he’s created a firestorm? The BCSTA is foursquare opposed to these provisions. School districts in every part of B.C., including his own district of Surrey, have asked him to withdraw exactly this section around shared services and the powers to impose it.

Will he take the opportunity now, at this stage in the debate, to stop abusing the word “consultation” in the English language when in fact he’s finally admitted that no such consultation even occurred?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I think we keep going back to the same thing. The theme is very clear from the member opposite. Here is the answer, again, very clear.

Consultation is an ongoing process. It leads to various decisions at various times. Clearly, we have worked very closely with school districts over the last few years. We worked closely in the development of the B.C. education plan. We’ve worked closely with all of the parties on the new curriculum.

We will continue to consult. I made it very clear to the president of the BCSTA, as I did to the president of the BCTF, that this legislation is a framework for developing new approaches for education in the future that will be more flexible, more robust and provide ongoing opportunity for collaboration as we develop regulations or change regulations in the future.

This gives us the flexibility to do that. It takes out barriers in current legislation that prevent us from doing that as efficiently as we might.

I stand and make no apologies for that and remain committed, on behalf of this government, to working with our partners to achieve the overall goals: that is, student outcomes; the best, most efficient system we can have, where every dollar that we can invest in the classroom is done there; and that we continue to be a leader, as we are today in the world, when it comes to student outcomes and our ability to continue to deliver that in a changing world.

R. Fleming: I just want to go back to consultation. I mean, the minister has admitted here this afternoon that he didn’t get their views on these controversial sections before the introduction of Bill 11. He notified them that a bill was coming. He didn’t give them a technical briefing, obviously, until after the bill had been introduced.

He didn’t bother to get their views before the bill was introduced. Now he has their views, which are universally and strongly opposed to Bill 11, specifically around this area.

[1730]

I have to ask the minister this, then. He didn’t consult. Now he has their views. Does this mean that if consultation is an ongoing process, their views have no bearing, no influence at all, upon his course of action — that they have no ability to influence his thinking on this section of the bill, in particular; that their worries about financial risks being borne by school districts that do not have a lot of risk capital to play around with, that are struggling to be able to provide the school services they do….They have asked to be consulted.

All the minister will say is that they’ll be consulted after the fact. Doesn’t matter. We’re putting in tie-breaking legislation here, where the minister can force things through that districts are worried about. I want him to be as clear as possible, because I think he has mischaracterized the B.C. School Trustees Association’s position so many times.

If he could make it clear this afternoon, because they’ve asked for consultation…. They’ve asked for these sections to be withdrawn. They’ve asked government to explain the urgency around them. Government has given no such courtesy. I don’t know whether the minister has even responded to this letter dated April 20.

Will the minister just tell them that there’s going to be no consultation, that if he’s determined to put this bill through using his majority, in fact, their views don’t count?
[ Page 8382 ]
Just tell them that. Don’t make it up and say there’s collaboration and partnership and consultation when there has been nothing of the sort and nothing such will occur.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member opposite likes to make the speeches. He can continue to do it. I’d like to deal with the substance and the technical aspects of the bill.

Here’s the commitment: we will be working with the B.C. School Trustees Association districts, their professional staff, the BCTF, other partner groups and the parents in the development of regulations. This bill provides the ability to do that.

That is the answer. The member may not like it, but that is the answer.

R. Fleming: This letter from the BCSTA dated April 20 that I’ve referred to — I’m just wondering if the minister has formally responded to it. It has been almost a month now. If he has responded to it in writing, could he provide committee stage of debate with a copy of that response?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t believe that I have sent a written response to the letter. I have spoken to the president of the BCSTA. Staff have spoken with the staff at the BCSTA. The commitment I just reiterated a few minutes ago stands, and that’s what I’ve said.

R. Fleming: Let me just be clear. The letter that was written by the B.C. School Trustees Association asking, specifically, the minister to withdraw the sections of Bill 11, including the one that we’re debating just now, dated April 20….The minister does not have any intention to formally reply in writing until after the sections they’ve requested to be withdrawn are, in fact, pushed through and become law?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is my practice to send a written response. I have verbally indicated that the bill is moving forward. I’ve said that publicly, and I stand by that.

R. Fleming: I don’t want to tip my hand about how long we may be here in committee stage, but it could well be that Bill 11 is proclaimed by the end of this week.

Does the minister have any intention of addressing the concerns, responding to this letter, which asks for the withdrawal of sections, in the remaining time that this request is valid? Or as I just asked him and he didn’t answer, is it more likely — is it, in fact, going to be the case — that he’s not going to bother to respond to a request to withdraw these sections of the bill until after the bill has become law?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I did send a written response. Not to the detail that I think the member is asking for. But I will ensure that a copy of that is brought forward for the record.

The response, just for the record, went out two days after I received the letter from the BCSTA.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[1735]

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister can just outline the addition of this following definition around “personal information.” At first glance at this bill, it’s surprising that this definition isn’t included in the existing School Act through all its years of amendment. This is a simple definition, as I read it: “means recorded information about an identifiable individual.”

I wonder if he can just explain why this amendment here — section 4, which will go into the School Act under definitions — is important for whatever the ministry intends to do.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The change is being made to ensure consistency with the freedom of information on personal education numbers and to make it consistent with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

I’m sure the member may want to go there, but we did check with the privacy office to make sure that they had no concerns. Indeed, this brings it in line with all other freedom-of-information and privacy protection.

R. Fleming: I want to flip to the section of the School Act that deals with student privacy, to refer to it for the next set of questions. I want to ask the minister, then — and I realize that we will get back to this in another part of Bill 11 here — about the sharing of private information, which I think his staff described as being very difficult, in the briefing I had with them. I, again, thank them for offering that time.

Right now there are a number of limitations on how student data can be used. The School Act is restrictive. The sum total of these amendments will make it much more…. I don’t think “permissive” is the right word, but it will enable the use of student data between ministries to a much, much greater extent.

The context of this — we’ve been talking a little bit about MyEducation B.C. — is that there will be significantly more student data available in the future as it’s digitally uploaded from earlier grades, as the storage capacity and power of student work and teacher comments and the parent interfaces and all the things that go with the personal education numbers become operationalized.

I just want to ask the minister if, essentially, he would agree that the School Act as it is today is, in his view, too protective of student information or too restrictive of its coordination with other ministries. Is that an accurate characterization of why these changes are being made in the School Act?
[ Page 8383 ]

[1740]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is very much a part of this is taking what are old regulations that are out of step with modern technology and all of the issues that we have under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and bringing the education act into alignment with that. That is why the commissioner has clearly said that there are no problems with these changes that we’re proposing. More importantly…. The member is right. The Representative for Children has clearly said that there needs to be better coordination of information in the case, as an example, of children in care.

So what this does is, with the government guidelines and protections that are in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it still allows for the sharing of information when appropriate and under the guidelines that the government operates.

R. Fleming: I think the changes in the act here are of interest to the public. We’re going from the School Act, where this section is currently…. The heading title is “Non-disclosure of student records.” That will be changed by this new section entitled “Student personal information.” We’re going from sort of a gatekeeping, non-disclosure clause to something where authorization now providing personal information that is in a student’s school record for untold specified uses becomes the new letter of the law.

I’m just wondering if the minister can give as specific an indication as possible of what these specified uses are going to be to use student personal information. He’s talked about children in care, I presume around the Children and Youth Representative’s office. There have to be a number of others that are contemplated, and I think it’s important that this debate be informed about what government has in mind in this regard.

[1745]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Under the current act, it states specifically that information is restricted solely to the research that might be specifically aimed at the evaluation of education programs. What has been clear, and we’ve learned with technology and other issues that have come forward, is that there is a need at times to share information for students in care, as an example. I mentioned that already.

It is done under the auspices of guidelines that are very clear in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is the foundation, and to bring education information into line with that is in the best interests of both the system and the individual students.

One of the keys, no matter what, is that the fundamental principle here is that the information on a student belongs to that student unless there is a good reason to share that information with other agencies within government. That, again, is in the best interests of those students.

R. Fleming: The analytics and the research that the minister has alluded to and that under the current act — I think he was suggesting — are not permitted, in some cases, will be opened up to something considerably more broad. In fact, the authorization for research will be extended to “all public bodies.”

I’m just wondering. You know, to go from explicit safeguards in the School Act to something that is open and extended to all public bodies is quite a significant change. I think it’s important for the minister to give an indication of how seriously the ministry will take the oversight and the protection, because it’s removing some explicit law here.

Those responsibilities will be with the Ministry of Education, because student record information is now going to be used much, much more broadly and will be shared, potentially, with all public bodies. That’s quite a large list.

I’m just wondering how the ministry is preparing for its responsibilities to ensure that the integrity, the protection of student information, the appropriate use of student information — because one can well imagine there will be some frivolous or even high-risk uses of such information — will, in fact, be taken very, very seriously and be protected by him and by his employees.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Very clearly, any access to any individual data is very closely monitored. There is a very robust and clear process where people need to apply for information that is tracked.

[1750]

It’s audited as to when it was provided, how it was used. It is all under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act guidelines, and there are clear, clear guidelines under the Offence Act for any misuse of any of that information. There are clear structures currently — and there will be under the new provisions within all of those related acts — to make sure that there is no misuse of information.

R. Fleming: Just for my understanding, all public bodies…. I’m wondering how wide the range of this is, what kind of entities of the Crown fit this definition. It would be interesting to know how far this would go. This would presumably incorporate the SUCH sector — universities, health authorities. I’m just trying to understand.

Demographic information is obviously very highly prized by private sector audiences — there’s no question about it — who seek to market to what is seen as a prime audience for goods and services that are sold by that sector. I’m trying to understand — the public bodies and who they engage with — conceptually how far that could reach outside the Ministry of Education.

[1755]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Very clearly, individual student data is highly protected and is only shared, even with
[ Page 8384 ]
other ministries, when it is in the best interest of that individual student, for whatever those reasons are. Individual data is never shared outside with any private organization unless there is direct permission from the parents or the guardian of that student because it is to their benefit.

Aggregated data that we collect is only used by application, and the reason for that application has to be clearly spelled out. There is no way to circle back to individual students or individual groups based on that aggregated data.

R. Fleming: I know that the government, through its B.C. centre for data innovation, has a plan to in fact link some of the key large ministries: Education Ministry — for example, the data that we have and will have under the MyEducation B.C. — to Health and social services as well. The B.C. centre for data innovation has also said that “permitting private sector users is an emerging trend” in the development of government databases.

There is a lot of interest in big data sets that are typically gathered by government, and that’s why I think this section deserves some fulsome answers about what could be contemplated in the future. There’s going to be a lot more information gathered about an individual student and stored — what their studies are, what their behaviour issues may be, all the way from kindergarten to graduation — in a centralized database.

There may be incidents that are stored about a student that are potentially embarrassing, that can be misinterpreted and misused — mental health issues, medications, requirements. All of those kinds of things will be part of this database. I’m just wondering who is going to continuously review, even scrub, data that should not be kept, is not necessary, once a student leaves the school system, and how that’s going to be administered.

There’s got to be a cost to it as well. It can’t just be left, I don’t think, with the private service provider. There has to be government oversight there. As the minister said, it’s vitally important to make sure that data cannot be disaggregated and individuals identified. I mean, when you’re talking about some very, very small school districts or individual schools where there may be a measurement of only one or two persons, well, you can suddenly quite easily identify an individual.

You have to think of worst-case scenarios in order to make sure that your laws are strong and well-thought-through. I put that out there for the minister to explain and give assurances to the public and to parents that more data being handled differently and more permissively between different public bodies is going to be very judiciously overseen by the Ministry of Education.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It absolutely will be. That is the commitment. The structures within the Ministry of Education and the checks and balances that are being built in as part of the MyEducation B.C. initiative — and that is all under the umbrella of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is paramount in individual data — is the purview, and it belongs to every individual student. We will protect that, maintain that and ensure that we’re diligent in both any requests that come in and the auditing of any requests that have been granted.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister who asked for these changes to student privacy — specifically, any groups inside or outside government.

[1800]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think there are those that are obvious, whether it be Health or Children and Families, the representative. There are opportunities and needs at times to ensure the protection of children in care. So there are the obvious ones. The Ministry of Advanced Education — currently we are able to provide data to them as they work with students as they transition from the K-to-12 system into post-secondary.

I think the critic and I are on the same page in that absolutely critical to any of this is the protection of individual rights and freedoms. That is going to be done. It is part of the protocols that are built in under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This just brings Education into line with that. Again, the advice that we have been given by the commissioner in that office is that this complies with all of the other protections that are currently in place and will be in the future.

R. Fleming: For the public, the description, the change might be hard to contemplate, and I struggle with it myself. The potential of where we’re going in terms of how data is shared between public bodies is elaborate and extensive. We are essentially moving away from a student information system that we’ve had that is primarily a relationship between a student, a parent and a teacher into something that is much larger data sets that are now the property of government and used for an undefined number of different purposes.

I wonder why part of the change in Bill 11 here is the removal of a section of the School Act that says an employee who knowingly discloses “any information contained in a student record that identifies a student” to be committing an offence. It seems to me, upon reading that removal of that section, that the wrongful disclosure of student personal information is no longer considered a serious offence, when it should be going in the opposite direction.

There is now potentially a whole host of new opportunities to misuse student personal information because there’s more of it and it’s digitized. And there should be more explicit sanctions against an individual who either
[ Page 8385 ]
data mines or works within government and commits an offence around misusing personal information. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain why this deletion, on the face of it, looks like the seriousness of those offences is being downgraded?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s exactly the opposite. There are very, very strict and very robust guidelines under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and in the Offence Act. Any public body or any institution associated with government that has information…. It is very clear that it is an offence to use that information improperly. Indeed, this brings the education act into compliance with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act and the Offence Act under that, and absolutely, it is stronger provisions there than we currently have.

[1805]

R. Fleming: One of the organizations that gets a lot of attention around education data as it currently exists and is widely criticized for presenting what I would call one-dimensional information about how schools perform is the Fraser Institute. They take the FSA test results and publish them as if they are somehow a ranking of how good a school is in British Columbia. It’s problematic for a whole host of reasons that I don’t think we need to go over just now. It has been recognized by even previous Liberal Ministers of Education as an abuse of ministry data. They’ve disassociated the ministry from it.

I noticed last week that one of the government information tweet handles retweeted and directed people towards the Fraser Institute. I’m not quite sure why. I do appreciate that it was taken down later, prior to our opportunity to use it in question period, I would note.

It does beg the question, I think, now that we’re debating this bill, about outside groups being able to access more information. I’ve been asking about public bodies. I haven’t got a whole lot of information from the minister yet.

Will there be the possibility for outside applications to access more information about students and about the Ministry of Education? Would a group like the Fraser Institute, for example, as an outside organization, be able to gain access to more student information after Bill 11 comes into law?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Under the change and under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, there is no greater access to information and no less access. It is the same as it is today. Organizations like the Fraser Institute will have the same access that they have today, but they will not have greater access to more detailed information.

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering if the minister can explain that answer a little bit more, considering that there is not only more data being created by the new IT programs and expansion of stored information but also, in the interests of research writ large, the ability to share that information and link it up with other databases.

Surely, it’s only a matter of time before private interests state that they have a public interest in accessing that kind of information. Under the FOIPPA act — and I’m not familiar with all of its provisions — we are moving to a less restrictive system that’s governed by a piece of legislation that is more permissive, potentially.

I’m just wondering: is it not possible for an outside agency to apply, in a public interest, to gain taxpayer-funded, taxpayer-collected information about individuals? They will have to make that application proving that they are in no way putting at risk an individual identity.

I want to ask the minister if he’s certain of the last answer he gave, whether there isn’t in fact a way to apply, by the Fraser Institute or any other private organization, to get publicly held information.

[1810]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The FOI, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is very clear. This does not change any of those provisions. There will, as I said, not be greater access to more information. That act, and the provisions of that act, apply. It brings us into compliance with the rest of the public service when it comes to that kind of information.

R. Fleming: The minister stated his concern about student privacy protection. I’m just wondering if he can outline the kinds of protections that he’s actually putting in place currently and contemplates having to create to further expand upon whatever protections are being worked upon currently and in the future?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is true, as we move more into a data age, that we need to constantly be updating and reviewing policies and procedures to ensure protection and privacy. That’s why bringing the education act into line with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is so critical.

However, that being said, we are working with the chief information officer and reviewing, on an ongoing basis, our various guidelines. We have dedicated staff whose sole job is to ensure that we stay very current and that we ensure the protection and privacy of individuals in that process. We are also ensuring, under the guidelines of MyEducation B.C., that we have the most robust security protocols in place, again protecting the privacy of individual information.

The long and the short of it is: we are ensuring, as we move ahead and as we collect more data, that the sole purpose is of providing good information to students and their parents. Their teachers are at the heart of that.

[1815]

In those instances where it is in the best interests of the students, we’ll work with other agencies — but only under the guidelines and protection of not only the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act but also the Offence Act, which relates to that as well.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister if he can…. I know this is simply a deletion of the reference to the school planning council, but there’s a substitution here. I’m trying to understand whether this is a change of role for parent advisory councils in terms of what they may or may not advise the board and the principal and staff of the school to do, to give an opinion on any issue.

I’m reading the substitution language for the extinguishment of the school planning councils and trying to understand whether the minister is trying to merge two functions — that, in fact, the SPCs were duplicative and, in being done away with, the PACs remain as they are — or whether they try and recover some contemplated function that school planning councils had.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I clearly want to articulate the fact that we see the value and the importance of ongoing and significant input on the part of parents in learning outcomes and educational outcomes in their district.

What we are suggesting is a removal in that particular section, but inherent in that and in our discussions with the BCCPAC, we have clearly said that we want to see more parental engagement, particularly at the school level and within the districts, in terms of the goals and the learning outcomes that we’re trying to achieve. We are encouraging that. We’re seeing that happen. We know that as we move forward, there will be more discussion, not only with local PACs but also with BCCPAC as it relates to the ministry.

R. Fleming: Well, I’m just trying to understand something. Looking at the government’s original rationale for creating school planning councils, I want to quote the Minister of Education at the time, now Premier, who said the purpose of the school planning council “is really to make sure there is a place in the system that’s guaranteed for parents to be able to plug in, in an official way, so that the PAC doesn’t ever experience — as they sometimes do — the sense that they’re shut out of the planning process and…don’t have access. We want to provide this guaranteed access through the school planning council.”

Now we’ve come full circle. The school planning councils are going to be done away with. They didn’t work. There was very little takeup or interest in them. I’m trying to understand if the parent advisory councils are going to take on part of the role that was originally reserved for school planning councils or if this substitution and repeal of the school planning councils is about something different entirely.

I mean, I would have thought that parent advisory councils now can advise the school — or the provincial school, I guess, if it’s a French district — already about any matter that they deem fit to advise about. But here we have language making it explicit. I’m just wondering why this is the case.

[1820]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely, as I said, we are moving forward to a new structure and a new paradigm. With that change, we want to make sure that parents clearly recognize that their vehicle in their schools, in their districts and provincially, through their provincial organization, is their PAC. They do have that responsibility and, I think, ability now, and we want to ensure that we continue to enhance that as we move forward.

R. Fleming: The minister just mentioned that we’re moving forward to a new paradigm. We’re actually moving back to a structure that was proven and tested over many, many decades, the parent advisory councils. We’re doing away with the hype and hullabaloo about school planning councils, which never functioned properly in British Columbia, and dusting them out of the legislation, removing them.

I want to be clear here and get some clarity from the minister that what we’re in fact doing is restoring an original view of what a parent advisory council’s function ought to be in the school system and doing away with the school planning council functions, which never achieved the promise that government ascribed to it. But I want to understand whether there’s anything that is being taken away or added to what a parent advisory council’s responsibility is in the school system.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to clarify that this section that we’re dealing with at the moment removes that particular term. Later on in the bill there are provisions that provide more opportunities for parent advisory councils to play the role that is properly the role of parents in the system. We have clearly stated to BCCPAC and in discussions with parent groups that we see their ongoing and significant involvement being a priority for the system as we move forward.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I would like to ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 8387 ]

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,039,955,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Anton: The member asked about a number of briefing notes relating to Legal Services Society which were brought to my attention in December of 2014. I do, of course, get briefing notes on issues that come before me.

In December staff briefed me on the timing for the Legal Services Society budget management plan, which went into the ministry budget preparation process in January 2015.

In addition, staff had completed the negotiation of the revised MOU with the Legal Services Society, which is required to be renegotiated every three years. Then I do have a quarterly meeting with the chair of the Legal Services Society Board, and there was one scheduled for December 17.

My staff briefed me in preparation for all of these items prior to the December 17 meeting.

L. Krog: Is it safe to assume, I suspect, that the Legal Services Society, through the good offices of its chair and, presumably, its CEO, asked for a much more significant increase in their stipend from government than what they actually received?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s been well understood between legal services and ourselves that in this particular three-year period, there is the extra $2 million, of which I have discussed — last fiscal, this fiscal and next fiscal — for the innovation programs.

L. Krog: I take it from the minister’s comments — notwithstanding whatever improvement there might have been in the economy, notwithstanding whatever budgetary surplus may have been achieved in previous years — the government’s plan, regardless of all of those things, is to stick to the plan for legal services, which are almost negligible or nonexistent increases. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: I’m not sure there are many people in British Columbia that would say a $2 million increase is negligible. It is an important increase, and it has allowed for these innovation programs.

L. Krog: To paraphrase a phrase I’ve used before when a submission was made to the Standing Committee on Finance some years ago, when a figure of $13 million was pumped out for bike paths and whatnot in Vancouver…. As the supplicant to the committee at that time said: “What is it? It’s a rounding error in the Ministry of Health’s budget.”

[1340]

So $2 million, with great respect to the Attorney General, in a budget of over $40 billion and her own budget for the ministry of $1 billion plus is hardly a significant number when one considers the number of British Columbians who do require service.

Having said that, what does the Attorney General have to say to Mr. Shorten, who is the president of the CBA this year, when he says: “There needs to be more money for legal services for the most vulnerable in the province”? Are there regular and ongoing meetings with the Canadian Bar Association respecting possible increases for legal services or to assist those who are not otherwise in a position to defend themselves and/or hire counsel to act on their behalf?

Hon. S. Anton: We work closely with the Canadian Bar Association. They are a partner of ours in thinking about access to justice in British Columbia. They think about it. We think about it. They certainly do a very good job in their role, and we appreciate their ongoing input and advice.

Indeed, I see the president, whoever that happens to be at the time — his predecessor and now Mr. Shorten — often. We enjoy a very collegial relationship with the Canadian Bar Association B.C. branch.

I think the important thing here is that we are focused
[ Page 8388 ]
on outcomes. We are focused on solving legal problems effectively. Sometimes that involves a lawyer, sometimes not. In our mediation ones it involves a mediator. There are different ways to achieve justice.

Our justice access centres — people get a lot of self-help in there. It’s not necessarily from a lawyer, but it’s from people who know how to help people navigate the system and help them think about their own issues.

As I said earlier, there’s $74½ million for legal services and $30 million for the other justice services — very significant investment by citizens of British Columbia in making sure we have good access to justice.

L. Krog: I appreciate that there may be some regular contact, but is there anything of substance discussed? The reason I raise that is, of course, all the correspondence back and forth between the Canadian Bar Association B.C. branch, Mr. Shorten and others respecting Bill 18 earlier this spring. It seems fairly clear that they didn’t feel they were overly well consulted in that process.

In light of their comments and the criticism that arose from that, is the ministry or the minister going to put in place a more fixed and regular schedule that will actually involve real discussions? I, with great respect, suggest real discussions with organizations like the CBA so that you won’t see this kind of letter becoming public material criticizing the government for taking positions on legislation which the CBA did not see as progressive or beneficial.

[1345]

Hon. S. Anton: The letter around Bill 18 related to security for costs, which is something that two of our tribunals may have, according to the legislation. We have done a consultation with the CBABC on that.

L. Krog: The Attorney General’s response to Mr. Shorten, dated April 13, refers itself…. It says: “The letter attached raised the following concerns relating to the clustering of tribunals. Clusterings may (1) concentrate too much power in the hands of the executive chair, (2) erode tribunal expertise, (3) lead to the perception that the executive chairs may adopt a ‘government-friendly’ approach in order to enhance the likelihood of their re-appointment.”

The letter raises questions regarding the security-of-costs provision in the legislation. So there was obviously somewhat more to it than simply the issue of security for costs.

I’m just wondering. In the circumstances, is the government going to change its practice with respect to consultation on this type of legislation, which clearly is going to have an impact on the practice of the lawyers in the province and members of the Canadian Bar Association?

Hon. S. Anton: The issues that were raised again around the tribunal transformation…. There was another issue around clustering, which is enabling legislation. We have absolutely committed to discussing with the relevant lawyers the relevant sections as we move forward on these issues.

[1350]

L. Krog: Just a few more questions and, in particular, on a different topic entirely. As the minister is probably aware, British Columbia used to have anti-SLAPP legislation before this government abolished it almost as quickly as it came through the door. Quebec has anti-SLAPP legislation. Ontario — I don’t know if it’s gotten through second reading yet or not. Presumably it’s going to pass. The last time I checked, the Ontario Liberals had a majority there. Half the states in the United States have anti-SLAPP legislation.

Is the government considering any move to bring in a similar form of legislation in British Columbia in order to protect vulnerable citizens from powerful interests who have otherwise clearly, as a result of the evidence in history, demonstrated significant power over those organizations in an effort to supress what is generally referred to as free speech?

Hon. S. Anton: We are not proposing anti-SLAPP legislation at the moment. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the B.C. human rights code protect freedom of speech, and we are committed to ensuring that the civil justice system is as fair, accessible, effective and timely as possible. Most Canadian jurisdictions do not have anti-SLAPP legislation.

The challenge, of course, is determining the basis for dismissing a civil claim prior to a hearing on its merits. We have rules of court that are designed to provide litigants in the courts with a means of redress on any perceived abuse of process or frivolous and vexatious claims. Of course, section 18 of the Supreme Court Act outlines general criteria required for seeking a vexatious litigant order. The decision as to what constitutes a vexatious litigant is at the discretion of the court.

L. Krog: The minister has almost made my very argument. She may well be right about the majority of provinces, but in fact, in essence, now we have the two most substantive provinces in Canada — representing, I believe it’s safe to say, close to if not indeed half the population of this country — whose citizens do enjoy or will soon enjoy the benefit of anti-SLAPP legislation.

