2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Monday, April 11, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 36, Number 8

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

MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Karagianis: April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, an annual campaign to raise public awareness about sexual assault and educate communities and individuals on how to prevent sexual violence. However, awareness is not enough. This has been in excess of a 20-year campaign, and violence against women is on the rise. A variety of kinds of challenges for women — sexual assaults on campus, sexual assaults in communities, domestic violence — are all on the increase.

Now, recently we saw a very high-profile trial in the Jian Ghomeshi trial. I think that spurred a conversation among Canadian women. What does the outcome of that trial and the discussions that occurred in and around that trial say to women in Canada today who experience sexual assault or violence? It appears from the outside that at no time was Mr. Ghomeshi actually on trial — but certainly, those that accused him were on trial — for sexual assault.

[1005]

The trial actually demonstrated to us that those individuals who come forward and testify need to have flawless memories, impeccable evidence, an equally ruthless lawyer and atypical reactions after the fact to their assault — all of which the women in the trial failed to do, and they failed to prove their case.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the discussion or the outcome, I think the implications for all women who have been assaulted, raped, victimized or are fleeing domestic violence are significant.

Young women are seeing an uptick in assaults on university campuses. Women, often aboriginal, go missing along the Highway of Tears and from remote communities across this country. Astounding numbers of women are fleeing brutal spouses. Often women are beaten or raped by friends or strangers.

The second implication in this discussion is that, despite everything we aspire to as a society, the vast majority of these women rarely see justice against their accused. The individuals who do these terrible things to women and girls are seldom caught, prosecuted or punished.

In the rare cases where women survive the trauma, gather the appropriate evidence, pull their lives together and find the personal strength and fortitude to seek justice, they are too often met with a system that does not work for them — a legal system that is cold and impersonal and skeptical police departments. Then the women, in fact, find themselves on trial, rather than their assailant.

I want to emphasize, a little bit, the journey for an abused woman — whether it’s from domestic violence, whether it’s from sexual assault, whether it’s from rape. From gathering evidence to making it into the courtroom, it is a daunting scenario for a young woman who has been sexually assaulted or raped, perhaps physically beaten or some form of physical violence as well.

It may be at the hands of a friend, a stranger, a partner. You escape your assailant. You may be battered, bruised, beaten, somewhere, trying to find your way home. You have two choices: seek help or go home and try to forget what happened. Far too many women in the case of sexual assault choose the second option. They go home and try and put it behind them.

If you choose the first option, you make your way to a hospital or a police station perhaps minutes away or perhaps hours away from your location. You cannot bathe, comb your hair or alter your physical appearance and state in any way because you will compromise evidence, and if you destroy your evidence, you are unlikely to get a conviction.

For women who go through this situation, their encounter with the police or with the medical system is often not helpful. They may be in shock, injured, certainly traumatized. But the slightest change in any kind of evidence to do with this means that their chance of getting a conviction is very remote.

Next they must rely on the medical staff or the police to gather the appropriate evidence — forensic evidence, in the case of the medical side of it. If you don’t have that properly preserved, you stand no chance of getting a conviction.

You have to give a statement to police. One of the things we learned from the Ghomeshi trial is that those statements must be precise, accurate, detailed, flawless, no matter how traumatized, exhausted, wounded or shaken the woman is, because without that, you have no chance of getting a conviction. In some cases, women are offered counselling. In many others, they are not.

Victims of domestic violence can be included in this group. I know that there is an announcement coming today from the government — I’ll be interested to see what that is — around domestic violence.

I want to talk about the fact that all of these barriers to women getting the kind of response they need has
[ Page 11994 ]
sent a chilling reality through us. CBC reported out that 460,000 assaults occur in Canada every year. For every 1,000 of those incidents, 33 are reported, 12 result in charges, six go to trial and only three lead to convictions.

Domestic violence numbers are increasing. Women have nowhere to go, no job security — that being a huge component to what happens with women in domestic violence. I will be tabling a bill during this session to address that.

At one time, police could charge violent partners, but many of those things have disappeared, and victims now have to seek their own justice, often against all odds — pay for court fees. All of these say that, in the 21st century, we are doing a terrible job.

[1010]

We may be aware of sexual assault, and we may talk about trying to change violence against women, but the statistics and the actual reality for many women are against them. The increase in campus sexual assaults right now is a topic that’s top of mind for young women. It is frightening for all of us as women, I think. The issue of the rise in domestic violence numbers — again, shocking in the 21st century.

We talk about awareness, but there are so many tools missing along the continuum for women from the reporting and from the feeling that you are secure and safe that when you go to the police or to a medical facility, you will receive the kind of treatment that will result in a conviction in any of these cases.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the member opposite for bringing this issue to the floor today.

Imagine that you’re a young woman in Lillooet who has experienced abuse at the hands of a partner. What does she do? Where does she go? Or you’re an elderly woman in Burns Lake who has been a victim of violence for many years, too terrified and ashamed to speak up, and who is finally looking for help and a way out. What does she do? Where does she go?

If you’re that young woman in Lillooet, there is help. The Lillooet Friendship Centre Society provides victims’ assistance, trauma counselling services and the Lillooet safe house. The Lillooet Friendship Society provides several community, family, health, social, educational, employment, cultural and recreational programs. They are free of charge and open to all members of the community. Likely, if you talk to people in Lillooet, many would not be aware of the services available if you are a victim of violence.

If you are that elderly, abused, terrified woman in Burns Lake, there is help there too. The Eagle’s Nest Transition House in Burns Lake is operated by the Prince George and District Elizabeth Fry Society. Eagle’s Nest is a safe place for women and children who have experienced violence or are at risk of experiencing violence in the Lakes District. They also provide supportive recovery beds to women transitioning to or from addictions programs. Eagle’s Nest also provides support and advocacy, basic necessities, support for children and crisis intervention.

These are safe havens for women in crisis. There are about 45 of them around the province in communities large and small.

In 2013, there were more than 12,359 police-reported victims of intimate partner violence throughout B.C. However, it’s estimated that only one in four women ever report their abuse to the police. Aboriginal women are three times more likely to experience violence and be assaulted by their partner than non-aboriginal women.

The B.C. government commits more than $70 million per year in prevention and intervention services and programs that benefit victims of domestic violence and other crimes. But throwing money at the problem won’t solve anything without sound, effective plans.

One of those plans is the vision for a violence-free-B.C. strategy. It is B.C.’s long-term path to creating a province where all women have the supports they need to help prevent violence, escape from violent situations and recover if they’ve been victims of violence.

In