As the minister knows, in practice courts have been extremely reluctant to exercise any discretion with the use of that position or section of the Supreme Court rules historically. I think the minister is also well aware that very rarely have costs been awarded in those kinds of cases.

The reality is that it may be there potentially, but the
[ Page 8389 ]
courts reluctantly exercise that kind of discretion, whereas a statutory change would in fact give the judges the comfort and direction, if they need, from the Legislature in order to protect vulnerable citizens and citizens groups who otherwise are engaging in appropriate public demonstrations, peaceful and lawful, supporting causes they believe important.

As the minister is well aware, this is particularly important, given the number of demonstrations that have occurred in this province in the last two years, particularly around environmental issues.

I’m wondering again: does the minister honestly believe that the existing processes available through the justice system are indeed sufficient to protect the rights of citizens when indeed the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and half the jurisdictions of the United States have clearly taken a differing view?

[1355]

The Chair: I’ll just remind members, too, the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation are not eligible for discussion during Committee of Supply.

L. Krog: Just when I thought the Attorney General was actually going to give me an answer on an issue that might be important.

I want to ask a final couple of questions around what was the proposed community court in Surrey. We’ve now moved towards this integrated approach. Is, in fact, that approach going to be treated as, again, another experiment that the government is considering for broader use around the province? Is it going to be implemented only in Surrey, or are other registries and jurisdictions under consideration?

Hon. S. Anton: It hasn’t actually started in Surrey yet. The concept has built and developed, and the city is very much on side with it. It does relate to agencies being willing and able to go into the building, which is the former city hall. It seems like a very promising model, and certainly, if it’s effective, we would be considering it at other locations.

L. Krog: The funding for that model. I take it that the only funding that’s forthcoming is from individual ministries and their budgetary estimates, or is there any significant funding coming from the provincial government through the Ministry of Justice only, which might be employed or utilized by those other ministries or agencies that might provide the kind of assistance to make this work?

Hon. S. Anton: The concept is to create collaboration and services for persons coming out of custody, coming out of courts, where they can go in and find the services they need. The concept is not that these would be necessarily new agencies but agencies that are willing to co-locate there. Maybe there will be some cost in the buildings, but in terms of the overall cost, that would generally be borne by those existing agencies.

M. Farnworth: I’d like to go to some policing questions and, in particular, resource issues around a number of the integrated teams that are in place and some numbers that are in the budget that I would like some clarification on.

In the budget for 2015 it says $365 million going to policing and security. Yet in the estimates binder this shows only $355 million being spent. There’s a difference of $10 million. Can the minister explain that difference?

Hon. S. Anton: I’d ask the member to clarify. The number — we’re in the Estimates — is $355 million. I just question where the $365 million is.

M. Farnworth: That was in the budget documents. When you did the budget, you said it was $365 million.

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: While staff are looking for that, I will just introduce two additional staff who have joined us: Lynne McInally, executive director of police services division; and Kimberley McLean, director of government relations, police services.

Well, that did take a little bit of investigation, but here’s the answer. The $355 million in the estimates includes RCMP and security budget less recovery, so it’s a net number. The $365 million referred to by the member is the gross number for the RCMP, the overall budget.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister explain what constitutes external recoveries, and could she break them down?

[1405]

Hon. S. Anton: The recoveries are recovery of criminal record review costs in the security programs division and recovery from ICBC for traffic and road safety law enforcement funding through our MOU. That latter amount is $23 million. There’s one other minor item, which is licensing of stakeholders under the Security Services Act for fingerprints, which is $50,000.

M. Farnworth: So these recoveries are included in the amount that is being spent on the overall policing and security budget is what I get from the minister. I see heads nodding, so that’s cool.

How has that changed over the last three budget years? Is that up, or is it down?

Hon. S. Anton: The major item in there is the ICBC MOU, and that number is relatively stable. For the crim-
[ Page 8390 ]
inal records checks and such things, there are minor increases.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the budgets, the government said that they’ve increased by about $5 million over Budget 2014. What I’d like to get from the minister is…. There have been some important changes in some of the key areas of policing that I think the public is particularly concerned about. Can the minister give us a budget breakdown for the integrated teams — the major ones like, for example, IHIT, but also in particular ICE unit, ISPOT and E-PANA?

[1410]

Hon. S. Anton: For the integrated sexual predator observation team, which is the ISPOT, the budget is $2.13 million. For the integrated child exploitation team, the budget is $1.72 million, and for the IHIT, the budget is $22.33 million

M. Farnworth: And E-PANA?

Hon. S. Anton: The E-PANA investigators are now with the major crimes unit, and I will get that number for the member.

M. Farnworth: In particular on the ICE unit and the ISPOT unit, are those budgets up or down over previous years, and if so, by how much.

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: The only increases in those budges would be compensation increases. The units are essentially the same.

M. Farnworth: So there have been no additional resources given to either of those units in the coming budget year over the last budget year. Would that be correct?

Hon. S. Anton: The designation of staffing in the integrated units is the decision of the deputy commissioner. The arrangement with the units, however, is that he notifies us. We have had no notification of any change in those units over the last year — the ones mentioned by the member.

M. Farnworth: Yes, the decision is done by the RCMP, but it’s also a direct correlation or relation to…. Provincial funding has a significant impact on the decisions that the RCMP have to make, particularly around these units. We’ll come to one of those in a moment. So what the minister is saying is that there are no additional resources that have been given to these particular two units.

Can the minister confirm as to whether or not they are at their full strength? The number of individuals in each of those particular teams — have they changed compared to, let’s say, 2010?

Hon. S. Anton: For the information going back to 2010 as to authorized strength, we will have to confirm that with the RCMP and get back to the member.

M. Farnworth: I would appreciate that. Then, so I can make my request specific, if the minister could get the strength of those units, of the ISPOT and the ICE units in particular, for each of the years from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and up to the present date, that would be appreciated. And the budget amounts for each of those particular units would be appreciated for each of those years.

[1420]

I ask the question because I think there has been…. We have gone through this before, before the current Attorney General’s time, when there were issues raised about the number of officers in some of those particular teams. They had been removed, and there were gaps in what I think most of the public would deem to be a very important role of the RCMP, which is around the child exploitation unit and the sexual predator observation team.

The government indicated, in response to questioning from the opposition and the public, that the bodies would be in those places. I want to make sure that that is, in fact, the case. One of the things that does concern me is that the decisions that government has made have impacted on some of these teams. I know the minister will say that it is the RCMP that make those operational decisions, but they do that in response to the resources that they have available to them.

That will bring me to my next question, and that is around E-PANA and the cuts that have impacted on E-PANA. Can the minister explain the impact of the cuts on E-PANA and the difference between what the government says the impact is and the impact which the RCMP have maintained is actually taking place?

The government has said it’s $2.9 million, yet the commanding officer said it’s actually $4.2 million. Can the minister tell me the logic of seeing cuts taking place to a unit that has been investigating unsolved homicides in British Columbia? In particular, as we know, the key area of focus has been on the Highway of Tears?

Hon. S. Anton: We did canvass this last week with the member’s colleague, but anyway, I will go back over it again. The E-PANA investigation. One of the matters that came out of the very tragic incident of the missing and murdered women and the resulting report from commissioner Oppal and the recommendations that he made….

One of the things, of course, that he noted was that there were a number of historical missing and murdered women cases from highways — not just Highway 16 but a number of northern highways in British Columbia.
[ Page 8391 ]

There was a determined effort by government and the RCMP that these cases should be solved insofar as that was possible. The RCMP has been extremely committed to solving those cases ever since.

In 2005 and 2006 the E-PANA.… Sorry, I’m just being reminded that, actually, E-PANA started before that. I think government was already aware, before the missing-women report, of the necessity of looking into these historical murders because of the concern over missing women and the cases in the past which had languished and the importance of trying to resolve those cases.

In 2005 and 2006 there was an account to support the creation of E-PANA, and it went up to about 70 people in the team. They were a very large task force. They did a very significant amount of work.

[1425]

Costs have now reduced over time as the number of investigators and tasks have reduced. The RCMP is in a place where some of those temporary investigators are moved to permanent positions in major crime.

So when the E-PANA account looks lower, yes, that is a lower account in E-PANA, but the positions are in major crime. And there is a continuing dedication by RCMP to resolve those cases.

M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her comments, and I know that my colleague from Esquimalt has raised this issue. But I’m raising this in the context of these are units that were in place. What I am particularly concerned about is that these units are doing very specialized jobs and that they require the dedicated funding to be able to continue those jobs over a number of years.

I understand what the minister is saying about people moving to major crime. But the reality is that the e-mails that we have got through FOI indicate that positions are being eliminated and that there is a concern over this and not being able to do the work that E-PANA was being charged with. Those are not my words. Those are e-mails obtained under freedom of information.

So the question I have for the minister is: does she not think that given importance of these teams, E-PANA for example, making the cuts of $4.2 million was ill-advised?

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: Just to be clear, in this fiscal year, with whose estimates we are dealing, the RCMP budget has been added to by $5.8 million. Last year there was a reduction — this is a year ago that we’re talking about — of $2.9 million in provincial funding. When combined with the federal of 30 percent cost-sharing, $2.9 million provincial and $1.3 million federal made up for the $4.2 million that the member is talking about.

[1430]

Just to be clear, the decision as to allocation of resources is, of course, within the jurisdictional management of the deputy commissioner, according to his operational needs. He has determined that the E-PANA investigations can and will continue within the major crimes unit.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I’d like to remind the minister that budget estimates are not restricted to the budget year 2015 but, in fact, deal with all the issues under her administrative responsibility. If I wish to ask questions about issues that took place in 2014, they are, in fact, in order. And I will ask them because they do have an impact on the issues that we’re dealing with this year, particularly on these ongoing integrated teams where funding is a key matter.

As the minister has just said, operational decisions are up to the RCMP, but those operational decisions are based on the resources that the RCMP has made available to them in different budget years.

My question. The minister is saying that $5 million is being added. Can the minister tell us where the $5 million is expected to go to? You don’t just say: “Oh, here’s an additional $5 million. Do with it what you will.” There must be some anticipation of where you expect that $5 million to be allocated to when the budget process takes place. Can the minister outline where they expect that $5 million to be expensed?

Hon. S. Anton: The $5.873 million is an increase for RCMP contract costs, pension increases, cadet training, recruitment and police dog service training.

M. Farnworth: In other words, when you say that the budget is increasing $5.78 million, it’s not going to provide any new services. Rather, it’s going to provide for contractual obligations. Would that be correct?

Hon. S. Anton: That would be correct.

M. Farnworth: When the government goes out and says, “Oh, we’re spending an additional $5.87 million more than we spent last year,” it has nothing to do…. It will not provide one single additional officer. It will not provide one single additional service. It will provide not one extra dollar in terms of allowing, you know, E-PANA or ISPOT or any other team to do any additional work.

That is just a point I want to make, because that will lead me into my next series of questions, where I think there is an issue around resources, and that relates to some of the teams that I’ve been talking about. That is that the ministry indicated that a review of electronic monitoring of sexual offenders was underway and that it would be completed by the end of December 2014. Can the minister tell us the status of that review and why, if it has been completed, it has not been tabled?

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: In response to the point about the
[ Page 8392 ]
overall funding for police officers, I would observe, as well, just to complete the picture, that there are municipal officers. They are added by municipalities, municipal RCMP detachments throughout British Columbia. Also, municipal detachments — I don’t even have those numbers.

But the RCMP, between 2012 and 2013, added 50 additional officers and, in fact, have added about 300 officers over the last five years. I don’t have the 2014 numbers at the moment. These are municipal detachments like Surrey and Burnaby and so on, who are more in control of their own destiny.

In terms of the electronic monitoring, we are going out for a new service provider. We will be issuing an RFP shortly, by the end of May, and we will get bids back from providers. We don’t know who they will be yet, but these tend to be players that are in more than one marketplace. It will be part of a requirement of the RFP that there be a GPS component, but it’s a little early to say what that will look like yet, because we need to see who replies to the RFP.

M. Farnworth: The question I asked — and I appreciate the information the minister is giving me — is: where is the review? Was it completed? Was it actually done? Was it completed, and why has it not been tabled?

[1440]

Hon. S. Anton: There is a report prepared by a third party. It is an outline of best practices. It does not make a specific recommendation. It is informing the RFP process. We can make it available, but it needs to be at the end of the RFP process.

M. Farnworth: Who is the third party that’s doing it?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s Sierra Systems.

M. Farnworth: I’m somewhat puzzled as to why…. Okay. Let me back up a second. When were they commissioned to do the report, when was the report completed, and when was it delivered to the minister?

Hon. S. Anton: The report was delivered to staff in December of last year, 2014. It was commissioned a few months before that. I don’t have the exact date. Those are the details on the report.

I was remiss in not mentioning that I am joined by two new staff here: Brent Merchant, assistant deputy minister, corrections branch; and Elenore Clark, provincial director of the strategic operations division of the corrections branch.

M. Farnworth: Has the minister seen the report? Has the minister read the report?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ve seen the report and been briefed on it.

M. Farnworth: A question I have, then, is…. This report is, obviously, designed to look at the state of the system, I would expect — a review of the state of the current monitoring system in the province. Then it would inform what I would suspect would be the areas you’re trying to address, the issues that you’re trying to address in going out to a new RFP for a new system to be in place.

Why wouldn’t the minister release that report to the public so we can get an understanding of the nature of the problem that we’re trying to address in the RFP that’s going out?

[1445]

Hon. S. Anton: I just want to make a qualification on an answer I gave a moment ago about the release of the report. I’m informed there is third-party security information from other law enforcement agencies in the report and that the report would need to be severed for safety and security reasons. So it may not be that the whole report will be available, at the end of the day.

I’m going to come back with an answer to the previous question in a moment.

British Columbia was actually one of the first jurisdictions to have the electronic monitoring, so I think it’s safe to say that the system that we have now is out of date — although it still works. It works within its specifications, but there are much more state-of-the-art solutions. The goal in the report was to identify features in other jurisdictions to see what worked in other jurisdictions and to inform us as to what would be most useful to us here in British Columbia.

The current contract. It so happens that the timing around this made the issue reasonably manageable in that the current contract actually expires this July — July 2015. So we are in a position now to find a new provider starting in July.

I would like to add one thing, though, which is that these systems can be very effective. They don’t necessarily always stop someone who is determined to commit a crime. It’s a tool amongst many, but it is not foolproof if someone is determined to do wrong.

[1450]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I guess my concern is this. I mean, it’s fine to say that we were the first to adopt this technology, but the technology has changed significantly. Many other provinces are now using the latest GPS technology, and we have been behind the eight ball for a while in terms of moving to a new technology. It took some pretty high-profile events, tragedies, to get the government to say we’re doing a review.

Now we’re saying we’re going to be going out and look-
[ Page 8393 ]
ing at the best practices. In this case, the key component appears to be GPS, as what the minister is saying. The minister has stated, around the issue of the report, not being able to release all of the report. I understand there are security issues that the minister says are important and can’t be released. But it would strike me that the issue of what is wrong with the current system, why it’s not working, would not be something that would be subject to a security severing but rather would be what would inform the RFP for new monitoring technology.

I think it’s important that we understand what the gaps are in the current system and exactly what it is that we want the new system to achieve. Given the public’s concern on this issue, rightful concern, I would like a commitment from the minister that that report will be released and that those areas that deal with the problems that we are trying to address in this new RFP that is going to be going out for a new monitoring program will, in fact, be made public.

Ideally, seeing as the minister has had it on her desk since the end of December, it would be tabled in the House before the end of this session and certainly before — let’s put it this way — the close of the ending of the House adjourning on Wednesday. I would not like…. I know the minister would never, never release a report on the Thursday afternoon on the last day of the session when the House is adjourned.

And so if the minister could offer a comment or an answer to that question, I’d appreciate it.

[1455]

Hon. S. Anton: Just to be clear, the existing system is functioning as it’s intended. There are no problems with it. It’s just that over time there are now new technologies, one of which is that the new service be GPS-enabled.

In terms of filing the report, no, I won’t be filing it the last day of the session, because it will not be released until, as I said earlier, after the RFP process is completed and the new contract is signed. That will be done before the 31st of July, which is when we need the new service.

M. Farnworth: Well, the fact that it functions, I think, is great. I don’t think that’s necessarily something that we…. I mean, let’s put it this way. My neighbour’s Edsel functions, but I wouldn’t say that that is the right vehicle for today. I think that’s the issue that’s concerning me — that we have a system and that it may function but that it’s clearly not the right system for today. Other provinces have systems that are more up to date, and we need to have that up-to-date system. I want the government to move as expeditiously on this as possible.

My question, which I still come back to, is: why does the report have to stay confidential until the RFP has been awarded and a new contract has been awarded? Particularly when what I have been asking about are the problems that you want the new system to be able to resolve, why does that have to wait until a new contract has been awarded?

Surely, you would say: “Here are the issues that were identified in the report.” I mean, it’s no different than if you were building a road, for example. Take a look at the — I don’t know — the Port Mann Bridge or, in my own case, in my riding when we were government, there was a Bailey bridge. You would say: “It doesn’t work. It doesn’t meet the requirement. It has all these particular issues. Here’s what we want to do, and here’s what we require to be in place.”

Surely, you would want to be able to say to the public: “We’ve had this review. It’s identified a half-dozen key problems. Here’s what those problems are, and here’s how we intend to have the new system deal with it. We’re putting out an RFP so that we get a new system that can deal with problems A, B, C and D. And those are requirements.”

That way the public has some confidence that the government (1) has looked at the issue thoroughly in terms of identifying the problem and (2) is going to put in place a solution that will resolve those problems.

[1500]

Hon. S. Anton: The report is informing the RFP. The RFP is designed to have service providers bid and be in position to provide a new service starting at the end of July. At that time, the report can be issued, although there will be redactions. But the report can be issued at that time.

M. Farnworth: So what I get from the minister’s answer is that, no, she is not going to release the report. This is a report that this government said told the public, in response to some pretty horrific crimes that had taken place, that they were going to do a review of the monitoring system. Subsequently to that, we now find that yes, the report has been on the minister’s desk since December. But the report is only intended to inform an RFP process. That’s all well and good.

But to me a report like this…. Particularly when the ministry says, “We are doing a review,” and says publicly that “we are doing a review of a particular issue,” informing the public would also be part of that. Letting the public know would be a part of that. The government made that commitment.

I still haven’t had the answer to the question of why you cannot release the nature of the problem that you are trying to fix before the RFP goes out. I would love the minister to explain to me why you cannot do that. I get what she says about it informing the RFP process. The RFP will go out and you will say: “Hey, companies in the security monitoring system, the province of British Columbia would like to put in place a new program, and we are wanting it to meet these particular requirements, and we have these particular challenges in our system.”
[ Page 8394 ]

Why can’t you say, before that, what those challenges are? If it’s a case of she doesn’t want the public to know the depth and the nature of the problem, say so. Don’t just say, “Oh, it’s intended to inform the RFP process,” when the government made an announcement back in October that there was a review being done. People take from that: “Government’s looking into that problem. We’re going to know what’s going on.” Right now people don’t.

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: The question was: what is the nature of the problem we are fixing? The answer is this. The electronic monitoring which we have right now is designed to monitor curfews and to see whether people are at home. That’s what it can do.

The enhanced monitoring of high-risk offenders, which is what we will be going out with now, on the new contract, does allow a broader supervision of individuals who are being monitored because it will have GPS features that will enable the system to know where people are. It’s a completely different system than the previous system.

That’s the problem that we are fixing.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister’s answer, and I look forward to seeing that report released. I expect it will be, I would hope, more in depth. But for now that is a start.

We can move on to the next issue, which hopefully, the minister can shed light on. I know it’s one that is annoying an awful lot of people.

This is a letter, and it is about fingerprinting. It is from an individual, and they write:

“I have the misfortunate of sharing the same birth date and gender as a sex offender. Since I am a teacher, the Ministry of Justice ordered me to have a fingerprint check to confirm my identity and ensure my innocence. Failure to submit to this check would result in an incomplete record check for me, disallowing me from teaching.

“I am writing to protest the method of this vulnerable sector check. I believe the Ministry of Justice is unfair in having teachers fingerprinted and charging teachers for fingerprinting for several reasons. First, my rights were violated. I was ordered to surrender my fingerprints to prove my innocence, although I have not been charged with any crime. I am assured that my digital fingerprints will be destroyed after 90 days, but who is ensuring that will happen?

“Second, not only are my rights violated, but I’m required to pay for the violation. Although I spent an hour at the detachment, I used less than five minutes of staff time, and for that, I was arbitrarily charged $92.50.”

It goes on. The basic question is this, to the minister: why is it that law-abiding citizens who have not been convicted of any crime — have committed no crime, in fact — have to be charged to be fingerprinted to prove they are not a sex offender or a sexual predator? Volunteers do not have to pay. Can the minister tell the thousands of British Columbians who suffer this injustice why it is that they have to pay to prove their innocence of something that they are completely not guilty of?

[1510]

Hon. S. Anton: I’m just doing a couple more checks to give a more complete answer, but I’ll take a start right now. In November 2013…. I know the member doesn’t mind going back over things in the past year, so I will remind the member that in November 2013 this government brought in the change, which was extremely appreciated throughout the volunteer sector, of allowing volunteers to receive their criminal records checks for free.

The member may know that I’m in politics because of being a soccer mother. I know what a challenge it was at first for clubs to have all their coaches and everybody trek down, pay money, get their criminal records checks and assemble all that information — a huge amount of work.

The system is vastly simpler now. It can be done on line through a service we offer in government. The teams, the organizations, the non-profits — whatever sector they’re in — can accumulate the criminal records as needed and do all that work.

The complication which is being mentioned in the e-mail is when you have the same name and birthday as a convicted sex offender. The requirement for the additional fingerprinting and confirmation that you are in fact an innocent teacher, not a convicted person, actually has come through the federal government, which is making that requirement. As to the fee, the $92.50 — generally in a teacher’s case, an employer, one might think, would pay that. But I don’t want to speculate too much, and I don’t know the individual circumstances of this teacher. But it is an expense that some employers do cover, at least.

M. Farnworth: The reality is it’s not just teachers. It is doctors. It is everybody. They’re charged $92.50, which again comes down to: does the minister not think it’s unfair that volunteers don’t have to pay?

[1515]

If there’s a requirement, why should someone who is innocent have to pay?

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’m going to have to get back to the member with a more complete answer on this because I just don’t have all the details at hand. What I can say is that volunteers are free. Doctors, nurses, teachers, anybody else who deals with vulnerable persons and who needs to get a fingerprint check — they do pay now.

The additional requirement of the fingerprinting, of going down to the police station and getting a fingerprint check — that is a requirement of the federal government. So it’s not a provincial piece. It’s a federal piece. I do believe, but I’m going to confirm, that that amount varies from police department to police department.

M. Farnworth: That’s the point. It’s like there are requirements at the provincial level. So you’re going down
[ Page 8395 ]
and paying to get your fingerprints done. Then there’s a federal requirement if you are the same name, birth date or whatever to, let’s say, a sex offender. So why on earth should you have to go through this twice? Why would you have to go through it twice? That just doesn’t make sense. Talk about a duplication; that’s an unnecessary duplication.

I can see the minister looking at the clock, but I can tell the minister we’re going to be here for a little while longer.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

M. Farnworth: I’m not commenting on your absence or presence. That’s pretty clear. I just noticed that you looked at the clock, and I looked at the clock. I’m just confirming that we are going to be here for some time yet.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m going to suggest a break.

M. Farnworth: That is fine. I don’t have a problem with you having a break. We can have a break.

Anyway, the question is really simple. It’s like: why on earth should you have to pay twice? It’s not fair. More importantly, even if you were paying twice, why on earth would you pay one price at one police department and a different price at another police department? That just makes no sense.

I think the minister needs to realize there are real problems with this that cause a real inconvenience to individuals. I’m glad that the minister seems seized of this particular issue. But I’d like a response.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says: “She’s got her finger on it.” Well, I hope so, because, quite frankly, it is inconveniencing an awful lot of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong and are being charged to prove that they are not a sex offender.

They’re being charged arbitrary sums of money that vary across the province, and that’s not right. Just as importantly, if there is a requirement that it has to be done, then surely to God, once is enough — and not have to have it duplicated.

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: It is the case — I can only repeat what I’ve said already — that when people share the same name and birthday, they do need to establish that they are not that person.

It may seem a little hard. But public safety does require that we determine that people who deal with the vulnerable sector — children and others — have records, or lack of records, probably, that make it appropriate for the appropriate person to be able to deal with the vulnerable sector.

The amounts may be different. Yes, they may, because police departments around British Columbia may charge different amounts. It’s up to the local police department. That is how the system works.

I wonder if this would be a good time to take a short break.

The Chair: The committee stands in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

C. Trevena: I’ll continue after this break to ask the minister about the fingerprinting issue, having had discussion with a constituent of mine who, like the member for Port Coquitlam’s constituent, has been undergoing the finger-printing at a charge to himself. We’ve been having discussion whether it would be a Charter issue or some class action suit because of the discriminatory nature.

I’d like to read the letter that he wrote to the minister, just in case he didn’t have the opportunity to read it and was just maybe briefed on it — from this constituent, saying:

“To the minister:

“Recently I received a letter from the Ministry of Justice criminal record review program informing me that because my name, birthdate and gender were similar to a registered or pardoned sex offender, I’m required to undergo finger-printing to verify my identity.”

“The letter states:” — and he quotes — “‘The VS check is a national RCMP policy and requires the recipient of this letter, who happened to have a similar combination of name and/or date of birth and/or gender as that of a pardoned/suspended sex offender, to undergo finger-printing to verify their identity. The vast majority of those finger-printed will not have a pardoned/suspended sexual offence.’”

He continues, this constituent:

“I’m quite displeased that because my name, date of birth and gender are similar to a pardoned or suspended sexual offender, the onus is on me to provide my identity and to have to pay a $25 tax to do so” — which goes to the case that it is a different cost in different jurisdictions.

“I am not now nor have I ever been a sexual offender, and for the government to tax me to pay for gathering information that you, not I, need is offensive. Because I have a teaching certificate, I’m required to undergo finger-printing to keep it. There is a strong element of coercion involved here as well.

[1540]

“In our system one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under this regime I have been assumed to be guilty of committing a sexual offence, and the onus and the cost have been put upon me to prove otherwise. I believe that if it is important enough to the Ministry of Justice to require my fingerprints to prove my identity, then the Ministry of Justice should bear the entire cost of
[ Page 8396 ]
this process — unless, of course, I was one of the people that this system is designed to track.

“I’ve been informed the RCMP does about 10,000 of these checks every month, resulting in a tax of approximately $250,000 a month or $3 million each year.”

The minister says that there’s nothing she can do about it, that while this may be a great inconvenience, that it is actually very difficult for these people who are trying to prove they are who they are, that they just happen to have the date of birth and/or name of someone who may or may not have been pardoned or serving a sentence for a sexual offence, it is really not her responsibility.

As I say, if this isn’t a Charter issue, I would be surprised. The minister keeps saying that it is an issue of the federal government. It comes back to the RCMP federally, and it is a federal issue. Therefore, I wondered if I could ask the minister whether she’s addressing this with her federal counterparts to ensure that British Columbians who happen to have coincidental names or dates of birth don’t have to go through this indignity just to be able to do their jobs.

Hon. S. Anton: I just go back to what I said a little while ago about the volunteer sector being able to do it for free and on line.

Now, I don’t know. Perhaps the member never was a coach or never worked in the volunteer sector or never managed volunteers. But I can tell you — taking my own experience — that when every single person in a soccer organization…. You had 1,000 kids. You probably had 200 volunteers. Every single one of them had to go down to the police station and pay money — in my case, to the Vancouver police department. It was more than $25. Every single person had to do that. That was very inconvenient.

The inconvenience has been vastly reduced. I appreciate that it is inconvenient to the people who still have to go down. It is inconvenient for those people, and it is unfortunate that they have to do it. But this is a reality of our modern life, which is that we do require individuals working with the vulnerable sector and children, as a public safety matter, to have clean criminal histories. Sometimes, when their information overlaps with that of a sex offender, then they do need to go down and file this special request and give their fingerprint and determine they are not the sexual offender.

[1545]

Once that information is in our system for volunteers, we do not require people to do it a second time. They need to do it once, but they don’t need to do it a second time. So yes, it’s inconvenient, but it is a requirement of what we do in modern times. And I’ll just repeat that the extreme convenience which is now in place cannot be overstated.

I’d suggest that the member go around to volunteer organizations in her community and ask them how pleased they are with the new system and whether they’d like to go back to the old one. I can guarantee you that it will be a resounding “yes” and thanks to government for making those changes.

M. Farnworth: Where to start in response to that response?

We’re not talking about volunteers. You know, the minister can say: “You can go on line, and you don’t have to pay.” And that’s great. We’re talking about people who are having to pay right now. We’re talking about a system in which people are being penalized, and people are having to pay. Not only that, what they’re being asked to pay is arbitrary.

It’s pretty clear that the minister is not raising this issue with the federal government. It’s pretty clear that the minister is quite happy. In fact, she thinks it’s absolutely wonderful right now, the way the system is. That people are inconvenienced is just too bad, as far as the minister is concerned.

Let me ask this question of the minister: does she not think it’s unfair that the fee, if there is a fee that is going to be charged, is in fact arbitrary? It will be X amount of dollars in detachment A, and it will be X amount of dollars in detachment B. Does the minister not think that if you’re going to have a fee, it should be a standard fee? Does she not think that it should be a standard fee, if you’re going to have a fee?

Hon. S. Anton: Not only can volunteers register on line but so can staff. If you are nurses, doctors, dentists, teachers…. They could all go on line now and register. It used to be they all had to go down to the police station and pay a fee. They still pay a fee. Volunteers do not pay a fee. Other persons do pay a fee.

There is a fee for everybody who is not a volunteer. It is a fee. I hate to break that to the member. I know he’ll be vastly disappointed with that truth, but it is the truth. When your information matches that of a sex offender, you do have to go down. It is unfortunate, it is annoying, but it is certainly not arbitrary.

[1550]

Those fees — as I have said about four times, but I’ll say it again — are set by the local police force. Vancouver police department will have a charge. Surrey police will charge, probably, something different. I don’t know if the RCMP has a uniform charge or not. But individual municipal police departments will set their own charges. If the member has a question about that, he should probably address that to the local police boards, because I imagine that’s where those fees are set.

M. Farnworth: Then perhaps the minister can tell us: why did the provincial government, a number of years ago, make it all the same fee across the province?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a fascinating discussion. I’m not sure how it relates to my budget this year, but in any
[ Page 8397 ]
event, the fee for a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, etc. is $28 on line. They don’t have to go down to the police station. But if they do need a fingerprint check, they do need to go to the police station, and the police will charge them.

M. Farnworth: I’ll tell you how it relates to the budget estimates. If the minister has not figured out that her role in this entire estimates process is not just…. I’ll repeat it, because clearly she hasn’t learnt it yet. A budget estimates process is not only about the budgets being spent this year but about issues under her administrative responsibility. I’m more than happy to repeat that message as many times as it’s going to take for the minister to understand that.

Let’s be clear. Those decisions in terms of fees are there because of financial decisions going to policing forces, decisions made by this minister’s budget-making process. So when you see cuts, such as to E-PANA, police departments are going to look for ways in which they can raise additional revenue. By increasing fees in this case, this being one of them…. That’s one to make up for budget decisions that the government has made over the years. That’s how it applies to the budget.

In this province there used to be a standard fee. I would think that in just the very basic issue of fairness…. The minister likes to keep going back to volunteers. We’re talking about people who have to pay. If it’s good enough for volunteers, that there are no fees charged for them, why should other people, just as it’s a condition of their employment, have to pay as well?

Even if you did have to pay, it should be the same across the province, if it’s a requirement for fingerprinting. It’s not some different process. There’s not some special ink in Surrey and a different type of ink in Vancouver that’s used. There’s not some different type of technology that’s used in one department as opposed to another. There should be a standard fee in place. There used to be. There isn’t.

I’ll ask this last question, and then we can move on. Clearly, they’re not going to get rid of the fee for anybody. Does the minister have any plans, then, to ensure that there is a standard fee across the province?

Hon. S. Anton: I must say I’m enjoying this line of questioning, because I get to say once again how extraordinarily convenient it is now that the vast majority of people who need to have their criminal records checked can do it on line through the service offered in the provincial government. It’s $28, a uniform fee — $28 if you’re a doctor, a nurse, teacher or anybody working with the vulnerable sector.

[1555]

If you are a volunteer, it’s free. Not only that, but your club, your organization, your volunteer organization, can submit all the names and birthdates in one batch and get the information back. It is remarkably easy now, compared to what it used to be.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: I know that the member laughs when I say that her volunteer organizations would appreciate it, but maybe she never talks to her volunteer organizations. I do, and I can tell you that they are thrilled with this change. In fact, people come up to me quite often, because they know I’ve worked in the volunteer sector, and thank me for it, and they thank government for it, because it is so much easier than it used to be.

In terms of the fee for fingerprints, I’m informed that RCMP detachments charge $25. If the member would like to go talk to any municipal forces in his neighbourhood, he is quite welcome to go down and have that conversation with them.

M. Farnworth: That’s why we’re raising it here, because people are paying $92 and people are paying different fees, and that’s not fair.

We’re not talking about volunteers, which I know seems to be the minister’s standard excuse to try and avoid an issue — which the minister knows full well, as do many of her colleagues sitting around this table, is a real irritant for many people. She can sit there all smug and happy all she wants, but the bottom line is this. It’s not trying to say that it’s all about….

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. Farnworth: I have the floor. If the minister wishes to engage in debate, she can take her rightful place.

So the point is this. There’s an issue of fairness here. We have raised it. Clearly, the minister does not seem too concerned about that. The concerns that have been raised by people in some of the letters that we have raised are basically dismissed, and that’s unfortunate.

In the past in this province there was a standard fee that was put in place. That has changed over time. And again, that’s unfortunate because people should be treated fairly. And unfortunately, the minister is quite happy with the way things are, and that’s as may be.

At this particular point, I’d like to move on to another issue, and that concerns events in Surrey and commitments that the minister has made in Surrey around programs and funding and the addition of new police.

The minister has stated that she has requested that there be an expedited process to see the addition of, I think, 100 new RCMP officers into Surrey. So I’d be interested if the minister could tell us how she plans to see those 100 RCMP officers expedited into Surrey, and when will they all be there?

Hon. S. Anton: Surrey has made two recent requests for more officers. One was for 30 officers. Actually, that
[ Page 8398 ]
request was made some months ago. I can get the exact date. And then more recently they have requested an additional 100 officers, for a total of 130.

This request has been signed off by myself and gone to the Federal Public Safety Minister. I’ve spoken to the Federal Public Safety Minister, and I’ve also, as a matter of fact, watched his public commitment in a television interview. He has told me and he has told the public that he is committed to working with the RCMP training Depot to have officers moved through to Surrey as much as is practicable.

There are, of course, demands on those officers from across the country, but he has publicly committed to ensuring that they come to Surrey as quickly as that can possibly be made to happen.

M. Farnworth: Well, the minister said: “Expedited.” So that means that they are going to be, one would expect, rushed here. Clearly, the minister seems to say that this is a priority. But there are some issues, then, if we’re going to see officers expedited here. The minister must have some idea of how this expedited process is going to work.

[1600]

Can the minister tell us: is there going to be an increase in the number of spaces at Depot? Is that how the process is going to be expedited?

Hon. S. Anton: I’m going to respectfully disagree with the word “rushed.” I don’t think that’s a word that anyone has used, but the federal minister has said that he is asking Depot to make it a priority that officers be assigned here. My head of police services is on the contract management committee and as part of that committee does talk regularly with federal authorities, again, to see how quickly they can fill those positions.

There’s no question that 130 positions is a fairly high demand on Depot. There are 920 cadets a year, and they go all across the country.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer. I think that last number she gave is the most telling number of all: 920.

The minister takes issue with the term “expedited” and me saying “rushed.” Well, the fact of the matter is that if you ask most people, when they hear something is being expedited, it means being moved through very quickly. Expedited means we’re dealing with it right away.

Here’s where I think the minister needs to be upfront with the people of Surrey. Depot produces 920 recruits a year. We are in competition with other provinces whose needs are just as pressing as Surrey’s and, in fact, other communities whose needs are just as pressing as other communities’ in the province of British Columbia.

So when the minister says that we want 100, and it’s now up to 130, coming to British Columbia, what timeline is she planning on in terms of those officers arriving here? And how does she explain to other communities who also have.... I’ll use Abbotsford, for example, which has significant gang problems, or the Tri-Cities, which have significant concerns.

[1605]

How does she square their need for additional officers with the expedited — if the minister doesn’t like the term “rushed…”? Somehow they are going to get the officers and at the same time be in competition with all the other provinces in Canada that also require RCMP members. You’re not increasing the supply. It’s still 920. So what’s the actual timeline the minister is looking at? She must have some idea of what that timeline is going to be.

Hon. S. Anton: I know the member likes to keep saying that everything in the world relates to my budget. In fact, it doesn’t. Although he likes to stand up and scold and say it’s open to everything, it’s not. I just remind the Chair that these questions do need to relate to the budget.

The word I used was “priority.” I would remind the member that Abbotsford has a municipal police department, so they are masters of their own fate. There’s no question that the priority need for officers is one that has been acknowledged by the federal Public Safety minister, but it is challenging. There’s no question. It’s challenging.

M. Farnworth: I’d like to remind the minister. She’s more than happy to stand up at a press conference and say we’re going to push to expedite the arrival of RCMP officers to Surrey. She’s more than happy to spend ministry resources on a press conference to stand up in front of the public for a 15-second sound bite on Global News, saying that we are doing something about the crime issue in Surrey. So, Minister, those questions are more than in order. If she doesn’t like the fact that I keep reminding her of that, well, guess what. I’ll keep doing it until she understands that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Exactly that, Minister.

Until the minister understands that legitimate questions are being asked by people who have concerns, communities that have concerns, particularly when the minister says that they are bringing in 100 officers, expedited.

The reality is this. We want to see all communities looked after. Yes, Abbotsford hires its own police forces, but they also participate in integrated programs as well.

So my question to the minister, which she still hasn’t answered, is this: what is the timeline for those new officers that she wants on the ground in Surrey? Perhaps she could also tell us what she would expect an expedited timeline to be.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’ve answered the question. I have raised this, obviously, with the federal minister. The federal minister has made a commitment to work with Depot to make these positions in Surrey a priority. There is no question that Surrey — we’ve canvassed this already in estimates — is in a tough situation at the moment. They want more police officers. They have many shootings in the city. They’ve got gangs operating, and it’s causing a great disturbance in the community.

In my conversation with the federal minister, he has committed to me that he will make these positions a priority. He has made a public commitment of that. The contract between us and the federal government says that the positions must be filled within 12 months. There are 920 recruits a year. We get about a third of them that come to British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: The minister is saying 12 months, that the contract says the positions must be filled in 12 months, but you also have to do the training at the Depot. The fact is that you have a number of RCMP officers who over the course of a year retire, right? So you’re not just trying to add your additional 100 new officers to meet the demand in growth that’s taking place, but you’ve also got to deal with the number of officers who are retiring.

When the minister says expedited.... I know the minister likes to think this has already been discussed in estimates. The fact is that we have yet to hear from this minister what a reasonable timeline is. In what timeline can the people of Surrey expect to see the full new 100 officers on the ground in Surrey? Will they all be in place this time next year? Will it be two years? Or will it be four years?

When you make that commitment to the people of Surrey, they expect some sort of idea of exactly when that will be, and we have yet to hear that from the minister. All we’ve heard is that within 12 months the positions are to be filled.

Well, the fact is you’ve committed to 100 new, and that’s over and above the existing number of officers in Surrey.

Hon. S. Anton: Just to give a bigger context. Requests routinely go through from municipalities to me to the federal government. They want more officers in Kelowna or Kamloops or Prince George or around British Columbia. This request from Surrey is different. It’s different in two ways. One is it’s different because it’s a very large request. The other is it’s different because there’s an urgency to it.

[1615]

There’s no question that all of my team, myself and the federal Public Safety Minister are working hard to address that urgency. When will they come? They need to come within a year. That’s what the contract says. Will they come fairly quickly? The federal minister is committed to working with Depot with that. My team is working with the contract management committee with that.

I cannot guarantee a date when they will come, but what I can tell the member is that there is an urgency in this situation. Everybody is working hard to make sure that Surrey gets additional officers.

M. Farnworth: I just want to be really clear with the minister. Over and above everything else that’s happening, the request is in. Is it the minister’s expectation that those 130 officers…? The contract says a year. Will that contract be honoured and those new members be on the ground in Surrey this time next year?

Hon. S. Anton: We will continue working with the federal government to ensure that that happens. It is ultimately up to them to provide the recruits. But there is no question, as I’ve said several times already, that the federal Public Safety Minister is committed to making it happen, and it’s being treated as a priority by myself and by our team, which works with the federal Public Safety department.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us if she has a contingency plan if they don’t meet the contract?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s a hypothetical question. There are obligations under the contract, and we do expect them to be fulfilled.

M. Farnworth: It’s not really a hypothetical question. It’s actually a realistic question, particularly when the minister has stated that only 920 recruits go through Depot, and that goes right across the country. The minister then says: “We are making this a priority, and we’re working with the federal government to make it happen.” Then the minister states that we have a contract in place.

In any organization, when you have a contract, asking what happens if the contract is not met is not a hypothetical question.

Are there penalties in place if the contract is not met? Perhaps the minister could answer that question. If the contract is not met, are there penalties for failing to meet the contract the province has regarding police services with the federal government and the RCMP?

Hon. S. Anton: I do not think a hypothetical question has any relationship whatsoever to the budget, to vote 32.

The Chair: Member, I think you’ve been canvassing this quite nicely now for quite a period of time, and I’d like you to look at moving along. Thanks.

M. Farnworth: My questions are to the minister, and we’re going to canvass the issues that I believe are important in the estimates of the Ministry of Justice as they re-
[ Page 8400 ]
late to policing, particularly since this minister has spent taxpayers’ resources attending announcements where commitments have been made to the public in Surrey. So I have been asking questions in that vein. The minister may not think that those don’t apply to her budget, but they do.

[1620]

I’ll ask a direct question on a slightly different topic but relating to this issue. Can the minister tell us how much has been spent on communications material related to announcements made on policing in Surrey? Perhaps she could tell us how much her travel costs were to attend events in Surrey and whether they came out of last year’s budget or whether they come out of this year’s budget.

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I’m struggling to put this information together. It is possible I may have to correct myself, and if I do, I will do that with the member. But I have not been to Surrey this fiscal year, April. I’ve certainly had telephone conversations. I’d say they were pretty minimal costs, if not zero, according to our plans. I’ve had people meet me here.

The price of the Global TV interview that was quoted — I’d say that would be priceless. But in terms of actual costs, government communications is a different budget. These were not high-cost items. This is working with the federal minister. Phone calls, meetings in my office — not a very high cost out of my budget this year, but the result, we hope, will be a good one.

M. Farnworth: It doesn’t matter how much money you’re spending, hon. Minister. The fact is that resources are spent, whether it’s $1 or $10 or staff time — whatever.

The minister is trying to avoid answering questions by trying to say that the questions don’t relate to “her budget.” As she’s been told many times, they are areas under her administrative responsibility.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Actually, I’m sorry, hon. Member.

She can mutter all she wants, but that’s the practice of this House, and if she doesn’t understand that by now, I really have to question why she’s sitting there.

[1625]

The issue is quite simple. I asked a basic question. We have a contract with the RCMP. The minister has said that the terms of the contract are that the requests have to be filled within 12 months. I asked a simple question: what are the consequences for failure to meet that 12-month requirement in the contract? If the answer is that there are no consequences, then just say that. But that contract is an area of her administrative responsibility, which her ministry is involved in. The question is really simple. Are there consequences for failing to meet that target?

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I actually think it’s for you to say what the practice of this House is, not for the member. It’s very clear, looking back over past history, that it’s definitely the practice of this House that the questions should relate to the budget. There’s no question about that. The questions need to relate to the budget. The member may not like that. He may not agree with it, but it is in fact true.

In terms of if the federal government fails to meet the contract, there is a dispute resolution process. It is not one that we have invoked or has been invoked in the past, but there is a process there.

M. Farnworth: If the expedited officers don’t arrive here within the 12 months, which the contract has required, will the minister be invoking the dispute resolution component of the contract?

Hon. S. Anton: Once again, it’s a hypothetical question. And Chair, you might help out here that hypothetical questions are not in order.

However, I will say — as I’ve said quite a few times, and I’ll say it again — that we will be working closely with the federal minister, with the RCMP through our contract management committee, to get officers to Surrey as quickly as we can and, indeed, to other places in British Columbia where they’re needed.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

S. Hammell: When there is a crisis in the community, and I would assume that most of us would think that…. Since March 9 there have been 30 shootings in my community — many of them, actually, in my constituency.

My question is to the minister. When there is obviously a need for more resources in a community due to a crisis, is there an ability through the contractor, the relationship you have with the RCMP, to second officers from other parts of the province to bolster or bring up the numbers in a community when it is in crisis?

[1630]

Hon. S. Anton: There is no question that the issues in the member’s riding have been extremely distressing to the city of Surrey, to the residents of Surrey and, I’m sure, to the residents of her riding. There have been a great number of shootings, there has been a death, and there is ongoing uncertainty and distress in the city.

The question was: do we second officers? Generally not from detachment to detachment, but I will observe again that the CFSEU, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, is a provincial resource, so it’s not paid for by Surrey. It’s paid for out of the provincial budget. Those officers are extremely active in assisting the Surrey police detachment and the Delta municipal detachment, helping out and working closely with those two departments to resolve the matters which are ongoing in Surrey
[ Page 8401 ]
and Delta at the moment.

I cannot quantify how many there are, but I can say that it is a significant commitment by CFSEU to be there and to resolve these issues.

S. Hammell: I understand that’s a no, because the integrated forces are an existing unit, and that is not necessarily taking more resources from another area. It’s a provincial resource that is there to be used when needed.

To the minister, I have another question that has actually come through me. People have tried to answer it for me, but I would like to put it to you. It seems that the consequence of all this behaviour is that there have been 40 vehicles speed away from the police, and the police are completely unable to stop that behaviour. They cannot, from what I understand, engage in a high-speed chase — and for good reason. But if you have the situation where cars are speeding through a community, how...? Has the minister had any sort of brainstorming or answers or solutions? How does a community deal with this kind of erratic, unwanted behaviour when you can’t stop them from doing it?

[1635]

Hon. S. Anton: There is a pursuit policy. Pursuant to that policy, there is a certain type of crime which the police will pursue for, and there are others that they will not. If there are vehicles speeding away, I must presume that the police are reacting according to their policy.

If the member would like more information on that, she can just give me the nod, and we can give her more information through my office. That’s a yes. So we will provide the member with more information.

B. Ralston: I have a separate question on a different topic.

In 2009 I tabled a private member’s bill entitled Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act. In 2013, coincidentally, I’m sure, right before the election, the provincial government and the Legislature passed the Community Safety Act. The purpose of both of the acts….

At that time the minister did give some credit to my private member’s bill. The bill was modelled on legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that provides a series of legal methods to shut down houses, typically in residential areas, which are the subject of ongoing criminal activity, such as crack shacks, brothels, marijuana grow ops, where the landlord has completely failed in their duty to regulate, take account or deal with problem tenants.

The legislation was passed in 2013. In a recent story in the Province newspaper, arising out of an incident in Chilliwack — I think that’s the member for Chilliwack-Hope’s riding — there was an inquiry by these people faced with a very similar problem, a problem with residents in their neighbourhood, an ongoing series of basically complaints, criminal activity and other just general community nuisance.

There was an inquiry about the existence of the Community Safety Act and what steps had been taken to implement a provincial unit that would use these legal tools that the act provides. Apparently, the report was that the unit has never been created. There are no plans to do it, and that was the answer that was forthcoming.

Can the minister explain whether there are any plans to implement the legislation that is on the books that would provide a different set of legal tools?

Since a lot of this gang activity is driven by the drug trade, these particular entrepôts, if I can put it that way, or residences from which drugs are sold, are an integral link in the chain of drug trafficking. This is another set of potential legal tools that could be used to shut these operations down and, therefore, shut down the drug trade to some degree and indirectly reduce ongoing criminal activity. It’s an effective legislative tool. The minister at the time the legislation was introduced said as much.

Can the minister explain why this legislation hasn’t been implemented? Or if there are plans to do so within the budget year and within the confines of the vote that’s before the House, can she please explain so?

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: The Community Safety Act was indeed passed in 2013, and we have not had the funding to implement it. But what I will say is that there are other things that can help out communities. I know where the question is coming from, because it can be extremely frustrating to communities to have what we would call a problem house.

Certainly, municipalities can and do enforce their own bylaws. In terms of policing, we do forfeit houses through the civil forfeiture program. These are drug houses. I just had to check how many of them are drug houses. They are always drug houses. So if there are grow ops and the police do an investigation which is referred to the civil forfeiture program, many of those houses are forfeited because of them being used as grow-op houses.

There are other tools out there, some very effective tools. Does that take care of every problem house? Probably not. But there are definitely some effective tools that are available.

B. Ralston: I’m just recalling what the minister said at the time: that she envisaged it would be a very effective legal tool, and she was looking forward to implementing it right away.

The only comment I would say is that it was envisaged, as I understood it, that this unit would be housed together with the civil forfeiture office because they are similar sources of information and similar problems — simply adding a range of legal tools to advance community safety and neighbourhood safety, and make a dent in
[ Page 8402 ]
the drug trade.

It’s regrettable that the government hasn’t found the funds to advance this, particularly since it could be housed within the civil forfeiture office. Maybe add a desk or two and begin that way.

Can the minister explain whether there are any plans in the current budget year to begin the implementation of this legislation, which is on the books?

Hon. S. Anton: There are none.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister, then, tell us why government would pass a piece of legislation and lead the public to expect that it’s going to be funded and then subsequently not supply any funding for that particular piece of legislation?

[1645]

Hon. S. Anton: Estimates is not a forum for debate of legislation. I’ve answered the question.

B. Ralston: The answer’s very clear. I’m sure my constituents will be interested in hearing that answer.

I want to move down to a different topic. My colleagues, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and the member for Surrey-Newton, have, over the last year and a half, met with senior police officers of various jurisdictions.

One of the issues that has arisen is the effectiveness of school liaison officers, since criminal intelligence is a really important way in which investigations are launched and then crimes are solved. One police officer said to us that they were a very, very effective way of gathering criminal intelligence and knowledge of criminal networks and really helpful in solving crimes.

In Delta there is a police community liaison officer in each high school. There are five liaison officers; there are five high schools. In Surrey there are 18 secondary schools — that doesn’t include learning centres — and there are ten liaison officers. I believe, in private conversation, the indication has been that Surrey would welcome the opportunity to fund more school liaison officers, for the reasons that I’ve said.

Is there any money in the budget…? The minister has spoken of some of the provincially funded joint task forces. Given the efficacy of this resource, is there any plan in the coming budget year, within the confines of the vote, to fund further school liaison officers for the reasons that I’ve said?

Hon. S. Anton: If the question is additional funding, the answer is no. But if the question, looked at slightly differently…. As the new officers come into Surrey, the officer in charge may choose to deploy them into schools. The member is, of course, quite right that it is very effective and appreciated to have liaison officers in the schools.

I should add as well that there is a provincial resource which is being used — namely, again, the CFSEU. They have an End Gang Life program. I hope the members have had a chance to look at the new videos and the new posters, because they’re pretty graphic and striking. Their program is directed at youth, with the goal of increasing awareness amongst youth and their families and their loved ones as to the dangers to youth of gang life.

S. Hammell: There is a paper called "Death by a Thousand Cuts." The Chair may know of it. It is the Abbotsford police department’s multi-dimensional gang suppression, a document describing their activity when they had a serious gang situation in Abbotsford.

The interesting aspect of "Death by a Thousand Cuts" is that it is not one thing that ensures that a community can deal with gang activity. It’s a number of activities that are ongoing over time. So some of these activities are…. I’ll just name a number of them, because I’d like the minister to tell me which areas her ministry and her budget would either contribute to or be responsible for.

One of them is enforcement tactics to disrupt gang activity. Also, community engagement to limit gangster access to services, restaurants and retail outlets; prevention programs to limit recruitment of youth into gangs; parent support programs in partnership with community agencies; proactive interventions; and extensive public awareness with ongoing media support.

[1650]

When you have a program that is attacking a problem from a number of aspects, your results appear to be significantly better. Is the ministry or the minister responsible or involved in any of these aspects?

Hon. S. Anton: I agree with the member that problems like the ones Surrey is facing at the moment do need to be approached from many different angles. The ones that the member is mentioning here are police strategies to disrupt gangs. The CFSEU is a provincial unit paid for out of the provincial budget, in terms of resources. I have no doubt that they will be employing many of these strategies.

At the same time, there are many different things that are going on. There’s policing. There’s the request for more officers. There’s community engagement, and the forum that happened a couple of weeks ago showed the significant interest of the community. The CFSEU has the End Gang Life program and, of course, their regular policing.

The civil forfeiture program has given out $3.2 million in grants in British Columbia and $1.1 million over the last four years in civil forfeiture grants to local anti-violence and crime prevention programs in Surrey, including more than $318,000 this year.

The Wrap program is receiving $270,000 in funding through civil forfeiture — perhaps not entirely through
[ Page 8403 ]
civil forfeiture. But they are receiving provincial funds of $270,000 to serve youth who are at risk of going into gang activity.

There are school liaison officers, of course, and there are local programs run by Surrey itself.

The member is right: this needs to be approached from a number of different angles. Certainly the city of Surrey, working together with Surrey RCMP and working with these provincial resources that I have discussed — all are working hard to end this plague of gunfire that is going on in Surrey at the moment. Everybody is determined that it must end.

S. Hammell: One of the difficulties appears to be the lack of sustainability of any programs over a long period of time. One or two of the key pieces that I would think the minister may have some responsibility for through her budget are the prevention programs to limit recruitment of youth into gangs. In Abbotsford their program was quite extensive — a lot of meetings with not only the high schools, the middle schools and the elementary schools but, as well, engaging community partners.

My difficulty with the approach that appears to be taken at the ministry level is that these are fleeting programs that are not built in any way into a sustainable budget so that the money can be counted on and spent year after year, delivering a program that is effective in prevention.

Has the minister any plans to make any of these programs long term and more sustainable?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the provincial budget, the CFSEU, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, is ongoing funding. Certainly, the End Gang Life program is ongoing, and I expect it to continue. It would be nice if we didn’t have to keep suggesting to people that they should end their gang life, but that may have to go on.

The school liaison officers are an ongoing RCMP or municipal police force initiative in British Columbia. I expect that they will be there indefinitely. The project grants, the more one-time-funding ones, are the grants that come through the civil forfeiture program. They are project grants.

H. Bains: I’ve been sitting here listening yesterday and today. The minister has listed all kinds of programs — the initiatives, the resources. Can the minister tell us: what are the outcomes of all of those efforts?

Hon. S. Anton: The outcome in Surrey, of course, is to end the gunshots, the injuries, to have no more homicides. That is the outcome that we’re seeking. I would say that overall in British Columbia, the crime rate is dropping. Crime severity is dropping. Indeed in Surrey….

[1700]

Now, that’s not much comfort when you are faced with gunshots in your neighbourhood. There’s no question that what is going on in Surrey is causing extreme distress and worry to citizens in Surrey, so the desired outcome is that this come to an end.

Police certainly have faced real scourges and gang problems in Vancouver, and they managed to get a handle on it. In Abbotsford, as the member was pointing out, they managed to get a handle on it. There’s no question there are very significant policing resources going in, and approaching it from many different angles, to get a handle on what’s going on in Surrey and to bring it to an end.

H. Bains: Knowing what we know, just looking back at the experience of the last few months at least, will the minister agree that all of those programs that she listed are failing?

Hon. S. Anton: The goal of everyone involved in this issue in Surrey — the community, the city, the police, government — is to bring this to an end.

H. Bains: I think that goal was last year and the year before, but so far we’re not even close to it. My question again is to the Attorney, as chief law enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia. We are not anywhere near that goal, are we?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago, there are many entities working on this. Everyone is striving to succeed. It’s a terrible problem for Surrey. Police want to succeed. So does the city, so does the province, so do the members, and so do their communities. The members are here from Surrey. Everyone has got their shoulder to the wheel to resolve this issue.

H. Bains: My question isn’t being answered. I will try it again. The minister talked about the goal of eliminating crime, eliminating gang violence in Surrey, but we’re nowhere near. All I need is acknowledgment that we are failing the people of Surrey, because we are nowhere near that goal. Will the minister agree with me?

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’ve answered the question. I do not agree with the proposition as it’s offered.

H. Bains: So the answer is that we’re succeeding in achieving that goal. Is that what the minister is saying?

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, perhaps we could move on to another question.
[ Page 8404 ]

H. Bains: We have a serious problem in Surrey. People in Surrey are looking for leadership from the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, and the minister is not answering the question. No acknowledgment.

The paper that was put out…. Maybe I’ll draw attention to it, “Death by a Thousand Cuts.” I’m sure the Chair is familiar with it. It says this: “Tracking the crime problem required the police to publicly acknowledge that gang violence was now out of control.” Acknowledgment. It’s a serious problem. There’s no acknowledgment from anybody that there is a serious problem.

That’s the question that I have to the Attorney. Does she acknowledge that the goals that she set, and everybody else has to eliminate that crime — that we’re not anywhere near that goal?

Hon. S. Anton: As we have discussed often over the last few days, there is absolutely a serious problem in Surrey. Absolutely, there is. And everyone — the city, the police, the province, the community — is determined to bring it to a resolution.

H. Bains: Maybe the Attorney, then, can tell us: how can she measure the goal that she set — whether we are succeeding or failing? Or do we need a different direction?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, the police are determined to end this problem. The community is determined to end it. The city is determined to end it. And we as the province are determined to end it.

It is a scourge in Surrey, and it needs to end.

H. Bains: The Attorney had mentioned yesterday and today how much taxpayers’ resources are spent, and the Attorney mentioned all those resources expended in Surrey. Taxpayer-funded. I think they deserve to know whether they are getting value for their dollars.

What are the successes for investing that money in Surrey? Or are you looking at a different way of handling the problem? So far we have seen that the problem isn’t going away. There’s no end in sight either. No one is acknowledging that there is a problem, that we are failing with the approach that we have and that we need to take a different approach. No one has said that. The Attorney hasn’t said that. No one else has said that.

[1710]

I again would quote from the paper “Death by a Thousand Cuts”:

“Tackling the Abbotsford crime problem requires the police to publicly acknowledge that the gang violence was now out of control. This required a combination of courage and humility without denial or minimization of the problem, and with the recognition that this admission could put the department’s reputation at risk.”

So they looked at all of this.

“However, that combination of courage and openness enabled them to connect with significant numbers of community members in ways that would not have been possible otherwise, and the community responded positively and with shared engagement.”

It goes on to say:

“It is interesting to note that courage and humility in identifying the problem, followed by aggressive, strategic action to deal with the problem, ultimately led them to their successes and increased esteem in the eyes of the public. This was verified by a community survey in 2012 indicating overwhelming community support for the Abbotsford police.”

In brackets, the Chair’s name is listed in there.

My question, again, is to the Attorney. She listed all those resources — the provincial resources, the city resources — and we have continued problems.

I can tell the Attorney, as well…. It was suggested the community needed to cooperate. Let me suggest this to you. The community has told us — and I’ve got a number of examples and names — that they have phoned police when they see a drug deal going on in their neighbourhood. They have phoned that their mailbox is broken and left broken for days, and the mail is stolen — in almost every neighbourhood out there. No one could help them.

They have approached the police when the mail from their own homes in the front door is broken into, including a camera capturing the image — not once, not twice, dozens of times. Police are unable to deal with that because police resources, as I said earlier, are limited. They’re not able to deal with these problems. So what happens? They lead to a bigger, higher crime attraction for people to come into that area, and that’s what we are seeing.

The Attorney has said…. Those 130 officers that were promised, somehow they’re expedited. They will not be there tomorrow. They will not be there a year later. They will not be there two years later. So the problem will continue. The problem is acknowledgment and lack of resources.

Parents will also tell you that when they see their child maybe moving in a wrong direction, they have no resources and no support from anybody. They go to school. Teachers don’t have any support in how to deal with that child and put a strategy together.

From all fronts those children, those kids, are left on their own. The parents are left on their own. Then big problems, as we have described we are facing every day, and finger-pointing start. That’s not going to solve anybody’s problem. These problems will continue on unless there’s acknowledgment and we put a proper strategy and put proper resources behind prevention and dealing with today’s problem.

Can the Attorney, once again, tell us, tell the people of Surrey: what different program do you have in mind to satisfy the people of Surrey that starting from now on they will see a difference in approach, that they will see more resources coming to Surrey and that they will deal with the crime issue in Surrey once and for all?

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’ve answered the question numerous times. I’ll add some details on the disruption, which the member for Surrey–Green Timbers has mentioned, which is a strategy that police engage in with regard to gangs.

To date, which is to May 12, police have executed four separate search warrants, and 36 charges have been laid, various arrests. They’ve targeted areas in the city where they think violence may occur. They have checked 499 vehicles; seized 21 vehicles, 13 weapons and $23,000; and issued short of 200 violation tickets.

Police are very actively engaged in their anti-gang strategies. I think that’s what is important to Surrey. I think, as time goes on, results will be demonstrated. There’s no question that it’s a challenge for everybody right now. But I do think that the member needs to know, if he does not know, that everybody is committed to coming to a solution.

M. Farnworth: The Premier has stated that the issue isn’t resources, that there are more than enough resources in Surrey to deal with the issue. The member for Surrey-Newton has outlined a lot of the problems that he says families are facing and that he’s hearing in his community. The minister has outlined some of the programs that the government is funding under this budget, and I know that she’s very concerned that questions relate to this budget year.

I would just like to ask her this question. If you look at…. I’m going to quote here the Surrey RCMP crime statistics. In 22 categories of criminal activity…. And they range from homicide, attempted murder, through robbery, through abduction, kidnapping, motor vehicle theft, theft under $5,000 — shoplifting, for example. There are only six areas where we are seeing a decrease.

I’ll just read some of them for the minister, so she’s aware. Homicides: first quarter, 2014, one; first quarter, 2015, two. Attempted murders: four, first quarter, 2014; in first quarter of 2015, five. Sexual assaults: 2014, first quarter, 39; 2015, first quarter, 57. Assaults: 668 in the first quarter of 2014; 863 in the first quarter of 2015. Breaking and entry: 532, first quarter; 532, first quarter. Shoplifting offences: 648; 707 this quarter. Stolen property: same thing.

There’s a consistent pattern here in just about every category, where crime is increasing. Much of this is related to what’s happening on the ground in Surrey in terms of the shootings taking place, in terms of the gang activity taking place. So when my colleague from Surrey-Newton says that, clearly, things aren’t working — the programs are not working — the statistics also are pointing out that there are areas where, clearly, things are not working.

It is an issue of resources. It is an issue of recognizing that programs need to change. So what plans in the current budget does the minister have in place to either augment or try new and different approaches and introduce different programs to deal with the issues that the people and the citizens of Surrey are facing?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: The policing of Surrey, of course, is the city’s responsibility. It’s up to Surrey RCMP. The city of Surrey has requested officers. They have engaged the community, and they are acting with great determination. They are acting in concert with their own local city detachment and also with the CFSEU.

We as a province, of course, are engaged and assisting with the CFSEU, with the civil forfeiture grants and with our engagement, through the mayor, with the RCMP, with the deputy commissioner, with the federal minister.

At the same time, we have been working on the integrated services hub, which is an integrated hub where there will be services congregated so that people in the justice system or coming out of the Surrey remand centre can get the services that they need. This, again, is a program which is somewhat under construction, so to speak, but it is a matter that was led by the province and the city through our joint determination and meetings on the Surrey justice task force.

There’s very significant provincial engagement with the city of Surrey. And as I’ve said a couple of times already, there is great determination to solve the issue of the violence which is so plaguing Surrey at the moment.

[1725]

M. Farnworth: We’ve seen, through questions from my colleague from Surrey-Newton and work that has been done by other learned members in this chamber on the government side — a report, I know, that was delivered to the Attorney General — that there are some successful models that have been working in other communities. I’m thinking of…. Abbotsford has done a number of changes and approaches, and Delta has undertaken a number of initiatives that have helped deal with issues in Delta.

The minister’s own predecessor, Kash Heed, has talked about, as has former Attorney General Wally Oppal, the need for a regional policing model. Given the fact that the Premier has stated that it’s not an issue of resources, it leads one to question: is perhaps the model an issue?

I’m wondering if the Attorney General has any thoughts on the issue of regional policing, in terms of how that might be a direction that we might want to look at. Are there any funds or plans in this year’s budget to look at the regionalization of police and a regional police force as a model that may perhaps be more effective in terms of dealing with some of the challenges that Surrey and other communities are facing?

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: There are no active plans at the mo-
[ Page 8406 ]
ment to create regionalized policing. But what I can say is that, as government, we are certainly very interested should local governments be interested in regionalization of their policing — and also whether they are interested in integrated units.

For example, we have the B.C. Policing and Community Safety Plan. Through that plan, we are working in collaboration and consultation with local governments to determine what the most effective models are, whether there should be further regionalization. It is possible that out of those discussions, that may be a result. But generally, we would want that to be something from the ground up, something that municipalities are requesting.

M. Farnworth: Some municipalities have taken the approach….

Again, I’ll come to Delta and Surrey, on the Delta-Surrey border. I know that the minister will probably say that this is up to individual municipalities, but at the same time, there is, I think, a provincial component here that I’d be interested to know if the ministry is looking at or what the minister’s thoughts on this are. That is on the issue of CCTV cameras. In Delta they have been placed up at a number of key intersections where there have been problems.

[1730]

I’m wondering: does the minister have thoughts or is there, again, a willingness in this budget year to look at a more regional policy with regards to CCTV cameras as a way, particularly in high-trouble areas, of dealing with some of the issues that the gang violence has surfaced with?

I will give an example that the minister referred to earlier on, which my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers raised, and that was around the issue of cars speeding and running away.

Given the fact that there tend to be…. There are some key areas, certain areas where these types of incidents tend to happen. I’m wondering: has the minister looked at, or is there any funding in the budget to look at, perhaps a more regional province-led policy or implementation strategy around the use of CCTV cameras?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, this would be a local responsibility. It’s not in my budget.

M. Farnworth: I knew that the minister was going to say it was a local budget. I’m just wondering: is the ministry going to show any leadership by saying: “You know what? Perhaps we need to look at this on a more regional strategy”? Is there any thought to looking at this issue from a provincewide perspective so that if local governments are doing something, we might want to see a common provincial policy that the province could facilitate in terms of either development or implementation?

Hon. S. Anton: We do not have any plans for provincial closed-circuit cameras.

S. Hammell: I know that we are ragging this puck in a kind of constant way. But I think if you can understand that we have been living 30 shootings, drive-by shootings, in our community since March 9…. That has terrorized our community. There is blood on the streets in our community in residential neighbourhoods, and bullets are going through the streets. Inevitably, somebody is going to get killed who is an innocent bystander.

What I find astounding is that.... We are responsible. There’s nobody else who’s responsible. We are the politicians who have been elected and paid by the community to ensure public safety. This is not a new movie. This movie was seen and dealt with in the city of Abbotsford.

[1735]

The city of Abbotsford has a blueprint. There’s a blueprint through which we should attack this kind of behaviour. I’m not sure I see where the leadership for that comes from. Is there any attempt through the ministry to ensure that best practices are followed throughout the various RCMP detachments, which the ministry subcontracts, I understand, through a provincial arrangement, and through any of the other models of policing, like municipal policing, we have?

I know that my colleague has said this before, but there doesn’t appear to be a strong response to 30 shootings and 40 cars tearing off at high speeds through our community. If that isn’t something that we should all be concerned about, I don’t know what is.

I’m asking, as someone who has been elected by my community to speak on their behalf on issues like this to people that have some power to make a difference: is there anything that the minister thinks we should be doing in this House that would alleviate or assist further in dealing with this crisis that is in my community?

Hon. S. Anton: As I have commented a number of times this afternoon…. I don’t think I can keep saying it, because I have said it so many times — about the seriousness of the problem that Surrey is facing.

There has been a very strong response from the provincial government. The Premier has met the mayor to discuss the issue. I have met the previous mayor and the current mayor and talked to her on the phone. I’ve talked to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP about this. I’ve talked to the federal minister about it. I have urged the federal minister to assist with funding and to help expedite officers into the Surrey RCMP.

[1740]

The CFSEU, the anti-gang unit, is financed to the tune of $60 million a year. They are very active in Surrey. There are prevention programs. There are school-based programs. There are civil forfeiture programs.

Over a year ago we formed the joint justice task force
[ Page 8407 ]
with Surrey. Surrey is the only municipality in British Columbia with whom we have formed such a task force. We now have an integrated services hub coming to Surrey. This is novel to Surrey. It is a very innovative and interesting change and something that may be a model for the rest of the province.

There has been very significant provincial engagement with the city of Surrey, recognizing the challenges Surrey is facing. The city is engaged in its issues, the citizens are engaged, and we are engaged. There’s no question that Surrey is facing a very difficult problem, but it will be resolved.

H. Bains: Some specific questions maybe. Let’s see if we can find some solutions here, at least in the area of prevention. The Attorney talked about school-based programs and prevention programs, so a couple of specifics.

As the Attorney knows, the Premier and Attorney went and gave $270,000 to the Wrap program.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The Premier did. All right.

But that money goes only about halfway to reducing the waiting list of over 40. It was acknowledged by the Premier that it will cut their waiting list by half, which means there are 20 or 21 people on the waiting list who will not have an opportunity to enter into that program, and who knows how many others have not applied, knowing that there’s a long wait-list. I think that is one area that the Attorney could look at.

The other one, as I mentioned earlier, is that parents are frustrated that they don’t have any support when they see their child needs help. The parents need help to work with that child, and the schools need some resources to put strategies together to deal with that child who may be moving off track. They could put a strategy together, monitor it and follow it up so that that child stays on course and on track.

Can the minister look at some resources within the ministry budget to add to the Wrap program? That’s one question. Two, can the minister look at putting some resources together that the parents and the teachers can use to deal with those at-risk children that don’t have those resources today?

Hon. S. Anton: If I talk too much about school-based programs, I’m quickly going to get out of my depth, not being the Minister of Education and not being familiar with all the programs that schools offer. But I can talk about what I know through our budget and what we do in Justice.

First of all, there is the Wrap program. Part of that funding, $20,000 of it, is from civil forfeiture grants, and the Premier announced another $250,000 the other day. That was a federal program, and I have urged the federal minister to contribute to that program as well. We don’t have a reply on that at the moment.

[1745]

Secondly, we have given nearly $1.1 million in civil forfeiture grants to local anti-violence and crime prevention programs in Surrey, including more than $318,000 this year. Some of those may be school-based programs. I’ll get the information on how many of those are school-based programs.

The Wrap program, of course, is a school program. There are school liaison officers, and it may be that the officer in charge, the commanding officer, chooses to put some of the new officers into schools. That is a decision for the RCMP to make.

There is an alternative suspension program, I gather, through the schools.

So there are a number of things going on provincially through Justice. I think there are maybe other school-based programs, but I’m not so familiar with those. Those are the ones that are related to Justice.

H. Bains: I know the Attorney generally doesn’t like to deal with this issue, and I understand that. But the issue is this. She keeps on repeating what existing programs are there. But as I said before, those existing programs do not help the situation. The proof is before our eyes.

All I’m asking is if the Attorney could look at putting some programs together. I’m not asking her to venture into the Ministry of Education. The Wrap program is there, which is not the Ministry of Education. If the Attorney could look at innovative ways of dealing with some of the preventative issues, if she could look at that…. There is a worthy cause of providing some resources so that parents can access that particular program when they need help dealing with a child who could be at risk, is moving off track — the teachers and parents working together, having a strategy, a program for that child, to keep them on line or on track.

Can the minister look at something in addition to what we already have? What we have isn’t working. If there is something in the budget that the minister can look at…. At least say that you will look at it, and see if you could find some resources. At least, develop with the help of the teachers, the parents, the community and the police, law enforcement — put a program together that will help on the prevention side and keep those children at risk or bring them back on track.

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: The Wrap program has been extremely successful. It was launched in 2009 — Surrey school district, RCMP and the city of Surrey — to help youth at risk of gang involvement. The goal is to help at-risk participants aged 11 to 17 build positive lifestyles and self-worth through a stronger connection to their school, family, community and peers.
[ Page 8408 ]

At-risk youth are referred from a variety of sources. There have been 500 referrals. The program currently serves 60 youth in the district, and the new funding will help about 20 more participants in Surrey. It has been very helpful in Surrey in terms of helping keep youth out of gangs.

It’s supported, of course, by the RCMP, by the province, by the city and, we are hoping, by the federal government. As I said a few moments ago, I have made a request to the federal government that they assist in that program.

I’m not sure if he’s listening very carefully, but the member did ask in terms of innovation in Surrey. We have a very innovative program in Surrey. That’s the Surrey criminal justice task force program. This was the program that we started with the city of Surrey over a year ago. We convened the criminal justice task force, led by my then Assistant Deputy Minister Kevin Jardine in the court services branch, and put together a two-day workshop asking what would work for Surrey and came up with the decision that the innovation that would work for Surrey would be a services hub, an integrated services network.

This is the network that I’ve referred to several times. This is an innovative program, putting these services together under one roof so that people can step out of custody, step out of the courts and get the services they need in one place. Again, this is new, it’s innovative, and if it works in Surrey, it’s a model we may be able to expand around the province of British Columbia.

The member was asking for innovation. The member was asking for resolve. The member was asking for a commitment of time and energy and thought and determination. The province has done and is doing all of those things.

M. Farnworth: I’d like to move to a different topic that the minister may or may not be able to answer questions on. Can she update us on the status of the Okanagan correctional facility that is currently under construction, and can she tell us why it’s currently $27 million over budget?

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: The construction began in 2014 and should be complete by fall of next year, occupancy beginning in early 2017.

The construction is $193 million. The total capital cost is $220 million. So that second number includes the fixtures, and I wonder if that’s where the $27 million is coming from that the member is referring to.

What I can say is that the construction is on time and on budget.

M. Farnworth: Well, you’re the ones who said in 2012 it would cost $192.9 million, a pretty specific figure. It’s your own Budget 2015 that says $220 million, so that’s a discrepancy of $27 million. One might think that when you had the original count that you would have everything included in that budget, not to suddenly decide to say: “Oh, by the way, in 2016 we’re going to have an additional X amount of dollars.” But that’s fine. That’s the minister’s response.

The next question I have….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I don’t know if the minister wants to hear the rest of the question.

The next question I’d like to ask the minister is: have there been any studies, have there been any discussions, have there been any meetings around, once this facility is built, with regards to the closing of the Kamloops Regional Corrections facility? Are there any plans whatsoever or thoughts on that on closing that facility down once the new facility is up and running?

Hon. S. Anton: There are no such plans.

B. Ralston: Recently in the press, both here and globally, there’s been some attention paid to a Chinese — that’s the People’s Republic of China — program called Operation Fox Hunt, which involves rooting out allegedly corrupt officials in various jurisdictions, including Canada, Australia and the United States.

Apparently, this program also touches law enforcement officials here, and there have been some efforts to locate allegedly corrupt officials and have them — notwithstanding the absence of a formal extradition treaty — sent back to China.

[1800]

One can well imagine that there are certain reservations about any such program. I’m going to quote Shen Dingli, who’s the vice-dean of the Institute of International Affairs, Fudan University. He said he believes that several countries are afraid. They’re “afraid that we’ll use economic crime as a way to get rid of political enemies, afraid that China will re-trial the fugitive upon repatriation. Having a large batch of corrupt Chinese officials won’t reflect well on the country. So talks are happening about making some kind of arrangements similar to extradition. China has to show evidence that the fugitive is corrupt.”

What dealings are the police services here in Canada and, in particular, in British Columbia having with representatives of the Peoples Republic of China — there is a very active and large consulate in Vancouver — in pursuing these arrangements on behalf of or in conjunction with the Chinese law enforcement officials?

Hon. S. Anton: I believe this would be a matter of federal policing.

B. Ralston: Just to clarify, then, is the minister saying that there are…? I know, for example, that the Minister
[ Page 8409 ]
of International Trade told me in estimates that there are quarterly meetings between the representatives of the People’s Republic of China’s consulate here in Vancouver and officials of the provincial government.

Is the minister saying that there are no law enforcement arrangements between officials and, presumably, the minister? In her status as the former Solicitor General, she’s in charge of policing, is the chief law enforcement officer of the province. Is she saying that she absolves herself of any responsibility, any dealings with this possible arrangement with Chinese officials in Operation Fox Hunt?

Hon. S. Anton: I am not aware of any overtures from the Chinese government to Justice on this issue, nor am I aware of any discussions with any Justice officials on this issue.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. It’s also reported in the official China Daily that last December Guy Saint-Jacques, who’s Canada’s ambassador in Beijing, said that Canada was on the verge of ratifying a 2013 deal that then–Foreign Minister John Baird signed that would help Beijing recover the loot its officials had spirited out of the country in an exchange for a cut of the proceeds.

There’s an academic commentator. Brock University professor Charles Burton, a China specialist and a former diplomat in Beijing, said: “I don’t know why we agreed to this. Dazzled by the promise of riches…Canada’s politicians have been finally backed into a corner. Even if Canada can secure a piece of the forfeited-assets pie, it’s China that’s setting the rules now.”

Can the minister advise whether there is any plan in federal-provincial law enforcement discussions for the province to get a share of disgorged assets of allegedly corrupt Chinese officials who are returned to China in Operation Fox Hunt?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: I guess this is a budget question — if some of this money were to come to the provincial Ministry of Justice budget. But the answer is again: I am not aware of any discussions relating to any such funds.

M. Farnworth: The minister made a comment earlier, and it will relate to the next topic, which I know we have a brief amount of time to talk about. She said that there were programs in place for helping people out of the gang lifestyle, that there were programs to assist people in getting on the straight and narrow.

The Auditor General’s reports on the state of our correctional facilities was pretty damning in terms of the lack of supports for education and for training inside our correctional facilities and programs to help people in our provincial correctional facilities. Can the minister tell us if there is additional new money in this year’s budget to be able to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General about issues it needs to address? I’m not talking about existing money but new moneys.

Hon. S. Anton: We are responding to the recommendations of the Auditor General within our existing resources.

M. Farnworth: This is, I guess, my last question. At this point we’ll be rising and reporting these estimates complete.

Whenever you deal with something out of existing resources, something is taken away. So could the minister outline — in writing would be great — what resources are being devoted to implementing the recommendations, outlining which areas they are being applied to and what the likely expenditure in the different areas is? If she could put that in writing, I would appreciate that.

Hon. S. Anton: I would be glad to do that for the member.

Is that the last question?

M. Farnworth: Yes.

Hon. S. Anton: I do want to make a comment on something that was raised by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway a couple of days ago. He suggested…. He more than suggested. He accused government lawyers of misleading the Privacy Commissioner. I have checked with my deputy and with legal staff, and I am reporting that in that case, as in all cases, government lawyers conducted themselves with integrity and presented their case according to the information they had at the time.

I think it’s probably too much to wish for to ask the member for Vancouver-Kingsway to withdraw his remarks, but they were highly improper remarks, and that is my reply to them.

[1810]

Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,039,955,000 — approved.

Vote 33: judiciary, $71,118,000 — approved.

Vote 34: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 35: independent investigations office, $7,544,000 — approved.

Vote 36: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 37: Emergency Program Act, $14,478,000 — approved.
[ Page 8410 ]

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 51: Electoral Boundaries Commission, $2,000,000 — approved.

Vote 52: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,081,000 — approved.

The Chair: A one-minute recess as we swap ministers here.

The committee recessed from 6:12 p.m. to 6:14 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

[1815]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY,
INNOVATION AND CITIZENS’ SERVICES

(continued)

Vote 41: ministry operations, $63,971,000 — approved.

Vote 42: Shared Services B.C., $428,918,000 — approved.

Hon. A. Virk: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: I just want to thank the members and the minister previous, also, for the cordial display during my tenure here.

Have a good day, everybody.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Hunt in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,297,183,000 (continued).

J. Darcy: Continuing on the issue of physiotherapy services, which as I pointed out were delisted by the government in 2002, I referred to this being at great cost to British Columbians. The minister said: “Well, it saved the health care budget.” But I would certainly argue that it did that at the expense of shifting costs to individuals, as well as potentially shifting costs to other parts of the health care system.

My next question relates to that. The minister is well aware that physiotherapy services are a preventative health measure as well as a rehabilitative measure. Proper physio can keep people out of acute care and keep a person from returning to acute care. Does the minister have an assessment of how much money has been spent on acute care that could have been saved had comparatively less expensive physio services been available as a listed service?

Hon. T. Lake: The question is hypothetical. I do not have an answer for it.

J. Darcy: Well, I don’t think it’s a hypothetical question at all. Surely when decisions are made about what services are going to be covered or not covered, when cuts are made in some areas, there is some assessment that’s made about what the potential impact is down the road.

Certainly if we’re talking about a sustainable health care system, if we’re talking about shifting from spending from one area to another, shifting the cost onto individuals — which can mean that people then are not able to access those services as they were before — there’s an impact no doubt on the health care system.

We’ve had considerable discussion here and elsewhere about investing upstream in certain types of services in order to prevent downstream costs. My question was very much in line with that — that there are undoubtedly greater costs on the acute care system and other parts of health care when we delist services that were previously provided publicly.

Has the government been tracking other effects of the delisting from 2002? For instance, has there been a study done to track outcomes on post-surgery rehabilitation services?

Hon. T. Lake: Not that I’m aware of.

J. Darcy: In the 2007 Conversation on Health, there was quite a compelling paper that was submitted by the B.C. Physician Working Group on Rehabilitation Services entitled Improving Rehabilitation Services for the People of British Columbia. It painted a pretty compelling picture of neglect, poor management, lack of provincial leadership, and it identified a number of steps to improve public access to a strengthened and integrated system of rehab services.

Can the minister comment on this report? Has there been any follow-up or any further study done?

[1340]

Hon. T. Lake: This is a debate around the estimates for 2014-15, and I have no comments about work that was done in 2007. I’m not aware of any analysis of that work.

J. Darcy: Does the minister know, in the year 2015 or 2014, or has the government tracked over the last number of years, how many British Columbians are now accessing physio services strictly on private insurance plans? Does the minister know how many are forced to pay out of their own pockets and how many people who need physio services go without because they can’t afford to pay? Does the government measure that?

Hon. T. Lake: Not to my knowledge.

J. Darcy: Well, the crux of the issue is this. The physio services were delisted by the government. Physio has steadily become more expensive, with strict caps on usage even if someone has extended health benefits, making it unaffordable for thousands of British Columbians who need access to physiotherapy services. Since the delisting in 2002 and up to today has the minister put in place any kind of tracking system to track health outcomes, overall utilization rates or patterns of use of physiotherapy services? If not, why not?

Hon. T. Lake: I’ve only been the minister for two years, so I have not put in place any of that tracking since 2013.

J. Darcy: Does the minister believe it’s important to track usage of physiotherapy services, lack of access to physiotherapy and what impact that has, both on affordability for British Columbians as well as downstream impacts on the health care system?

Hon. T. Lake: I wasn’t part of the decision in 2000-2001 to delist services, which included, I think, chiropractic services as well. Those decisions are made on a balance of information and in an effort to make sure the health care system is sustainable. I am not privy to the conversations, the discussions, that occurred at that time.

I know physiotherapy is extremely important. My father was hospitalized for a time. Once he was home, he had a physiotherapist come to the house and provide services that were very important. We do value the work of physiotherapists.

As I mentioned, there are about 1,400 physiotherapists that are employed around the province through health authorities. They work in all kinds of different settings, including home care and residential care. There, of course, are a lot of physiotherapists who work in the health care system that are paid through extended health care benefits, third-party health care benefits, which are available to a large number of British Columbians.

It’s important to note, as well, that low-income British Columbians — those that are on income assistance, for instance — have extended supplemental health benefits provided through their government services, so they would have access to physiotherapy as well.

The member asked, before the break, about the budget. In 2000-2001 the budget for physical therapy was about $29 million. It has been reduced to about $4.5 million per year after that. If you look in that time period, we have seen a reduction in cost to the government — direct costs, admittedly — of about $300 million.

J. Darcy: Just continuing on that theme, we’ve discussed the issue of joint replacements in question period and canvassed it in other areas. Certainly, access to physiotherapy services is absolutely critical as a rehabilitative measure for people who are discharged from hospital. We do — I don’t have the number at my fingertips — tens of thousands of hip and knee replacements in this province every year, as the minister is aware, at great value to patients and great cost to the health care system.

[1345]

In too many cases patients are discharged with three physiotherapy coupons. If they don’t have access to extended health plans to cover physiotherapy, they’re basically out of luck. That often means that patients are not able to reap the benefits of the surgery itself, because rehab is a critical part of the recovery program.

Does the minister think that that’s appropriate? One of the reasons I understand that that’s the case is that these services are, for most patients, not covered through the public health care system any longer. So patients are forced to rely on their own devices.

People at the lowest end of the income scale may have coverage. If you have really good extended health, you may be covered. But there are a whole lot of people in between who don’t fall in that category for whom private physiotherapy services are extremely costly.

Does the minister understand that picture clearly, about what physiotherapy services are available to people upon hospital discharge? Does he think that this issue needs to be revisited by the ministry?

[1350]

Hon. T. Lake: Physiotherapy coverage varies from province to province. Each province makes a decision based on consultation and, obviously, the fiscal realities of their ability to increase the health care budget.

There’s no question that physiotherapy is very valuable. That’s why, post-surgery, there are a limited number of physiotherapy benefits that are included. As the member notes, with extended health care benefits, obviously, that can continue, or if you are a recipient of MSP premium assistance, then you would qualify for those supplemental benefits as well.

We are, in our work that we’re doing in the health care system, looking at strategic ways of getting better outcomes and better access to surgical care. For instance,
[ Page 8412 ]
there’s a facility here in Victoria called Rebalance MD. It’s actually run by a physiotherapist, and it has physiatrists, physiotherapists, orthopedic surgeons all working together.

In that model, often people are put…. In fact, it was a pilot that was run, I believe, through the Specialist Services Committee, which is a combined committee of the Doctors of B.C. and the Ministry of Health. In that pilot, we had a co-mingled team of health professionals and looked at people going into that clinic. Some would see an orthopedic surgeon right away. Some would see a physiatrist right away. Some would see a physical therapist.

In some cases, people that were put on a physiotherapy program before surgery…. At the end of that, there was an assessment made that the surgery may not be necessary or that they were better able to withstand the surgery. And then, of course, as the member mentioned, after surgery, physiotherapy can have real benefits.

That’s the kind of pilot that we want to look at and examine and see if that makes sense to broaden across the system — being cautious about the unintended consequences. We’ve talked about nurse practitioners. We’ve talked about midwifery. There’s no question that people understand the benefits, so naturally there would be a tendency to want to broaden it out, but that comes at a significant cost to the system.

My job as Health Minister is to make sure that the system is sustainable, that costs do stay within that 2½ percent increase every year, and so we have to look at value for money with all of the services that we cover for the health care system.

[1355]

We will look at the pilot that was done here at Rebalance MD, together with the Doctors of B.C. We will, in our policy papers that we have out for consultation, take input. I’m sure the Physiotherapy Association, the College of Physiotherapists, will have some input into that paper. We’ll take all of that information back, and decisions will flow from that. But I’m not about to make policy decisions that have fiscal ramifications here during this debate.

I’ve explained, and the member has also explained, the history of physiotherapy coverage here in British Columbia, and we are looking to do the best we can with the number of dollars we have. In some cases, it may make sense to expand the use of physiotherapy services. It may get better outcomes. It may actually lower the cost for the health care system. I will accept that those are possibilities. That’s why we’re doing this work — to try to understand the ramifications of any changes to the coverage under MSP.

J. Darcy: Certainly, there are always consequences, intended or unintended, from any decisions made about health budgets or any budgets. I do hope that the minister takes very seriously looking at the consequences of delisting physiotherapy services, its impact both on lack of affordability and equal access to physiotherapy services, which I would suggest does not exist in the province today, as well as the downstream increased costs that are created as a result of that decision.

I want to turn to eye exams, because there was a similar decision made on eye exams in 2002, and I have similar questions. It’s about 13 years since that decision was made. Has the ministry put in place a system to track health outcomes, overall utilization rates or patterns of use since eye exams were delisted?

[1400]

Hon. T. Lake: No studies have been done as to looking back since the delisting. But I should just qualify that. In fact, the eye exams, ophthalmological exams through optometrists, have not been totally delisted in that those 18 and under and those over 65 continue to be covered, as well as those that are considered medically required — someone referred by a physician or someone with a medical condition that would necessitate having a regular eye exam. Diabetes would probably be one of those conditions, although I would stand to have that confirmed.

Then, of course, those receiving supplementary health care benefits, those people receiving Medical Services Plan premium subsidies would also qualify under the supplementary benefits as well. In fact, when we look at the supplementary benefit budget for optometry, it stands at $45.19 million, which is an increase of just over $2.4 million over the year prior — so still a substantial amount of eye exams being covered by the public system and, in fact, increasing year over year.

J. Darcy: Similar to my earlier question about physiotherapy, can the minister confirm how much money the government estimates that it saved by delisting this service in 2002?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s difficult to estimate when the service…. When eye exams were restricted in terms of their coverage, we went from about $39 million a year to about $30 million a year. But as I mentioned, in ’14-15 the budget is just over $45 million a year. We’re spending more today on optometry than we did when the changes to the listing occurred, but it’s difficult to estimate the delta, the change that would have been realized over those number of years.

I don’t have specific figures that say that the budget was projected to be X amount over those years and, instead, is Y amount. But just to point out that we are spending $6 million more a year than we did when the listing change occurred.

J. Darcy: Continuing on the theme about upstream costs versus downstream, the minister, I’m sure, is well aware that routine eye exams can catch problems before
[ Page 8413 ]
they develop. Has the ministry tracked the cost of other eye problems and whether their cost could be cut by reinstating coverage for routine exams?

Hon. T. Lake: No, not to my knowledge. But I sense a trend here, and the trend is that we should be spending more on everything. I hear that a lot when I meet with different groups. They say: “If this was covered, you’d spend a lot more money.” Sometimes those arguments have a lot of truth to them, and so we do the work, in many cases, to try and examine what is covered across the country.

I’m co-chair of the federal-provincial-territorial Health ministers group, and these are the kinds of things that we discuss. We look at ways of saving the health care system money but also ways of it getting better outcomes.

[1405]

As I mentioned, coverage for…. When medicare was developed, it was to cover hospital and physician services. There is a perception that all health care is covered by public health care. In fact, that’s not the case anywhere in Canada. On average, only 70 percent of health care is paid for publicly, and 30 percent is paid for privately.

We have this system that developed for hospital and physician services only, and then other things were added in. It varies from province to province, as does the constitutional makeup of the country. Some provinces elect to cover more things. Some provinces cover fewer things. We always look at that and say: “Well, is this right? If Alberta is covering this, what rationale do they have for that? What sort of outcomes would we expect if we were to cover that? At what cost would it come?”

As I said, I sense the member is suggesting that in all of these areas — whether it’s midwifery, whether it’s nurse practitioners, whether it’s ophthalmologists or physiotherapists — we should spend more. There is only so much that you can spend, and you have to make decisions based on best value for money and best outcome for patients. We pride ourselves in making that analysis as we go through policy changes.

J. Darcy: With the greatest of respect, I think the minister should refrain from assuming that I am proposing something. I’m asking questions about whether or not the ministry has done an analysis of the consequences of decisions that were made and policy framework that exists to this day.

Certainly, I think it’s a misnomer to refer to reducing costs when there has, in fact, been no analysis of whether it does overall reduce costs for health care downstream. If costs have been reduced in the public health care system by a policy decision, there can be huge consequences for affordability for British Columbians and equal access to those health services.

Another question. I think I know the answer, but I’ll ask. Has the minister done any work on IHealth to track whether rates of disease — glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy — have changed since 2002?

Hon. T. Lake: Not that I am aware of. And this isn’t an assumption. If I look at the member’s campaign platform on health care, the leader said: “We would be looking to be amongst the highest in Canada in terms of per-capita support for health care.” So I’m not assuming anything. I’m reading from the platform that the member ran on. And that’s fine. It is not the view that we take.

We want best value for money. We have, according to the Conference Board of Canada, the best outcomes in Canada in terms of health outcomes. I know there are many things that go into that, government policy being a big part of that. So it’s not an assumption. It is quoting from the member’s campaign platform that she and her party advocate to be the highest health care spenders in Canada. That is not what we advocate.

J. Darcy: We could spend a lot of time revisiting campaign promises. The biggest one on health care was the promise of A GP for Me, which the minister has clearly acknowledged is a broken promise. Capital projects — we reviewed and we will no doubt review again commitments that have been made to build a hospital in Dawson Creek. The minister had to say: “No, that was a promise made for political purposes.” So I don’t know that we want to revisit all of that just now.

The minister mentioned, when it comes to eye exams, that eye exams are covered at the age of 65, which is the case. But the minister, I’m sure, is also well aware that age 65 could be too late to catch certain diseases, if an uninsured person has avoided exams for years because they can’t afford to pay for them. Is the ministry tracking incidents of preventable disease at age 65 that could have been caught sooner with a routine eye exam?

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: No, we have not studied the hypothetical situation the member alludes to.

I would like to point to the program that the ministry has that has saved a lot of people’s sight, and that is the age-related macular degeneration program, which provides coverage for Lucentis and Avastin in addition to the previously covered Visudyne and photodynamic therapy. On November 16, 2003, we renamed and expanded that to the retinal disease treatment program to include diabetic macular edema and retinal vein occlusion.

We have a very successful program. We’ve treated more than 8,425 patients in 2012-13 and 12,417 in 2013-14 at a cost of about $13 million.

J. Darcy: If we could move on to the issue of staffing shortages, in various health science professions in particular. Today there are five professions, I understand, that have serious shortages of health science profession-
[ Page 8414 ]
als: pharmacists, physiotherapists, diagnostic medical stenographers, occupational therapists and respiratory therapists.

The ministry’s discussion papers about community and primary care set some pretty lofty goals, including improved rural health care and reduced surgical wait times. In order to achieve those goals, surely more health science professionals are needed to treat patients with the most cost-effective and the most appropriate level of care, to free up hospital beds and to staff multidisciplinary teams, which are getting a lot of attention in the minister’s statements these days.

What is the government’s plan for addressing current shortages of these health science professionals and shortages into the future?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: We work with the Health Employers Association of B.C. to try and forecast the needs in all areas. The professions the member noted, I think, are pharmacists, physiotherapists, ultrasonographers, respiratory therapists, occupational therapists. HEABC does a review with us, looking at that. That’s essentially what this binder is. I know I’m not supposed to use props, but the information is contained in here. They do a forecast of the different professions and what the needs will be. But because we are doing significant change…

Interjection.

The Chair: I would call the room to order, please. I need to hear the minister.

Hon. T. Lake: …to the health care system through our priorities documents and our policy papers that are out for consultation, that will impact the needs assessment.

Under the old model we could say, “Yes, we need this many occupational therapists,” but if we’re moving into more home and community care, that may change. That is what our papers are suggesting — that we need more home and community care — so the number of occupational therapists, the number of physiotherapists, employed by health authorities may in fact go up with that shift. We’re going through that process.

Certainly on some of the professions that the member has noted…. She didn’t mention specialist nurses, but that’s another area that we know is in short supply. We are working with Advanced Education and with the nursing profession to increase the number of specialist nurse–training opportunities available through the health authorities as well.

We look at each of those, and we make, with the Health Employers Association of B.C., a reasonable prediction of the demand. We will also, again, use this information in the demand forecast and plug that into the work that we’re doing around the policy papers we have over the next number of months so that when we come back in the fall we’ll have a more integrated approach to the health care system and the needs of each part of the health care system.

J. Darcy: Well, I certainly appreciate that this a moving target, especially that it can be revised upwards based on the ministry’s policy about expanded use of certain health professions. But there have been shortages in these and a number of other areas for some considerable time. I know that it is a source of considerable frustration to people who work in health care and people who represent people who work in health care — that the forecasting, the analysis that the ministry does and the forecasting that it does, is often limited to a very small number of occupations.

Surely, the minister has some idea at this point in time what kinds of shortages there are in these specific areas, as well as specialist nurses and others. Does the minister have a current document, understanding those numbers could go up? Does he have a current projection? What are the ministry’s plans to address the shortages that are already identified?

[1420]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I thought.... Sorry, I probably didn’t explain it very well, but that is what this binder shows. If you look at pharmacists, it will go through and describe how many pharmacists there are in different health authorities, what the needs will be, projecting out. This data is here. That’s what we use as a basis to inform our work, but it may change. This is based on the model we have today.

As we shift from an emphasis on acute care to more emphasis on home and community care, that may change. That’s why we use this data, which is very rigorous in terms of projections — historical and into the future. We will use this to inform the work we’re doing on the policy papers.

This policy paper was released this year. This is Enabling Effective, Quality Population and Patient-Centred Care: A Provincial Strategy for Health Human Resources. Again, this document sets the tone for where we think we need to be in terms of different health care professions.

This is out with our other papers for consultation with stakeholders. Once we get that information back, together with the modelling put forward by the Health Employers Association of B.C., we will be able to have a clearer picture of the needs in each one of the areas that the member refers to.

J. Darcy: Is the minister prepared to share that document?

Hon. T. Lake: They’re both available on the website.

J. Darcy: I’d like to shift to another issue. It relates, of course, to quality and continuity of care for seniors. It
[ Page 8415 ]
also relates to staffing in residential care. I assume the minister is familiar with a situation that developed earlier this year regarding Vancouver Coastal Health and the Inglewood Care Centre.

The minister has received correspondence on that issue. The letter raised very serious concerns about the number of times that the facility owner had flipped subcontractors and the impact of these flips on quality of care for seniors. There were questions raised by the Hospital Employees Union about inspection reports from the health authority and other documents that indicated that care had been compromised at the facility.

Another issue flagged was the application of health authority funding to the provision of care. It was estimated that less than half of it was actually applied to front-line care. That situation is at least temporarily resolved, as the minister may well be aware, but that incident highlighted a much, much larger problem that exists when it comes to contract flipping in residential care.

This spring, in addition to Inglewood, there were major contract flips at two other Lower Mainland health facilities — at Laurel Place, in Surrey, where 240 workers will be contracted out, effective June 1, as the owner of the facility prepares to sell it; and last month 80 workers at Harmony Court, as the owner of that facility flipped its contract for care services.

I know that the minister has had an opportunity to hear directly from some of those employees and from the HEU about the impact on seniors care. We all heard from them when they were here for a lobby earlier this year.

I want to ask the minister if he has any general observations about this problem of the impact of contract-flipping on care for seniors and whether he has any plans to address it.

[1425]

[M. Morris in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the debates.

The issue is contracts that are changed with the private sector providing complex residential care under contract to health authorities. The member mentioned a specific one, I think in West Vancouver. That is a concern. We all recognize that change has impact on the residents, and they’re the most important people that we should take into account when we’re discussing this — also employees. At the same time, it is the legal right, through Bill 29, for companies to change contracts. That is clear in legislation.

[1430]

However, the Ombudsperson, in their report on February 4, 2012, noted that there was concern and asked the Ministry of Health to work with health authorities to develop safeguards to ensure that seniors in residential care are not adversely affected by large-scale staff replacement.

To address this recommendation, the Ministry of Health developed a new policy, which is policy 6K, “Large-scale staff replacements.” That is included in the Home and Community Care Policy Manual, and that’s to ensure that the quality and safety of client care is maintained during a large-scale staff replacement.

The large-scale staff replacement is defined in the policy as mass staff turnover through the change from one contracted service provider to another or through a change in ownership.

With this new policy, health authorities must ensure service providers plan and manage the change process for clients where a service provider is planning a large-scale staff replacement consistent with the following requirements: to ensure that maintenance of the quality and safety of the client’s care is the priority throughout the process; provide the client with information about the upcoming change; offer clients and families an opportunity to meet with service provider staff to identify key concerns in the changeover in staff; and ensure that the staff replacement does not happen until all clients are informed and have had an opportunity to have their concerns heard.

This policy was introduced in April of 2015. It applies to all publicly subsidized residential care facilities, both health authority–owned and –operated and contracted. Health authorities have six months to ensure implementation.

Just a note, too, that we have clarified that policy to ensure that health authorities have the same accountabilities when decisions are made to close even a few residential care beds within a particular facility. Any change of magnitude has to go through this change management process to reduce as much as possible the impact on residents.

J. Darcy: I’m wrestling with understanding whether that policy actually does something to halt this trend, to arrest this trend that we have seen across residential care — also in other sectors of health care, but we’re talking about residential care — since the introduction of Bill 29.

The minister, I’m sure, is very well aware that these situations arise monthly, I would estimate, sometimes even more. The minister is shaking his head. I can tell you that there have been times in the past where there were several incidents going on in the same week, in the same month period. There have been many, many of these situations since 2002, and whenever they occur, there has been a significant impact on continuity of care for seniors.

When people get pink slips and are out the door…. The minister knows that staff in residential care, which becomes home for seniors and people with disabilities…. The staff who care for them are caring for their most in-
[ Page 8416 ]
timate care needs. There have been numerous studies done on the importance of continuity of care for seniors and the impact of disruption of continuity of care on mortality, on morbidity, on the emotional health and well-being of seniors — not to mention the loss of family-supporting jobs held mainly by women.

Focusing on the impact on care — the minister is right. The Ombudsperson spoke about that extensively. So the minister now has explained a policy that, I guess, has been in effect for a few weeks. I’m not understanding, and I would like the minister to explain….

It says there should be a priority on the residents. Okay. Clients should receive information about what’s about to happen. They should have the opportunity to meet with staff about it and so on. I’m not understanding what that policy does to stop this from occurring.

If the issue is continuity of care for seniors, surely a policy that is going to address that should speak to continuity of staffing for seniors. It’s one thing for one contractor to replace another. Understood. Large parts of residential care are now in the private sector. People have the right to change contractors.

[1435]

But why does that need to mean pink slips for the care providers and then a process of rehiring and all the labour relations turbulence that also goes with that situation? It is not good for seniors when care providers are caught up in that kind of turbulence. How does this new policy actually get at the heart of the problem? I fail to understand that. Perhaps the minister can explain it.

Hon. T. Lake: The member mentioned that companies have the right to change contractors. We agree that they have that right. A large part of residential care is provided under contract by the private sector. I have had the opportunity to visit a lot of residential care facilities throughout the province, opening some brand-new ones in my own constituency, and I can tell you that these are amazing facilities.

One of the members of the Legislature spoke today about the new facility next to the Mission Memorial Hospital. I toured that when it was under construction, near the end of construction, and I know that it is an outstanding state-of-the-art facility. That one, I believe, is run by the health authority. But there are many that are absolutely marvellous.

I remember the opening of Brocklehurst Gemstone in Kamloops a couple of years ago. Buron is the company that built and runs that facility, and 175 beds, I think, are contracted to the Interior Health Authority. One of the residents there being interviewed on television said: “It’s like being in Las Vegas. I just need a casino in the lobby.” He said that the facilities were amazing in terms of the structure and the care that he was getting.

So we recognize that the private sector does an extremely good job of providing a service that is contracted to the public system. And they have the right to change contractors because, obviously, this is their business, and they need to make sure that the bottom line is looked after as well.

But it does have an impact on residents when that occurs, and that’s why the policy is in place. The health authority has to make sure, when a service provider is planning a large-scale change in staff, that the quality and safety of the clients’ care is the priority, that the client and their families are provided with information about the change, and that in fact they have an opportunity to meet with the service provider.

So they can’t just go in there and do it willy-nilly. They have to go through a process. We know that, in the vast majority of cases, most of the staff are unchanged. They are often rehired by the second contractor, and so there isn’t as much impact on the patient as people worry about.

Now, I know that that still provides some anxiety for residents and their families. I have expressed my concern to the B.C. care providers, just in conversation, about this practice of some in the private sector and the multiple turning over of contracts. We have implemented this policy. We will monitor this policy closely. If we see any abuse, we will take steps.

I want to add also, having the first seniors advocate office in Canada, that I know that our seniors advocate is interested in this issue. She is doing some excellent work, particularly around residential care. So we will work with our seniors advocate as well, monitoring this policy to make sure that it is having the result we want, which is to reduce any negative impact on residents when there are large-scale staff changes.

J. Darcy: The issue here is not whether or not there are some wonderful care facilities in the private sector. I have certainly visited many of them myself, and some of them are quite magnificent.

[1440]

But surely the critical issue, from the point of view of patient care…. Physical surroundings are important, but it’s the quality of care and continuity of care that are the most important, surely, when it comes to caring for seniors.

We know that people who live in residential care are there for significantly shorter periods of time than they were historically — that it is the last few months, the last year or year and a half of people’s lives, very often. The minister says a lot of the care is provided by private care providers. That’s the case, but the funding source is still largely government. The funding is still largely public funding.

That means government has levers. Government could do one of two things. They could go back and revisit the changes that were made to Bill 29 that resulted in these things. Even if the government is not prepared to do that, surely the government has funding levers. The govern-
[ Page 8417 ]
ment could set conditions on funding that is provided to private care operators that have to do with continuity of care.

Has the minister considered, or will the minister consider, in addition to the policy that he talked about…. It’s a step forward but does not ensure continuity of care. I think the minister would admit that. Is the minister prepared to use other policy levers, based on the funding that government provides to private care operators, in order to ensure continuity of care?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned policy. The process that the health authorities will use to enforce the policy is outlined thusly.

“Health authorities must ensure service providers develop operational policy and procedures that include the following: timely communication with the client and an opportunity for follow-up discussion of questions and concerns, timely communication to the community care licensing office, measures to assist clients with the loss of continuity in their care, a process to communicate the client’s current clinical and special clinical needs to new staff, and the process to monitor and mitigate impacts from the change.

If large-scale staff changes occur, then the provider must develop this plan, and it will be monitored by health authorities for compliance against the process that I just outlined. This is a new policy. It came into effect April 1. Health authorities have six months in which to comply.

I believe that we need to allow this policy, this change, to have some time and see how effective it is. I’m hopeful and optimistic that we will see the impact on patients, on residents in care, be mitigated through the use of this policy.

J. Darcy: Is the minister prepared to share a copy of that policy?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course.

J. Darcy: In the same situation that I referenced earlier, Inglewood, in the correspondence that the Minister of Health received on the subject…. Well, Vancouver Coastal Health received it. The minister was copied on it, and I know that there’s been subsequent discussion about it.

[1445]

In this case, the particular care operator, Unicare, received substantial funding from Vancouver Coastal Health — $11.4 million in the last fiscal year — to provide residential care services. It’s estimated that the wage bill for the bulk of the staff — care staff and support staff — accounted for less than $5 million of this amount, which seemed out of line with the expenditure pattern for staffing in most long-term care operations.

It was also brought to light that a licensing inspection of the facility in December of 2014 by Vancouver Coastal Health flagged a number of areas where the care operator had failed to be in compliance with the residential care regulation, including a failure to provide adequate food and fluids to meet the nutritional needs of residents.

The concern here is that inadequate investments, in this case, were being made in order to ensure the well-being of residents. My question to the minister is: has the ministry taken any steps to systematically audit the funds it transfers from health authorities to care home operators to ensure that those funds are substantially applied to the care of seniors?

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: Vancouver Coastal, like all health authorities, has licensing officers that enforce the licensing requirements for health and safety. We are unaware of any reports that Vancouver Coastal has that reflect the comments of the member.

J. Darcy: There was a letter addressed to Vancouver Coastal Health, January 27, 2015, from Bonnie Pearson, secretary, business manager of HEU, that outlined exactly what it is I just detailed here. The minister was copied on that. This is also an issue that has been canvassed in question period. It was the subject of considerable media attention. I’m surprised that the minister is not aware of this situation, because very, very serious concerns were brought forward, and the minister was copied on that correspondence.

Just further to that, that correspondence deals with the contract flipping as well. That’s not the issue I’m speaking to at this point. That issue was resolved.

The outstanding issue and the question that I asked was the systematic audit of funds that are transferred from health authorities to care home operators to ensure that those funds are substantially applied to the care of seniors. It is certainly being stated in this case that there were serious, serious problems with the operator in place at that care home at that time, and this bigger question arises from that.

Hon. T. Lake: I have a copy of the letter in response to Ms. Pearson of the HEU from Vancouver Coastal, which says: “Vancouver Coastal is aware the instability of staffing and other supports can potentially impact ongoing care and well-being. That’s why we’re going to follow up on this matter to determine if there are factors that need to be addressed further. VCH will be in touch with you shortly to arrange a meeting to clarify your concerns and discuss next steps.”

Obviously Vancouver Coastal acknowledges the concerns expressed by the Hospital Employees Union and indicated at that time to meet and follow up on their concerns.

[1455]

In terms of the earlier concerns expressed by the member, that’s what I had no knowledge of. We did not have a letter outlining the lack of fluid or nutrition or other
[ Page 8418 ]
things. But, as I mentioned, that is the role of licensing officers — to ensure that care is being delivered in terms of health, safety and licensing requirements.

We do not plan an audit at this time, but certainly if there are indications as to any particular facility that is in question, we have the opportunity through the health authorities to conduct inspections and look at the books to ensure that the money is going as directed. We would do that on an as-needed basis. We have no plans to do a system-wide audit at this particular time.

Again, as I said, we have the seniors advocate. And we rely heavily…. Already, after just one year she is making some really good inroads in terms of the needs of seniors in the province of British Columbia. If she were to develop work that suggested some of this auditing is required, we’d certainly listen to her recommendations in that regard.

J. Darcy: I’d like to turn to the issue of violence in health care. The minister is, I know, aware that health care and social services staff experience the highest rate of violence in the workplace, more so even than law enforcement.

WorkSafe B.C. stats show that in 2008 health care and social services workers made up 10 percent of the provincial workforce but 40 percent of time loss due to acts of violence. In 2014 they made up 11 percent of the provincial workforce and 57 percent of time loss due to acts of violence.

Total time-loss injuries are higher in this sector than all other sectors in British Columbia. In all of B.C. it’s 2.3 injury claims per 100 person-years. In health care and social services we’re talking 3.9 claims per 100 person-years, which is a 19 percent increase in the last five years. There are an increasing number of claims for psychological injuries caused by violence as well.

The minister may well be aware, but let me just refresh his memory on the subgroups within health care that have extremely high injury rates — in ambulance services, 14.1 claims per 100 person-years; long-term care, 9.2; community health, 4.3; acute care, 4.1 — as contrasted with all workers in all sectors in B.C., 2.3 percent. There’s clearly a huge impact here — not just on people who work in health care, but a huge impact on the health care budget because we’re talking about significant, significant time lost due to workplace injuries, including violence.

The minister is also no doubt aware that this is not a new problem. This problem has been around for a very long time. It’s been getting worse, not better. Despite all of the evidence that violence is a serious, serious hazard in health care settings, there is still no coordinated strategy in place to protect patients and workers, no consistent occupational health and safety standards related to violence prevention.

The minister is no doubt aware it received considerable attention on an assault at an Island hospital, where a registered psychiatric nurse was assaulted by a patient who was supposedly under the control of the police — a lapse. The nurse was assaulted twice. It’s been a continuing problem at this hospital. There have not been appropriate responses.

Currently occupational health and safety measures must be funded out of front-line unit budgets, the same budgets that have all kinds of other pressures on them, which often results in necessary measures not being taken or inferior measures being taken in order to save money — often a lack of standardization of equipment such as alarms, alert systems used to identify patients with a history of violence.

My question to the minister is: what is the government doing to address the growing issue of violence in health care settings?

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to provide a little perspective, because the member quoted health care and social services injury rates and costs, indicating that the rates in the health care sector were higher than other sectors, which is true.

[1500]

In all of B.C. injury rates were 2.3…. I’m not sure what the denominator there is. I think per 1,000….

J. Darcy: Per 100 person-years.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you.

In all of health care and social services, it’s 3.9. If you look at some of the sectors of health care and social services — residential social services, 4.9; long-term care, 9.2.

If you dig a little deeper, you can see that the largest piece of that pie is overexertion. This is lifting, essentially. Now, the new standard in long-term residential care is that there are assist lifts for almost every resident. Even older facilities are being retrofitted for lifting mechanisms. That’s a relatively new phenomenon. Certainly all the newer ones have lifts in place, but even the older ones are having those put in place, and there are mobile ones that are available as well. I know that in terms of overexertion, we will see a positive impact on the numbers there.

If we take those numbers out, we’re left with other things such as acts of violence or a fall, exposure to toxic substances — those sorts of things. Specifically, the member is talking about violence, which is a relatively small portion of the injuries but still substantial and certainly of concern.

When dealing with people that are physically injured or physically ill and under stress, and certainly when dealing with people that are under mental health challenges, behaviour can be unpredictable. Well-trained nurses know that. In their training they receive some training, certainly, on how to manage and de-escalate those situations. But we also, with the health authorities, have done
[ Page 8419 ]
a number of different things.

In January of 2011 we started the health and safety in action initiative. It was a program to provide health care workers and managers the education and tools they need to prevent, defuse and/or deal with potentially violent situations to reduce the risk of injury and to ensure they feel safe in their workplace. That was $37 million.

There were 17 initial sites. It’s important that when we do these kinds of programs, we do an evaluation. The evaluation is continuing, but early evaluation shows, where the program was piloted, close to a 40 percent decrease in WorkSafe B.C. claim costs for injuries related to incidences of violence at those sites.

That program is now being implemented provincially. As of December 2014, almost 40,000 employees have completed the on-line violence prevention training module, and approximately 19,000 have completed the more in-depth classroom sessions. It’s also regarded as a model program. It’s been reviewed by Alberta, Newfoundland and other provinces.

Having said that, we know there are certain areas, particularly when we’re dealing with psychiatric care, that need special attention. In fact, following a letter from the Health Sciences Association president, Val Avery, we convened a summit on workplace violence in health care April 7. We were in Vancouver. There were some excellent presentations there, I must say. This provided a platform to explore best practices and discussions around new ideas in terms of de-escalating violent situations and making workplaces safer.

One of the things I learned there, which makes a lot of sense…. I know the Chair is a former police officer. He will know about design and how that can reduce situations that result in incidents that are not desirable. The workplace design can actually reduce the incidence of violence. You can use glass for a reception area in a way that doesn’t feel like an institution and yet protects the people working from a potential encounter, and lines of sight so that you can see what’s going on around you at all times.

Having completed that summit, we are working with the input and developing an action plan that will be complete over the next several months. We did agree with the B.C. Nurses Union to look at four specific sites that have been places of concern: the forensic psychiatric unit in Port Coquitlam, at Colony Farm; the Hillside Centre in Kamloops, behind Royal Inland Hospital; Seven Oaks tertiary mental health in Victoria; and Abbotsford Regional Hospital.

[1505]

My assistant deputy minister has been meeting with front-line staff, management, union representatives and health authority executives at each of these sites between April 22 and May 5, and they’ve generated some very good discussion on workplace violence prevention. Again, information from those meetings will be developed collaboratively into a tailored solution for each of those sites as part of the broader workplace violence prevention action plan.

We are absolutely committed, knowing that we can’t reduce all risks to zero. We’re dealing with people. We don’t want to put people in solitary confinement. We need to treat people with respect and dignity, and we need to be able to provide the care they need. But we want to reduce those risks to the lowest possible way through the use of training, through the use of technology and other systems. We are working hard with our partners in the health professions and the health authorities to make sure that we reduce, as much as possible, potential violence in the health care workplace.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for the response. Yes, of course, it is the case that the majority of the injuries in health care have to do with overexertion. It’s certainly good news that there are more lifts that are being added in residential care. The challenge, though, and hopefully the minister is aware of this, is not whether or not lifts exist and are in place, but whether or not there are sufficient staff in place to be able to make use of them and whether there is support from supervisors to ensure that staff take the time to do the lift properly in order to reduce workplace injuries.

Can the minister speak to whether or not there are policies and guidelines in place in order to ensure that those lifts are in fact utilized and that there’s sufficient staffing available in order to make use of those lifts? Through history, even when lifts are in place, there are often significant numbers of workplace injuries due to overexertion because of the pressure to move quickly and to take shortcuts.

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: Before I get to the question, I just wanted to add…. When we talked about all the work we’re doing on workplace safety, I didn’t mention — and I want to make sure that we have on the record — that we have formed a joint provincial occupational health, safety and violence prevention committee. The membership is the Health Employers Association of B.C., health authorities, affiliated employers and bargaining association representatives — so BCGEU, BCNU, HSA, HEU, UFCW and UPN.

The committee will identify provincial priorities, strategies or projects that utilize new or existing occupational health, safety and violence prevention initiatives to meet overall goals of workplace injury and illness prevention. This committee, I think, will be significant in terms of evaluating the programs we have there and what’s going on in other jurisdictions and putting in best practices. So there’s that.

The member’s question was around lifts. With the implementation of lifts, do we have an auditing process
[ Page 8420 ]
where we’re making sure people are using those lifts properly? Not that I’m aware of, but this is part of the training of health care aides and LPNs and nurses. When I was at Thompson Rivers University about six months ago, when we announced funding for more health care aide training spaces, the demonstration was actually using a lift. We put one of the students in the lift and demonstrated how a person is lifted using that.

There are provincial safe resident handling standards for prevention of musculoskeletal injuries, and all the health authorities have those standards. So the standards are in place. People are trained how to use these lifts.

We’re trying to get information from WorkSafe B.C. When we do, we will certainly pass that on to the member. You would expect that with the advent of the mechanical assist devices that we have now, we would see those overexertion injuries going down. That is a trend that we hope to see, and we’re looking to see if we have that information.

J. Darcy: We’re going to now shift to a few questions related to capital projects, which I expect will take us up to the agreed-upon break time.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to thank the minister for a meeting that took place between the minister and all four Burnaby MLAs and senior staff — a week ago today, in fact. We asked questions in this very room about what was happening with Burnaby Hospital. Before the last election it was announced that there would be a new hospital. There ended up being a plan for a hospital, but there hasn’t been a new hospital announced, and no money.

[1515]

What I wanted to do today was to thank the minister for the answers that we received about the progress with regard to Burnaby Hospital and confirm some of the assurances and comments and so on that the minister made at the meeting last week, just to get them on the record.

Maybe I’ll list about four or five different commitments that I and the other members from Burnaby heard last week and just receive a confirmation that that was, in fact, the understanding of the minister of what it was that he or senior staff stated. Maybe I’ll just list those now, then.

We were assured that we were not going to lose regional services that are at the hospital. We were told definitely that Burnaby Hospital was not going to close.

We were told that there is going to be a seventh operating room opened within a few months. I think that at one point in the conversation it was three to six months. At another point, it was believed to be within a couple of months — but within six months there would be, for sure, a new operating room opened.

We were told that there is not a compelling argument for moving Burnaby into Vancouver Coastal, although there is an increase in integrated planning — for example, with the plans for a new St. Paul’s Hospital.

The master site plan was our primary reason for requesting the meeting with the minister. With regard to that, we were told that that site plan called for a phased rebuilding of major portions of the hospital; that there is a relook at that, about how the master site plan can be integrated with any new planning in terms of trying to reduce the emphasis on acute care; and that the master plan and the integration into that new plan should be complete within six to eight months.

That’s largely what I heard. That’s my first question, and then I’ll have a second question. I just want to confirm with the minister that that was the understanding of the comments and assurances that we received last week.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to member and her colleagues for attending that meeting. Burnaby Hospital is an important facility in the Lower Mainland.

[1520]

I just wanted to say, though, I have no record of any promise being made about building a new hospital in Burnaby. The master site plan was developed, and that is absolutely correct. But as far as I can tell, there was no commitment made by this government to build a new Burnaby hospital. There is a master site development plan, and with any process for capital in Health, it goes through a long, rigorous process.

The first process is a concept, which is what was done. The next step is usually a business plan, typically in a phased approach. If we look at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, for instance, the first phase went…. First of all, there was a master site development plan, which is about a $400 million plan. The first phase was for the clinical services building. That was phase 1. That went through a business plan. Once the business plan was approved, then it went to construction.

Phase 2 is a surgical tower at Royal Inland Hospital. That has yet to have a business plan developed. While notionally it is part of the master site development plan, until the business plan is approved, that is for future planning. In that particular case, that is in the capital plan.

With Burnaby Hospital, the master site plan was developed. Fraser Health has committed to several improvements. First of all, there have been a number of improvements that have occurred. We went through those with the member, so I won’t repeat them here, including the emergency department, the ambulatory care centre, the sterile processing department, etc. I did make assurances that there were no plans to close Burnaby Hospital. I think that needs to be said. There are no plans to close Burnaby Hospital.

In terms of regional services, there are important regional services at Burnaby Hospital. I don’t believe we said that no regional services would ever be changed. As we plan for health care and we have more integrated planning between Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health,
[ Page 8421 ]
particularly with the development of the new St. Paul’s Hospital, there may be planning that says — you know what? — we’d be better off doing this particular service at Burnaby, or maybe we’d be better doing this particular service at St. Paul’s or at Royal Columbian.

I don’t want to give a commitment that services will never change, because things have to change, with demographics, with the population changes, with the influx of people and with the advent of new facilities. We said and recognize the importance of the regional services that are provided at Burnaby Hospital, but I do not believe we said things would never change. It may be that things are added. It may be that things are changed. But I don’t want to close the door on anything that will make the entire system more efficient and responsive to patients.

In terms of the seventh operating room, yes, we expect that work to be done within a number of months. Certainly, we were talking about two to three months, hopefully. But one of the limiting factors in that discussion is the availability of anaesthetists. Fraser Health is working hard to recruit more anaesthetists so that operating room can open up and take pressure off. We know that’ll make a big difference.

We also talked about improvements in ambulatory care and in mental health services at Burnaby Hospital.

The planning that we referred to in terms of the Lower Mainland. When we were looking at St. Paul’s Hospital and when we were looking at Royal Columbian Hospital, two large hospitals in need of redevelopment, we went back, and I asked staff to say: “Let’s just take a higher look at the Lower Mainland in general and say: are we integrating things properly as we’re building these, in some cases, billion-dollar hospitals?”

We went back and looked at all the services. As part of that and as part of the Fraser Health review, which was ongoing concurrently, we looked at services at Burnaby. Naively, not being from the Lower Mainland, I said: “Does it make any sense to have Burnaby Hospital in Fraser Health rather than Vancouver Coastal?” We looked at that, actually, and looked at patient movements, where services were being performed, and there was no clear evidence to suggest that Burnaby Hospital services would be better served in Vancouver Coastal.

[1525]

What was clear was that the change management process would be significant and that, as another member has noted, change is difficult for patients, providers, infrastructure around the hospital. So overall, the determination was made that Burnaby was better left in Fraser Health. However, much more integration of planning has to occur between Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal, and I know that they have started that process.

In terms of where we go from here, I did commit that with the review of the services in the Lower Mainland and the recent decision to locate St. Paul’s Hospital on Station Street, Fraser Health would need to do some work on that master site development plan that would incorporate those changes and also the changes that we see in our policy papers — relying less on the acute care sector and more on home and community care — because the master site development plan was created before these new policy papers were developed and put out for consultation.

The last thing I want to do is build a hospital that’s out of date before it’s even finished. That’s why that work is going to be incorporated over the next six to eight months into the master site development plan, and then we take it from there.

We will look at a phasing and have to go through a process. Fraser Health has to determine a priority in terms of capital projects. The ministry has to look at its fiscal capacity. I explained that to the members quite frankly, in terms of the ability of government to borrow, because we do hear from members that even though this is capital debt, it’s still debt, and we have to be conscious of that.

There are limitations on how much we can add to the capital plan, but we would look for opportunities to look at the master site development plan and then take it on to the next step.

K. Corrigan: Well, I have a different question. The quote I had from the meeting was with regard to Burnaby Hospital.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I believe it was…. Michael Marchbank said: “We are not going to get rid of regional services.” That was in reference to Burnaby Hospital. I do understand at some point in the future, perhaps, but that was certainly not the plan.

With regard to whether there were any promises made, the minister is…. Perhaps there’s a bit of a saw-off on that one. In the Liberal 2013 platform it was listed — Burnaby Hospital — as underway or in progress and then, separately, as underway or in planning. I think there would be an assumption that at some point the hospital would be built. I thank the minister for that.

I have a second question. My second question was with regard to a comment that was made about contributions to new capital projects. One of the concerns that I expressed was that because of the different arrangement that there is in place….

I won’t go through the whole history, but there is a different arrangement that was agreed to many years ago wherein hospitals in regional districts outside of the Lower Mainland would continue to contribute 40 percent of the capital cost of a capital project. But because of a deal that was made with regard to transit being returned to the Lower Mainland from provincial control, essentially to the Lower Mainland, the quid pro quo was that Lower Mainland hospitals would not be required to
[ Page 8422 ]
make that contribution of 40 percent.

The concern that I expressed was that this might skew decisions that are made about capital projects in favour of non–Lower Mainland projects because there is no requirement that in the Lower Mainland that 40 percent would be contributed by the regional district.

I asked the minister whether or not this would affect decisions about where hospitals are being built, and I just want a confirmation from the minister that the response was: “It influences to some degree where priorities are.”

[1530]

Hon. T. Lake: The member is referring, I think, to a 1997 agreement that the NDP government made at the time, which essentially was that in the Lower Mainland regional hospital districts would not be required to pay 40 percent of the capital but that the municipalities would pay all the capital for transit. Whereas outside of the Lower Mainland — in my hometown of Kamloops, for instance — regional hospital districts — i.e., local taxpayers — are expected to pay 40 percent of the capital. So on a $400 million hospital in Kamloops about $160 million of that would be raised locally.

When you look at the provincial contribution to a $400 million hospital in Kamloops, it actually is $240 million that the provincial government has to come up with. So if the regional hospital district, which is essentially the regional district members, votes to increase taxes locally to support that capital, then, of course, there’s a lower burden on the provincial government to contribute to that project.

Now, I’m not the Transportation Minister, but I think it’s obvious to many that the provincial government has put significant capital dollars into transit in the Lower Mainland. So the quid pro quo, I would argue, not being from the Lower Mainland, really hasn’t been realized.

Having said that, we look at the priorities. That is one of the factors, but it is not the main factor. Patients always come first, and that’s what we’ve said in all of the material that we have presented. We need a patient-centred focus.

When we’re rebuilding St. Paul’s Hospital, when we’re rebuilding Royal Columbian Hospital, then there are contributions that come from outside government. These are largely from foundations. The philanthropic community steps up for hospitals, and they always have. Throughout the history of British Columbia — in fact, throughout Canada — philanthropy has always been part of health care funding.

When we look at the amount of money that is being spent in a particular region, we have to prioritize provincially based on the priorities of each regional health authority. So Fraser Health — at the moment their number one priority is for Royal Columbian Hospital. Fraser Health would have to make a determination as to the priority for Burnaby Hospital vis-à-vis all the other hospitals they have. We know there are requests from Delta Hospital, for instance, for expansion of services there.

All of these things come into play when we are making decisions around capital. Of course, the big, big decision-maker is the amount of capital budget that’s available to the provincial government for all of these different projects across government.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear that the minister, by not refuting what I said, is confirming that he did say: “It influences, to some degree, where priorities are.” So if the minister wants to answer that one way or the other, that’s fine.

The final comment that I would make. We’re not doing Transportation estimates, but since the minister raised it, my understanding was that in the 1990s when that agreement happened, it was simply not that the Lower Mainland would take on the capital responsibility, the responsibility for fully funding the capital.

In fact, what was in place was what happened in many cases, which was the one-third, one-third, one-third generally through the infrastructure programs of the federal and provincial governments. There would be one-third paid by local government, one-third by the provincial government and one-third by the federal government.

I don’t want to leave that…. That was certainly not my understanding of what the agreement was. So to suggest that this agreement on capital projects no longer is relevant because it was broken on the other side I think simply is not consistent with the facts and the history.

With that, I will take my seat.

S. Chandra Herbert: The deputy minister and I talked last week. I really appreciated the chance to convey my constituents’ concern about the closure of St. Paul’s and the moving of St. Paul’s. I won’t go into the politics of disappointment and a broken promise and so on. Everyone is well aware of where I stand on this issue.

I did want to ask specifically. I know the minister and I agree on this point that there does need to be good-quality health care provided for residents of Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour, Yaletown and so on. We can agree that they do need good health care.

[1535]

I think one of the concerns residents have raised if the government proceeds with the plan to build St. Paul’s Hospital out of downtown Vancouver and in the False Creek Flats is: what happens with the existing site and what happens to ensure we get good good-quality health care for our residents?

I think in the meeting that I had with the deputy minister it was confirmed to me that nothing could happen on the current site of St. Paul’s unless there was provincial government permission. Providence Health Care could not sell the land to fundraise their portion of what they’ve agreed to put into St. Paul’s Hospital unless the province agreed to it.
[ Page 8423 ]

I think my ultimate concern is that if the government continues down this path, we could find not only have we lost our ambulance station downtown, which the government closed, but we’ll also lose our only health care facility downtown when, really, people are saying to me: “If you can’t keep the hospital, we need urgent care, we need good-quality primary care, at that location.”

If the minister can confirm to me that yes, the ultimate decision will rest with him and his government in terms of that location and share any thoughts he has on the need to maintain good-quality health care for my constituents.

Hon. T. Lake: I know the member is a staunch advocate of making sure services are provided to residents of the West End. I commend him for that and agree that we need to ensure that services are there.

I’ve spoken to Maxine at the Dr. Peter Centre. We had a good conversation. She’s very much in favour of the decision, knowing that the service at Dr. Peter Centre will continue, as other services will.

What we are doing through Providence Health Care and Vancouver Coastal at the moment is consulting with the community. What are the services that are needed? Looking at it from a patient population point of view, certainly there will need to be some primary care. No question. Some good comprehensive primary care.

Whether there’s a need for an urgent care centre remains to be seen. Personally, I don’t know. I’ve talked to people who say there will not be a need for urgent care when you have a major hospital 2.9 kilometres down the road. But that’s for the consultations to flesh out.

What the member is concerned about is that Providence could just sell and redevelop that land, and then all of a sudden there’s no space for any health care services. Through the Hospital Act, because the government has put significant resources into that site, we have the legislative ability to essentially have the hammer over any disposal of land assets by Providence.

We expect that land to redeveloped in, obviously, a way that meets the needs of the city of Vancouver. But we will expect that negotiation to ensure that there is space for primary health care and other health care services that are deemed necessary.

It may not be on site; it may be leased space somewhere else. But if, for instance, there was no ability to find that other space, we would need to make sure that we have the ability to incorporate it into the development on that land.

The member is correct, as stated from the meeting with our staff, that we will be working closely with Providence to make sure that there is space available in the West End for satisfactory health care services for residents.

[1540]

S. Chandra Herbert: I think one of the reasons why people are so concerned is, obviously, the sale and closure of the ambulance station downtown. The argument had been: “Well, don’t worry; we’ll find a way to get it into St. Paul’s Hospital.” Then residents are hearing: “Oh well, now the hospital is going to go too.” Knowing real estate, as we do, in downtown Vancouver and the West End, it’s pretty darn difficult to find a place that could take the level of service that you’d need, aside from the St. Paul’s site currently.

Just an invitation. On Tuesday, May 26 we’re going to have a health care forum in the West End. I know the minister said consultations are ongoing. As of yet, none have been announced, at least officially. But it would be great if the minister or somebody from the ministry would be willing to come and have a bit of a conversation about why they believe that this move is the right one. I think residents deserve that. A letter has been mailed to the minister’s office, as well as to Providence Health Care — but just to put that on the record now.

Just to finish up — just the two questions that are still niggling a little bit. There are many more, but I’m sure we’ll send them after the community meeting.

Is $500 million the final budget figure for the government in terms of their capital outlay on this project, inclusive of developing better health care for the West End should the hospital be moved?

Secondly, where are we at in terms of locating an ambulance station back downtown, as the ambulance service has said they’d like to do?

Hon. T. Lake: We’re getting close to the time where we had agreed to have a bit of a break. But I wanted to answer the member’s question — $500 million is the budgeted provincial contribution. As I mentioned in the previous question to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, the philanthropic community is committed to raising money for capital. Of course, the sale of assets, development of assets, will go towards that as well.

All of that will be used for the new St. Paul’s. But the new St. Paul’s is a hub and spoke model. In that plan, they will determine what facilities are needed in the community as part of the resources that are made available from those three sources — the sale of assets, the philanthropic community and the province.

In terms of ambulance service, the member knows well that the ambulance service is a dynamic deployment model. It’s not a “stay at the station” model and wait for the phone call to come in. I went on a bit of a field trip with the downtown ambulance service several months ago. They certainly are on the road all the time and back and forth to St. Paul’s.

The station on Richards was sold, and I believe Cordova Street is being expanded to accommodate crews and ambulances, which is not very far away from there. With this development of the new St. Paul’s, emergency health services will have to look at that as well.

All of this will have to be integrated into the plan for
[ Page 8424 ]
the entire downtown area to make sure that we have adequate ability for the ambulance to be restocked and cleaned, which needs to happen on a regular basis. Certainly, we’ll not overlook the need for ambulance abilities to restock, clean and deploy in the downtown area.

With that, I would seek a brief recess.

The Chair: Okay, we’ll take a recess of ten minutes. See you back in ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:44 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: I have a couple of questions off the top that are just kind of general questions about a random number of items, and then I want to talk a little bit about the report that came out from the seniors advocate on Placement, Drugs and Therapy, and then I want to talk a little bit about the Ombudsperson’s report.

My first question to the minister is with regards to the provincial office of domestic violence. When I’ve asked questions in the Ministry of Children and Families estimates, last year the minister made reference to the fact that the Ministry of Health works very closely with the provincial office of domestic violence, that there were program dollars within the Health Ministry that were related to domestic violence. I just wanted to ask what those program dollars are used for. What concrete programs or services are directly related to women or families experiencing domestic violence?

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: It’s difficult to tease out all the separate funding that comes from different ministries, because a lot of the actions are cross-ministerial. Let me just tell you about some targeted Health Ministry funding that goes towards elder abuse prevention programs, and then I’ll get into the more coordinated cross-ministerial programs that we have.

The ministry provided funding of $1.4 million in 2011-12, $350,000 in 2013-14, $350,000 in ’14-15. I’ll have to check on this number here, on the total number, because there are two different numbers.

[1605]

This all is going to the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks for elder abuse services and programs in the province. We are still looking at funding for this coming year. As part of that, $700,000 is for community capacity building grants.

The Provincial Health Services Authority provided $850,000 in 2012-13 to the B.C. Centre for Elder Advocacy and Support to expand the capacity and hours of its seniors abuse and information line.

In the February 2014 throne speech government committed to developing a long-term comprehensive strategy to ensure that all women have the supports they need to prevent violence, to escape from violent situations and to recover if they’ve been victims of crime. The violence-free-B.C. strategy was released on February 6 of this year, alongside a commitment of up to $3 million in civil forfeiture funding to support anti-violence and prevention initiatives.

We work with the Ministry of Children and Families particularly to build a strategy to prevent violence against women. We have Together to Reduce Elder Abuse, which was also a coordinated, cross-government, multisector approach led by the Ministry of Health. That was launched in March 2013.

So a number of key initiatives funded from the Ministry of Health, through the ministry or through other organizations like the community response networks, and also multiministry initiatives like the violence-free-B.C. strategy that brings together Children and Families, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice as well.

M. Karagianis: It would seem to me that the elder abuse issues here, and the way the services are provided for that, are much easier to track than support for the provincial office of domestic violence or the general violence-free-B.C. initiative. Are there performance measures or any tracking and reporting done on how these funds are affecting the communities — you know, their reduction in elder abuse or…? I mean, one would assume that more services out there raise the awareness of elder abuse.

Are there any kinds of performance measures that the government has up to this point that they can share with us?

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: There are a variety of different metrics that are employed to look at the effectiveness of some of the programs. The community response networks, for instance, often in the past have received grants for capacity-building and to put measures in place in different communities. Some of the outcomes there would be how many communities have been organized with community response networks.

We also do surveys through B.C. Stats. Also, there’s a survey that we contribute to, to oversample in British Columbia, and that’s the National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly. That will give us some idea of prevalence.

Importantly, the office of the seniors advocate is working on this to try to standardize the reporting system with the different health authorities. As delegated agencies, they are compelled to report any incidents of abuse that they come across.

[1615]

So if they’re doing home support services or assisted living residential care, if they hear of any instance of elder abuse, then they are to report that.
[ Page 8425 ]

The system is not standardized at the moment, so the office of the seniors advocate has formed a working group with the Ministry of Health and the health authorities to look at best practices. Currently the model used at Vancouver Coastal appears to be a model that is sort of considered the standard. They will take a look at that model, work with other health authorities, and then the seniors advocate is committed to having that standardized reporting system available on their website, hopefully later this year.

M. Karagianis: Well, I had listened earlier to the exchange between our Health critic and the minister with regard to residential care contract flipping and that kind of thing. The minister had referred to the seniors advocate many times in that conversation. I think I’ll turn to that report, then, if you don’t mind.

The most recent report that came out, Placement, Drugs and Therapy, has three very clear issues that have arisen here. I’d just like to touch on those a little bit. The minister and I have talked a little bit about this, both in the Legislature and discussing it in the hallway. There are three main issues that she has highlighted here: premature admissions to residential care, the overuse of drugs in care facilities and the lack of physiotherapy and recreational therapy for seniors. I’d like to ask just a few questions on that.

The issue of appropriate placement in residential care. This report has come out subsequent to the government planning their budgets for the year. I would like the minister to maybe address how there’s going to be a response to some of these. Or will there be a response, given that the budget was already set? How do you allow within the budget for some of the recommendations that have come out of here?

Now, there haven’t been any strong and harsh recommendations per se from this report. But I would certainly assume that it has got the government thinking and concerned about these topics. I know that the minister alluded to that earlier, in conversation with the Health critic. Maybe if the minister could elaborate a little bit on the issue of appropriate placement in residential care, premature placement, what steps the government is taking and how that fits into the existing budget.

Hon. T. Lake: This was the report that was released earlier this year, Placement, Drugs and Therapy. Some really interesting findings, which I think is really the strength of the seniors advocate office. They’re able to take a step back and say, “Okay, how are we doing?” or: “Why are we doing this? How are other provinces doing?” You know, looking at different measurements.

What they found was…. I think there was about 15 percent, if I remember correctly, of the population in residential care that may be able to still be looked after, if you like, or live their lives appropriately in either a home care with supports or in assisted living. That’s based on this resident assessment instrument that looks at and evaluates individuals and determines the appropriateness of their placement.

When you compare Alberta and Ontario to British Columbia, what we find is that there are some people in B.C. that, by comparison, look like, if they were living in Alberta or Ontario, they may be living in assisted living or at-home care with supports.

That’s a very interesting finding, and obviously, we are very interested in that. If we can, in fact, look at the RAI instrument that we use and make sure we’re working with health authorities to make sure it is used appropriately…. I mean, this is something that we all will learn together. If there are things about that instrument that need to be done differently so that we can free up residential care spaces, that’s a good thing. That means that there’s more capacity in the system.

[1620]

It also means that some people that may have been placed in residential care would be able to be rehomed, either in assisted living or at home with supports — again, better for the patient or the resident and likely more economical in terms of taxpayer support.

We will take this information. Our ministry is studying it closely. Of course, we work closely with the seniors advocate office so we can explore this data, test it out and work with the health authorities — get their opinion on this residential assessment instrument and its use compared to Alberta, Ontario. We will meet and discuss with the other provinces the way they do things to make sure that the assumptions in this report are correct.

We will take this information, because if it is, in fact, the case that people are not appropriately housed, we want to correct that. It’s better for the patient, the person, but also better for the system to make sure that people are in the appropriate setting for their needs.

M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much, and the minister and I would agree 100 percent on that. Certainly, the findings from the seniors advocate report here would indicate — I’m accepting as fact much of her findings here — that there needs to be a significant shift, then, in the funding of home care and how the evaluations are done and all of that.

I guess my concern would be this. When the ministry does its evaluations, at some point there’s going to have to be a starting point to say: “Well, now we are going to move to trying to keep seniors in their homes longer.” Therefore, there’s going to be a shift in the requirement for supportive funding for that — and just shifting the entire system, not just for this but for other parts of this report that we’re going to explore.

My concern is how this might be done. I’m sure that the ministry must be thinking — as with any new initiatives and new information that come in, and just best
[ Page 8426 ]
practices from elsewhere that continue to move into the system — how do you make that graduation? It’s not as if you can turn the light switch on, and tomorrow everything will be done in a new way. It always requires investment up front to make the shift. Is that something that the ministry is contemplating?

You know, we talk often in the Legislature here about money being extremely tight and about the demands on the health care system and about the growing demands on the health care system. It seems to me that making a significant shift away from the way we’re doing things now….

Just taking the 15 percent figure that the advocate has given us. I mean, that’s thousands of individuals that are going to need a much more intensive kind of support system at the early stages in order to change the way they flow through the system. I’m just wondering what the ministry’s thinking is on this and how you might be approaching it.

Hon. T. Lake: There are about 27,000 people in residential care in British Columbia, so 15 percent of that would be about 400 people. It’s hundreds, not thousands, but the member’s point is well taken — that you can’t flip a switch and turn things around overnight.

I only wish she was here yesterday when we were talking about medical training and the number of physicians, because that’s the dilemma. You can’t flip a switch and automatically produce doctors.

An important concept that the member has brought up is: how do you make that shift? We had a good discussion yesterday about this great big ship that we are in command of — the health care system — and how you turn that ship in a different direction. It’s not nimble because of history, interests of professions, unions, institutions, patients. I mean, there’s a lot of factors there. You’re right, you cannot shift this instantly.

What we’re going to do…. We have a primary and community care two-day workshop in Vancouver June 1 and 2. Once our staff has finished all the work that they’re doing this week and the last week of session they’ll be looking at this workshop that we’re going to do in Vancouver with health authorities, with a whole wide variety of stakeholders — and that will include residential care, home and community care, community nursing and primary care.

[1625]

The seniors advocate’s office will be in attendance. This will be a great opportunity for health authorities that provide home and community care to test the assumptions in the seniors advocate’s report. If we accept these assumptions and decide that there are some appropriateness questions that need to be answered, how do we make that shift?

We’ll take the findings from that workshop and do some work over the summer. Then starting in the fall we will devise mechanisms that, through the funding of health authorities, will see that shift into home and community care in the ways that have been identified through the work we’ve done to date.

It is a process, and we look forward to the two days in June when a lot of this information will be discussed. HAs that are on the front line of health care will be able to give their input on how best to make that shift so that we can keep more people at home and in community.

M. Karagianis: Just to go back to the earlier comments about hundreds versus thousands. The report actually says that these “results were surprising. It appears from this data that somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of seniors living in B.C. residential care fit one or more of these profiles” — which could be 1,500 to 4,000. That’s significant even just at a very cursory level on that.

I’d be very interested to see the progress of this initiative, where all of the various factors and sectors of the health system get together. Will some of those findings be made public? It’s going to be something that everyone in the system….

I mean, I think about our role in opposition, but I know I’ve been with your deputy minister to the B.C. Care Providers forums and things. Obviously, there will be places for this dialogue to also be conducted with other parts of the community as well, I would hope and assume.

Hon. T. Lake: As we develop policy changes as a result of the work, obviously, they will be made public and be implemented. The B.C. Care Providers lunch with the minister in October would be an opportunity to talk about any policy changes if they are completed by that time.

Certainly, we will keep people informed of the progress we’re making, as we have with all of these policy papers. They’ve all been on the website. They’ve been out there in the public.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

Great discussion, particularly in the health care professions and unions and associations, so we’ll continue to let people know the direction in which we’re moving so that we can make sure that there’s a consensus there. Although you’ll never get unanimity, there is a clear indication of the way we’re moving in terms of the shift from acute care to home and community care.

M. Karagianis: The second part of the report, I think, that was of concern to all of us —I know the minister and I have discussed this just briefly, but I thought we would perhaps have a discussion here — is the appropriate use of medication. This is a great concern to British Columbians generally, but I’m trying to find the root cause of this.

When we talk about residential care and how it’s managed and staffed, one of the questions that I put to the minister is whether or not this issue of overmedication…. Are
[ Page 8427 ]
we putting some of this responsibility on doctors? Are we putting this responsibility on care environments that are not quite prepared to meet the depth of need or the extreme need of care? Or is this more of a way to manage a very difficult population or a very challenging population without adequate staffing or other infrastructure for them?

I mean, I think about the great move during the 1990s and into the early 2000s to build assisted living. Many of the assisted-living providers knew that they would be developing settings that might very likely have to provide a much higher level of care for seniors because there wasn’t always necessarily the next level of care for them.

I wonder about some of the root causes of this. Has the minister been able to begin to look at the root causes of some of this overmedication and overuse of, certainly, psychological drugs and antidepressants and things like this in these settings?

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: The use of antipsychotics and other medication is, I think, a topic of concern to physicians, care providers and certainly the Ministry of Health and health authorities. When you look at the number of drugs that people are on….

I have this discussion with people a lot. We have elderly people that are at the very end of their life and yet are on medications to lower their cholesterol. It seems incongruous. There is a lively discussion going on, and I think there is a realization in the health community that we need to reduce the use of all types of drugs as we near the end of life.

The B.C. Patient Safety and Quality Council did an initiative called CLeAR, which is call for less antipsychotics in residential care. The early results show a 38 percent reduction in antipsychotic use. It says 24 percent of residential care clients are assessed with depression, yet 47 percent are prescribed antidepressant medications. That would indicate that even though there’s not a diagnosis of depression, these medications are being used for other reasons, because they do have other effects.

The question is: are they being used to manage behaviour? I think that is the member’s point, and I think that is a lively question. I don’t have the answer to that. We are working with the B.C. Patient Safety and Quality Council on that issue. I know that gerontologists at UBC are working on that issue as well.

There’s, I think, a general realization that we have to reduce the amount of drugs, particularly the amount of drugs that are used if they’re being used to control behaviour. I’m not a physician, but I think we would expect that physicians are using appropriateness when prescribing these medications.

A discussion with the Doctors of B.C., with the College of Physicians and Surgeons around this topic I think is important. That may be explored further in our primary and community care session that we’re doing in June.

The first step in doing something about a problem is recognizing the problem. This information…. It’s not the first time that we’ve heard this, but it adds to the information that is clearly showing that the use of antipsychotics and antidepressants in residential care is something that we need to address. We are certainly going to do that.

There is a Best Practice Guideline for Accommodating and Managing Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Residential Care. That was issued in October of 2012. That’s when this issue started to be addressed.

The other thing that we have done…. The PIECES program was a program developed by Dr. Carol Ward, actually, in Ontario. She has moved to Kamloops and is a geriatric psychiatrist. She has really been a champion of that program, which looks at the psychological, intellectual and emotional aspects of behaviour and teaches staff how to manage without the use of drugs the behaviours that can be disconcerting or cause potential violence, patient on patient or patient on staff.

That program has been initiated throughout the Interior Health Authority. By training people in the PIECES program, we are now expanding that throughout the health authority.

Again, there are a lot of initiatives going on — the CLeAR initiative, the PIECES program — that we hope will see a reduction in the amount of antipsychotics and antidepressants being used. It is something that we want to make sure that we do.

M. Karagianis: I do note from the seniors advocate report as well that one of the more critical aspects of overmedication is medication error. What is the ministry action on this, around how you manage medication error? What percentage of this medication problem is around overmedication?

[1635]

Could this be because of inexperienced staff? I mean, I would certainly guess and assume, given the general crisis around general practitioners, that we’re not seeing doctors going in and administering these medications in these facilities and that it, in fact, is left to staff.

Who is it that’s responsible for administering these medications, and what percentage of overmedication is because of medication errors, inexperienced or undertrained individuals?

Hon. T. Lake: There’s a lot of work going on in this area, as reflected in the time it has taken me to put it all together here.

We mentioned the CLeAR initiative. We mentioned some of the other initiatives, the PIECES program. The Doctors of B.C. also have a Shared Care polypharmacy initiative that supports family and specialist physicians to improve the management of elderly patients on multiple medications that may impact their safety and quality of life.

I wanted to start out by saying that all of these pre-
[ Page 8428 ]
scriptions, of course, are made by physicians. It’s not the staff at a residential care facility saying: “Oh, let’s give Mr. Beaton more of this today.” Obviously, they’re following a care plan that has been outlined…. The prescriptions are outlined by a physician. I did point out that we have the general practitioner guidelines that have been developed on polypharmacy.

[1640]

A very important initiative in terms of general practitioners looking after residential care patients is the General Practice Services Committee residential care initiative. This actually just started, I believe, a couple of days ago. This is our new agreement with Doctors of B.C., and some of these new initiatives were put in place as part of the physician master agreement.

This is to have dedicated general practitioner services in residential care. It provides a fee that is attributed to each placement in residential care. In order to have that payment initiative, there are five things they have to do. One of the biggest things they have to do is a medication review. They go in and look at all the medications that that particular patient is on and review what is necessary and what’s not necessary — again, this growing realization that if we know that someone is in the final year of their life, then perhaps they don’t need to be on some of the medication that normally you would be on for 20 or 30 years.

They also have to commit to 24-7 availability to those patients and do proactive visits to residents to reassess them, complete all the documentation that’s necessary to track the health of the patient and also attend case conferences with other physicians around the care of the patients.

That’s an initiative that I think will result in better care from GPs for patients that are in residential care.

M. Karagianis: Well, it occurs to me…. Given the shortage of doctors, how are these doctors going to dedicate themselves to being available and to doing this work in seniors care?

I talk to individuals around the province. There is a growing crisis of families who don’t have a GP and who now have aging parents. I have a constituent who has a mother with vascular dementia who’s having some real issues getting her placed because she doesn’t have a dedicated GP. It seems to me this is a lot of responsibility, now, on a group of docs.

Are they dedicated to simply providing seniors care, or are these docs that are now working in general practice in communities who now have got to add to their workload these medication reviews, 24-7 availability, proactive visits? I think that’s, again, time out of the office.

How is that possible, given the crisis with general practitioners?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to make sure that we characterize the challenge appropriately.

There’s no crisis in terms of family practitioners. There is a challenge, for sure, and, in some communities, that challenge is greater than others. But the numbers demonstrate that British Columbia has the same challenge as the average in Canada. There are some provinces that are doing a little better in terms of the availability of physicians. There are some provinces that are doing much worse. I would not characterize the challenge as a crisis.

[1645]

Having said that, the divisions of family practice around the province are workshopping this initiative. There will be different solutions in different parts of the province.

There may be general practitioners who currently only work three days a week, and they may want to dedicate a day to residential care commitments through this initiative. There may be groups of physicians that get together to do a team-based initiative so that they are essentially working as a team to do residential care, medicine, in their community.

There may be different solutions and different approaches, but this initiative, I think, will be one more incentive to make sure that doctors take on complex patients. You can imagine, if a physician has a patient load of 1,200 to 1,400 patients, and if a high proportion of them are complex, then that’s going to take more time.

We have tried to incentivize attachment with attachment to complex patients through the GPSC previously. This is one more of those incentive programs to allow physicians to be compensated appropriately for the increased amount of work that it takes to look after someone with complex disease and more than one problem than it takes for someone that has a simple, relatively short-lived health challenge.

M. Karagianis: I understand that the minister is saying this is a new initiative, so it’s in its fledgling stages, I guess. How are you going to monitor whether that’s working or not?

I think, theoretically, the idea that you could incentivize, which means more money for docs to come and do this kind of care…. It would seem to me that if a doctor has chosen to work three days a week, I’m not sure what kind of incentivizing it would take to get them to work four days a week in a very much more complex kind of environment, as the minister has categorized it. How is that going to be tracked? Is there a check-in point, an evaluation at six months, at a year?

The minister doesn’t want to call it a crisis, but for those of us in communities that do not have a family doctor — and I count myself as one of those people — it is critical. It concerns me greatly that as I age, I don’t have any kind of a family doctor who knows anything about my health history or could judge whether I’m showing early signs of dementia or anything else. It’s up to my family or myself to monitor those because I don’t have a family doctor.

I do really identify with many British Columbians who
[ Page 8429 ]
don’t have this. It’s a great concern. It worries me a lot that I could have health problems that I’m not even aware of, that early intervention could change the outcome.

How is this being monitored? I’m not sure that the challenge, as the minister likes to call it, in general practitioners and family needs….

Moving any of those resources into this new initiative means that they’re being taken away from someplace else. In an ideological world, maybe doctors are now going to work an extra day a week in order to provide this kind of service in this particular environment. But common sense says that’s not going to happen in 100 percent of cases and that somewhere it’s going to drain the system.

How is this going to be evaluated? When’s it going to be evaluated? What are the measures along the way to see what kind of impact that’s having — not just on seniors care but on family care and the rest of the province and the rest of the communities’ care — if resources are now being focused in this new way on seniors care?

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the General Practice Services Committee tracks these because physicians have to bill the GPSC for these services. We will track these in the same way we have the other incentive programs.

I just want to briefly go over those: the unattached complex, high-needs patient intake incentive that we instituted a number of years ago, where physicians can bill $200 per patient. That’s to take on high-needs patients, those with severe disability, mental health, substance use, maternity, high-needs chronic conditions and cancer, for instance. They can bill that $200. As of December 31, 2014, tracking through the GPSC, we can see that over 54,600 previously unattached complex patients received care from about 1,900 general practitioners.

There is also an expanded access to complex care initiative. Again, this is for people in community. Physicians can actually bill $315 per patient per calendar year. These are for frail patients. About 17,600 have received care under that incentive.

We will do the same tracking for the residential care incentive. They will have to bill GPSC for each of those spaces that they are looking after. We have built in an evaluation process at the front end of this initiative to track its effectiveness.

M. Karagianis: What’s the budget for this particular piece of work?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you for reminding me. There’s $12 million set aside in the new physician master agreement for this work.

M. Karagianis: I’ll look forward to watching this to see how successful it is, because it would be great if it is successful.

The third part of the seniors advocate report here had to do with physical activity, physiotherapy. I’m just wondering what steps the government anticipates taking with this regard.

Much of this is, of course, provided by the residential care provider — but kind of alarming numbers when you see how inactive many of our seniors are. I would expect that this probably excludes those who are in very advanced stages of frailty. I’m not exactly sure how it applies to dementia care either, but I think that’s very important.

I’d be interested to hear what the minister’s perspective is on this.

[1655]

Hon. T. Lake: We had a really good discussion over this. First of all, if we go back to the appropriateness of placement…. If, in fact, 15 percent of people in residential care could better be living in community or assisted living, if we took those numbers out, then proportionately there would probably be a higher percentage of people getting physiotherapy. Those people that may be in residential care inappropriately could function outside of that, and so you’d have a higher complexity of care that would need more rehabilitation and occupational therapy.

That’s a subject of debate that we just had, so I come to no conclusions on that, other than to say that perhaps that’s one of the factors.

This is the kind of discussion that will take place when we go to the health authorities in June at our two days talking about primary and community care — saying: what are we focused on in residential care? Is it care and comfort? Is that where we should be placing our energy?

If you look at recreational therapy, B.C. has significantly more than Ontario. Is that because the care providers and health authorities think that recreational therapy is actually better for their quality of life than more physical therapy or occupational therapy? Those are the kinds of discussions that I think will come out.

While I think of it — because I know that the member is keenly interested in this — I was watching a documentary last night on Netflix called Alive Inside. I’d really recommend that — about the power of music to bring people back.

Some of these interviews were phenomenal, hon. Chair. I hope you’ll indulge me a little bit, because it really was amazing. They’d ask someone, “Well, what did you do when you were young?” and they couldn’t really remember. Then when you put the music on, they would say: “Well, when I was your age, I did this.” They would recount in intimate detail some of the memories that they had — just by putting on music that their family had identified that they need.

[1700]

That’s a kind of therapy, I think, that we recognize is important. I remember when I was in veterinary school,
[ Page 8430 ]
we started a pet visitation program. The same thing happened with people with severe dementia. You’d put a cat on their lap, and they would, all of a sudden, start talking when they were uncommunicative before.

I think all of these things…. But I really recommend that for the member, because I know she’s keenly interested in that.

This will be a subject of our discussion. The deputy to the seniors advocate has a background in rehabilitation therapy, rehabilitation medicine, so he will be able to provide a lot of good input into this. Clearly, if we look at things like falls and hip fractures, one would think that activity levels and physical and occupational therapy are important to prevent that from happening. It is something that we’re keenly interested in following up on.

M. Karagianis: Alive Inside — I’m familiar with that. There’s actually a group called Forever Young in the U.S. that has seniors who have had singing experience or careers in their lives. Many seniors who were almost immobilized start singing. They perform with these groups. It’s actually the most inspiring thing you could imagine — some of these people in their 90s that suddenly are reinvigorated by singing again and by performing with a seniors singing group. Yeah, I think there are a lot of really excellent therapies out there.

You did touch on something here that was another series of questions I had. Taking those seniors out of the system that could do better at home for a longer period of time — or in assisted living — I think is great, but we also have this other growing wave of complex care coming, which is the increased dementia situation. I think statistics have shown and it’s very evident that there will be more seniors suffering from some forms of dementia as the baby boomer group comes through and reaches that stage.

How are these discussions affected by the overlay of dementia care, which, of course, adds a whole different complexity to this story? What are the government and the ministry thinking regarding that — the growing incidence of dementia?

[1705]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, certainly, the prevalence of dementias, including Alzheimer’s, is a daunting prospect as the population ages, although there are some good things going on out there. For instance, there’s evidence that suggests that with the better stroke management that we have today, the incidence of vascular dementia may actually go down. That’s part of the good news.

There’s promising research going on, a fascinating documentary that, I think, The Nature of Things did on dementia, and work going on in New York that actually seems to equate dementia as a type 3 diabetes, where the brain actually has some insulin resistance — and developing aerosols of insulin that would go through the cribriform plate into the brain rather than affecting the whole body. Very fascinating stuff going on.

There’s work going on all around the world, including here in Vancouver. I was at the opening of the Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health at UBC 12 to 14 months ago — amazing facility and some tremendous work that’s going on there. I’m actually very hopeful that there will be some real, significant steps forward in terms of prevention and treatment of dementia.

We obviously have to deal with what we have in front of us, and so the dementia action plan has a number of priorities. The refresh plan focuses on four priorities.

Increasing public awareness and early recognition of dementia. We work with the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia, and we have contributed, I believe, a total of $10 million to the First Link program, which links families — when you get an initial diagnosis of Alzheimer’s — to services in the community that are available. That is hugely important. You can imagine the impact on a family to hear that a loved one has Alzheimer’s and where to go to seek help.

The second priority is to support people with dementia to live independently as long as possible and to live safely. There was no better example of that than at the University of Victoria yesterday at the CanAssit lab, where we contributed another $3 million to the work they’re doing.

They have an anti-wandering initiative. It was really great to see. It’s a series of screens that are placed in the home and sensors. Essentially what would happen is if a patient with Alzheimer’s is living at home, goes to the front door to go out at an inappropriate time of day….

First of all, there’s a screen that shows that it is daytime or nighttime, and then if it is an inappropriate time of day — nighttime, for instance — and the person tries to go out, a picture will come up. It’s a recording of their daughter, their son, their other caregiver, saying: “Hey, Dad, it’s nighttime. You should go back to bed now. I’ll call you in the morning.” It also has reminders about medications that automatically come up on the screen.

That initiative has been piloted here on Vancouver Island at the Wellesley, actually, and has had tremendous success. They are now, with this money, able to take it out to the rest of the province.

They also have a phone-in monitoring system that’s developed, so you don’t need to have an Internet connection. You just have a land line. There are sensors in the bed and in different rooms that will alert someone, that phones in and punches a particular code to find out where their dad or their mom or the other person that they’re concerned about, where they’ve been in their house, the last time they slept in their bed, what activity has been happening on their telephone.

That again, is another way for people to check in on their loved ones. That all helps keep people at home as long as possible.

Then the third priority is to improve quality of care in residential care homes and improve palliative and end-
[ Page 8431 ]
of-life care. This is, of course, critical to…. When we talk about end-of-life care, the Premier has tasked me with developing an end-of-life care plan and to increasing the number of hospice spaces available around the province, and we’re working hard on that initiative.

In terms of residential care, if you…. And I’m sure the member has had the opportunity to go to some of the new residential care facilities. What they will have is security, of course, to make sure that people do not wander out of the facility.

[1710]

They also have, through their building design, incorporated designs that will help with the behaviour of dementia. Many people with dementia have repetitive walking patterns, and so there are hallways designed to accommodate that — handrails and signage and familiarity to help people as they exhibit those behaviours. That will keep their stress levels down.

The priority 4 is to increase system supports and adoption of best practices in dementia care. All of that is ongoing. The implementation will be phased in over the next three fiscal years through to 2017-18.

M. Karagianis: Well, new residential care facilities are indeed very attractive and interesting. But it touches on one of the other questions I’m going to ask here about facilities.

Certainly, exciting new work coming, but all of it is very expensive and requires a great deal of money in order to make it happen. The minister talked about early diagnosis for Alzheimer’s and things. That’s hard to do if you don’t have a GP. So some of these things are tied very much to the issues around not having a general practitioner.

I do note that when we talk about new residential care facilities, that is different from existing facilities. Around dementia care and just the whole issue of how we provide some of these services, can the minister address the issue of facility capacity? I know from being involved in building some assisted living in the early 2000s that the discussion, even then — on how the assisted living was equipped and at what stage the residents there had to move into more advanced care — was a pretty hot topic. Many facilities, even now, that are currently used to maximum capacity do not have the ability to address some of these issues.

I live just up the street from Sunset Lodge, so I’ve really watched the evolution there. I have been to tour the facility often, because it is in my neighbourhood. There are many challenges with these facilities and their capacity.

What steps are the government taking to try and mesh all of these great new ideas and all of these wonderful new therapies and treatments and initiatives and a lot of aging infrastructure that doesn’t have the capacity to even address some of the very basic things that we’ve been talking about?

[1715]

Hon. T. Lake: I just wanted to talk about the capacity, what we have in the system and where we’ve come from.

In June of 2001 we had a total of 25,360 residential care beds and 20 assisted-living units for a total of 25,380 total capacity, which was residential care, assisted living and group homes. As of March 31, 2014, we have 27,308 residential care beds. We have 4,438 assisted-living units.

Again, the member mentioned that it was the late ’80s or early ’90s when assisted living really started to take off, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing that come up over the years. And 83 group home beds. So there’s a total capacity in the system of 31,829. Total capacity has increased about 25 percent over that period of time.

What we’re doing with our primary and community care policy paper is we’ve sent it out to consultation. We’ve received some information back from health authorities, for instance, and we’ll be workshopping this June 1 and 2, as I mentioned. But what we’re doing with health authorities is breaking down, to a more granular level, to look at those communities, looking at essentially 64 communities of care around the province.

I think we’re going to pick ten or 12 of those to focus on initially and look at the suite of services in independent living, assisted living and residential care, along with their primary care and community care needs, and do an assessment of exactly what the status quo is and where we need to be. There would be some areas of the province where the housing stock would be newer and other areas of the province where it’s older.

Northern Health, I know, for instance, has a particular challenge because of an older population. And the sparsity of the population doesn’t attract private investment in residential care because you don’t have the critical mass that you have in other areas of the province.

We’re going to take a more granular look at those 64 communities and look at the range of different options they have for living for seniors and then dedicate resources to make that change in each of those communities, based on looking at them holistically, rather than just saying: “Well, 40 percent of the stock we have now is old. It needs to be replaced.” Where do we need to focus those resources to make the biggest change in the shortest period of time?

M. Karagianis: How long is that project scheduled to take? What’s the timeline on that?

[1720]

Hon. T. Lake: The work. We don’t have specific timelines for when all of this will be done. Obviously, it’s a moving target as the population ages and as care models change.

But we are doing several things. I mentioned that we, with the health authorities, have broken it down to 64 different communities. We’ll take the first ten or 12 communities and pilot changes in those communities. That will take some time. Starting in the fall, probably it will
[ Page 8432 ]
take the better part of a year to go through the changes in those different communities. Then we will go to the next tranche and take what we’ve learned from the first batch of communities and put those initiatives in place in the other communities.

Not to say that health authorities don’t now look at their housing stock. They do, on a regular basis. Vancouver Coastal, for instance, is embarking on a phased approach to replace or rejuvenate their outdated residential care beds across the region. Each health authority takes stock, and that is the information that we now need to plug in on a provincewide basis and look at where the needs are highest — focus on those communities initially and then roll it out across the province.

Things are happening concurrently. Health authorities are doing their work in replacing stock, which is just the normal thing that we would do. I’ve been told that about 40 percent of the current housing stock is under the Hospital Act. Those would be older facilities, rather than the 60 percent that are under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. There’s still some work to do to replace that stock, and that work is ongoing.

What we are trying to do with the primary and community care is not do it independently — not just replace the residential care alone but think about care in the community, perhaps a wider ability to stay in assisted living. I think that’s what the seniors advocate has found — that there is probably a way to increase capacity in assisted living and keep people there longer. With some of the technologies we saw demonstrated at UVic yesterday, that may be very, very helpful in helping us achieve that.

I don’t have a specific timeline when all this work will be done. We’ll start with the prototype communities in the fall, and that will take probably the better part of a year to see some results there.

[1725]

M. Karagianis: I note that the ministry has published a number of cross-sector policy discussion papers. The one on primary and community care I was particularly interested in. It dovetails with this discussion. The paper contains pretty ambitious plans, I think — for instance, things like reducing the pressure on ERs and medical in-patient beds for seniors with moderate to complex chronic conditions. The plan, as laid out, I think, requires quite a high degree of coordination with residential care operators, given some of the expectations here.

My question is: how are the privately operated facilities responding to this? Are they willing to partner in implementing some of these ideas?

Hon. T. Lake: There was a very well-attended consultation on the primary and community care policy paper with the B.C. Care Providers and the Denominational Health Association, with a follow-up session, actually, with staff as well. So they have all been very interested in collaborating. We do monthly calls with those associations. They provided written feedback on that paper as well, and they will be part of the June 1 and 2 symposium that we’re doing on primary and community care. I believe they’ll be there on the second day.

They’re very interested in all of the objectives of the primary and community care paper and, certainly, willing partners. Obviously, funding is a part of that, and that is something that the ministry will have to deal with as we move resources into primary and community care. There has got to be a shift of some type out of acute care. Hopefully, what will happen is the need for acute care will go down, reducing the demands on acute care so that those resources can be placed in home and community care.

Of course, that change sometimes takes a while to accomplish. So we’re working hard with the health authorities and will be discussing that with them at the June 1 and 2 conference.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I would anticipate that the shift would be costly. We’ll certainly…. The private providers would be, I’m sure, looking for a good incentive there to do this as well.

[1730]

It does occur to me…. I know that the minister had quite an exchange with our critic earlier this afternoon about things like contract flipping. Really, these private contracts are not always that easy. The agreements they have and the provisions within their contracts and things don’t always make it easy to control them after the fact.

Will there be contractual requirements if they engage in some of these new initiatives that will...? I heard the exchange with the minister about how we know that whenever these contracts are flipped and staffing changes.... Seniors care is very relationship-oriented, and so often there are effects on this.

Certainly, you can give directives, and you can have expectations of a private contractor, but their contract with the health authorities really is what it is. They negotiate that. What kind of requirements will be put upon them if they engage in these new initiatives around trying to reduce the pressures on emergency room access? How are you going to ensure that they adhere to that?

Two or three contracts get changed down the way, and now suddenly you don’t have that same agreement in place for some of the services that are being provided here. Multidisciplinary practices — OTs, physios, dietitians, all of those things — are they going to be part of the requirement, I guess, for future providers in these private residential facilities?

Hon. T. Lake: There will need to be a shift if we’re looking at things like providing sub-acute care in residential
[ Page 8433 ]
care facilities. I talk to people who say: “You know, if only we had the ability to just put in an IV and rehydrate someone, that would mean that they don’t have to go to hospital. They could be cared for in what is their home.” That would take pressure off the acute care system, and it would be more appropriate care — you know, nurse- and physician-led initiatives that would keep people out of the acute care system.

We will have to think through how contracts are structured with private providers and also, of course, have the regulatory framework in place that is necessary to allow those kinds of activities to occur. That’s all part of the thinking that we’re doing at the moment, and looking for feedback from all the stakeholders. So that, I’m sure, will be a lively part of the discussion on June 2.

M. Karagianis: It’ll be very interesting to see how those discussions go, because certainly we’re talking about an evolution in residential care that is much more complicated, much more clinical, much more medical, much more expensive in many ways, from new initiatives to having nurse practitioners or someone on staff to handle some of these higher medical requirements. All of it — very interesting to see how it unfolds and how pragmatic it is.

I’ve certainly heard the deputy minister talk about some of these initiatives and how we need to shift our thinking. It’s interesting.

The seniors advocate report, of course, follows on top of the Ombudsman’s report, and I’d like to just talk about that a little bit here in the time that we have remaining, and then I have a couple of community questions from my community.

[1735]

There is, it looks like, constant pressure within the ministry and the ombuds’s office on the recommendations that were brought forward in the ombuds’s report The Best of Care. Looking at the latest update on the status of the recommendations, there are a lot of recommendations here that have no progress on them or, in some cases, I think we even have a couple that were not accepted. I wouldn’t mind touching on those a little bit. There were 142 recommendations in the initial report that came out of the Ombudsperson’s office.

It seems that there are not nearly as many of them in progress or completed as we would have hoped. It looks like accepted with no progress, about 43 of them; recommendation to be considered, without any indication of what might come next; some that are labelled ongoing. I wouldn’t mind just touching on a few of those and then, perhaps, those that were not accepted as well.

The government’s final report on the progress of this Improving Care for B.C. Seniors action plan from last April…. The minister said that most of the actions of the plan were completed in the first year. And yet the list I’ve got really talks extensively about no progress, and the evaluation here is that at least 43 of them have no progress, 39 recommendations to be considered and nine that are underway in some form or other.

I wouldn’t mind an update from the minister on this and just see what the status is today and how the minister reconciles it. The Ombudsperson is saying that a vast number of them have not been completed, and the minister has been on record saying that many of them are. An update would be great.

[1740]

Hon. T. Lake: When I first became minister, this was one of the first big reports I looked at and reviewed with our staff. At that time we had taken kind of a themed approach to the recommendations. The Ombudsperson, when I met with her, was not satisfied with that approach, and we agreed that we needed to go back and take another approach in terms of meeting those recommendations.

We’ve actually done a lot of work. The Ombudsperson does an annual update on the work. We have updated the Ombudsperson on a regular basis. In April of 2013 we did a one-year update on actions completed from the seniors action plan, as well as other work related to improving seniors care in the province.

February 2014 is when my deputy and I discussed this and made a commitment to go back and put more resources into meeting those recommendations. We took a second look at the report, and instead of taking a themed approach, we looked at them individually.

On March 24 of 2014 the ministry met with staff from the Ombudsperson’s office. We provided them with a response to 89 of their recommendations that we considered complete or where a significant amount of work had been initiated. On May 9 the ministry met again with staff from the Ombudsperson’s office and provided them with responses to the remaining 70 recommendations.

Now, we don’t always agree on whether or not the recommendations have been met — the Ombudsperson and the ministry staff. The Ombudsperson on June 25 of 2014 released her annual report and gave her assessment of whether or not we were complete. There was some disagreement on whether there was significant progress made on a number of these recommendations. At that time, which was almost a year ago now, we committed to a four-year workplan, and we are working through that plan.

In April of this year we provided an update to the Ombudsperson on all outstanding recommendations for her annual report, which should appear, actually, at the end of this month or early in June of 2015. We believe that we have completed work on an additional 22 recommendations, most of which are from the first year of the workplan. There are 133 recommendations remaining. Of course, some of the work is ongoing in these. But 75 of those will be addressed in year 2; 36 in year 3; and 22 in year 4.

It will be interesting at the end of this month to see the Ombudsperson’s assessment of our work and wheth-
[ Page 8434 ]
er she feels that it is meeting her recommendations. But we do have a four-year workplan, tackling each of those recommendations in that workplan.

M. Karagianis: Well, rather than going through the 176 that I have here individually and reading them into the minutes — we don’t have time for that — is it possible for the ministry to provide me with a more recent report on progress on these?

I have many of them that say “no progress.” I have some that say “ongoing.” There are a number of “ongoing.” Now, this would have been a year old, this information that I have here. “Recommendation to be considered.” A couple that are not accepted, and I’d like to talk about those a little bit. For some it says the timeline has passed. I guess that’s sensible — that some things have just expired over time.

Is it possible to get an updated evaluation of the ministry’s views of the work and the stage of completion on it?

Hon. T. Lake: I’d be happy to provide the member with our report on progress. Of course, as I mentioned, the Ombudsperson will be posting her evaluation of that report on progress at the end of this month. But we will provide that list to the member.

M. Karagianis: That’d be excellent. Thank you very much.

Two recommendations were not accepted. I’m curious as to why not. They actually seem to be good, in view of the conversation we’ve been having. A big section of this was about home care.

[1745]

The two recommendations that were not accepted were No. 39 and No. 166. One recommends that the Ministry of Health extend the $300 monthly cap to seniors who do not have earned income so that they can be treated the same as seniors who do have earned income. The other recommends that the ministry expand enforcement options to create a system of administrative penalties for facility operators that do not comply with legislation and regulatory requirements.

Maybe we’ll just take those one at a time. Certainly, the second one has implications, based on our discussions here today, about shifting residential care and facility operations. Perhaps the first one first around extending the $300 monthly cap to seniors. Can we please hear what the minister says about that?

Hon. T. Lake: As always when we are looking at entitlement programs, we look first of all at the fiscal ability to meet all the demands that government has. We also look at fairness and equity.

It’s important to note here that those people receiving home support…. Home support, as the member knows, is help with activities of daily living. If someone is on income assistance — PWD, OAS, GIS — if that is where their income is coming from, they’re not paying anything for home support services. So 70 percent of people using home support services pay nothing. That’s the first thing that we need to understand.

[1750]

The 30 percent that are paying some of the costs of home support — we base that on income. If you have an earned income, then a maximum of $300 is the monthly cap. That cap does not apply if someone has investment income or pension income that is higher. That essentially shows that they have an ability to pay which is higher than those with a small earned income. As I mentioned, those on assistance programs or OAS/GIS are paying no fee.

It is a matter of choice, no question. We have to use tax dollars in the most effective way possible. This is one of those policy decisions that we have made, trying to put the fairness, equity and fiscal responsibility lenses on that policy decision.

M. Karagianis: The second recommendation that was not accepted was around enforcement options for facilities that don’t comply with legislative or regulatory requirements. I would think that given the conversation that’s been had this afternoon about residential care, this is a particularly critical one. I’m not sure why it was not accepted by the government.

Hon. T. Lake: The Community Care and Assisted Living Act provides licensing officers in health authorities a range of levers at their disposal if the operators of residential care facilities are not following legislative and regulatory requirements.

Those include suspending the licence, revoking the licence or imposing conditions on the licence and, in fact, even the appointment of an administrator. It is the ministry’s view that adding further final penalty to these existing options would not promote further compliance. We feel that the range of enforcement tools that are available to licensing officers is sufficient to make sure that operators are compliant with the act and the regulations.

[1755]

M. Karagianis: How many times have those punitive measures been enacted?

Hon. T. Lake: We do not have that information available. We will try to ascertain it. I do know of one particular incidence in Interior Health where an administrator was appointed to a facility after an incident.

These tools, I know, are used, but we will try to get a little more detail on those for the member.

M. Karagianis: Of the recommendations in the list that had been accepted but no progress made on, 14 are very specific to health authorities. When the minister reports out on progress being made in his report, and in
[ Page 8435 ]
his view, will that include the health authorities as well, or is that going to be a separate group of recommendations and progress reporting?

Hon. T. Lake: In the Ombudsperson’s report from June 2014 there were six recommendations to health authorities, and they are responding individually to the Ombudsperson.

M. Karagianis: Great. So I’ll guess we’ll find that out when the Ombudsperson reports out.

I just want to tease out a couple of things within the actual items in the report. I know that the minister is going to give me an updated evaluation, but there were just a couple things. One is around the issue…. This was recommendation 15, which talked about resident and family councils and their ability to raise general care quality issues with a facility, and getting consent of the resident.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

This has been a very difficult issue. A very tricky issue, I know, is around the role that family councils play in evaluating or monitoring or speaking up for individuals in care, often perhaps frail individuals who can’t always make that same evaluation themselves.

This has been an ongoing issue that has raised its head many times. Can the minister report out on any progress being made around how family councils’ relationships are with the facility providers?

[1800]

Hon. T. Lake: There are, I guess, two mechanisms whereby a family council could make their concerns known. One is through the licensing officer of the health authority. So if there were systemic concerns in a residential care facility that the family council has identified, they could go to the HA and the licensing officer.

[1805]

The patient care quality office is a consent-based process. So the patient has to consent to going forward with a complaint to the patient care quality office. We have identified in year 2 of the four-year workplan that I mentioned earlier that we are taking a look at the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act directives, because the act actually says it’s consent based.

We have to look at the act and see if it is possible for family councils to move forward with a complaint to the patient care quality office, given the fact that it’s a consent-based process. So that’s work that’s ongoing in year 2 of the four-year work plan that I mentioned. We haven’t ruled it out. We are looking at how it fits with the legislation and how the consent around that process would work — and that is currently being part of the year 2 work plan.

M. Karagianis: That’s reassuring, because certainly there are pros and cons to that particular issue, I think. I’m glad that the ministry is going to look at it.

I have one more question that kind of came out of the recommendations. Being sort of conscious of the time, I do have two community questions to ask. So I’m going to try and squeeze this next one in and then ask my community questions.

One of the recommendations here…. Of course, this was a year ago. It said that recommendations were being considered around health authorities developing a provincewide process for determining time allotments for home care. This is an ongoing issue that I know the seniors advocate and I have talked about. Seniors activists in the province — COSCO and others — are very concerned about the numbers of hours of home care.

Given the discussion we are having about how we want to start doing more in the way of home care supports and try and provide more of those things to keep seniors in their homes longer, it seems to me that that would be one of the leading-edge pieces to consider — how you increase the number of hours of home care that are being provided.

There have been cutbacks and cutbacks and cutbacks — and lots of anecdotal reports that I have heard at forums and things around not enough time to keep relationships with seniors that are important. Again, it’s that all kinds of seniors care are very relationship-based.

I’m just wondering, specifically teasing that piece out, what kind of thinking there is here, as we look at trying to evolve to a different kind of care. That seems to me to be a really central question. It’s probably the leading-edge piece that the government would have to start really investing in up front — more home care and better home care supports and all of that. What is the thinking around that particular piece?

Hon. T. Lake: I’ll get a more comprehensive answer, but I couldn’t resist the need to stand up and refute the member’s assertion that there have been cuts and cuts and cuts.

In fact, in 2013-14 health authorities spent $2.8 billion on home and community care, which is up $1.2 billion from 2001 — an increase of 79 percent. Community care services are part of that, and they went from $404 million in 2001 to $994 million today. It’s an increase of 146 percent. I think the member should resist the temptation to characterize a 146 percent increase as a cut.

[1810]

Just a few more data to add. In 2012-13 there were 7.37 million hours of home support provided, 23 percent more than just three years earlier. So the shift is definitely there to more home support services, both in money and in number of hours. That will have to continue, as the member has indicated.

We are trying to move resources so that we’re not so reliant on the acute care system and we can keep people at home, in the community, longer. That will necessar-
[ Page 8436 ]
ily mean more home support, whether that is activities of daily living or whether it’s case management, nursing, rehab, respiratory therapy, occupational therapy — all those supports. We’ll have to shift resources into the community so that we can get reduced reliance on acute care.

The member is very familiar with the term “ALC,” which is alternate level of care, and that varies from health authority to health authority. There are some health authorities that have 10 to 14 percent of their beds in acute care that essentially are being used for caring of elderly residents that could live independently and be cared for either at home or be cared for in the community.

Shifting those resources will take the pressure off of hospitals, which will have a knock-on effect, allowing beds to be freed up. That will reduce costs and also provide extra space for post-surgical care, which is sometimes a limiting factor in the number of surgeries that can be done.

The seniors advocate is actually doing a survey in September of all 30,000 recipients. We will have that report in late November — so, again, active work on the part of the seniors advocate.

M. Karagianis: I know we’re running out of time. I’m sure that on the issue of hours of home care — cuts versus no cuts — I’ll hear from seniors groups on this. We may talk about it again at some point, I’m sure, their perception being completely different from what the minister has portrayed.

I have two very specific local questions. One is for the minister to perhaps give me an update on the funding for Island Sexual Health. The second is, of course, one of my pet projects — the minister will be familiar with this — which is the women’s clinic in View Royal and the bubble zone around that and the issues that continue to plague the community there.

I’m hoping that the minister has received the letter from the mayor of View Royal, David Screech, who has voiced serious concerns. In the most recent 40 days of action around the women’s clinic, the RCMP were called out 55 times in the 40 days to intervene, where protesters were clashing with neighbours, with community members and with others who were standing there to support the clinic.

It has gotten out of hand as an expense to the community. I’m hoping that the minister may have some answers on whether or not he agrees with the community now, and with Island Health, that that bubble zone in that location does need to be increased in order to try and do away with this constant barrage of clashing in the community.

The 40 days of action, a presence there, has now been up to every week or couple of weeks. Of course, we’ve got another 40 days of action coming here in the fall, and the community is not looking forward to it. So we’re hoping that some action can be taken on that.

I await the minister’s answers on those two things, and that is all I have to ask today.

Hon. T. Lake: I’ll try to be brief, noting the time.

On the Island Sexual Health issue, we have worked with Island Health and encouraged them to meet with Island Sexual Health to discuss funding levels and look to create a sustainable plan for the clinic.

[1815]

So $40,000 was provided to Island Sexual Health in 2014, with the expectation that they would appoint a person with appropriate financial expertise to their board — they’ve done that — and also use the independent review to make policy changes that would ensure the sustainability of their clinic model.

Island Health met with Island Sexual Health regarding their clinical model and has since determined funding and deliverables for their renewed contract, effective May 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018, which provides an increase of $40,000 per year for a total contract value of $127,000. The new deliverables ensure clarity and alignment with health service delivery reporting requirements and also a closer working relationship with public health nurses. I think both Island Health and Island Sexual Health are on a better track there.

The Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic is located in View Royal. It provides access to therapeutic abortions in accordance with current legislation. The member and I have talked several times about the bubble zone. Access zones are provided under the Access to Abortion Services Act to ensure the safety of staff and patients at certain types of locations. There currently is a ten-metre access zone, also known as a bubble zone, around the clinic, as there is for all offices of physicians who provide abortion services in British Columbia.

I have not seen the letter from the mayor. We will look for that. So I am unfamiliar with the concern over the number of RCMP contacts. I know that there was concern about a coffee shop located within the building. That is legally a little bit tricky. We are talking with legal services branch about the presence of the café. It’s under a lease, so there is some legal discourse as to whether or not it’s include in the bubble zone or excluded from the bubble zone. We are still doing work on that. I look forward to getting the letter from the mayor, and we will address those concerns once we receive and review the letter.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada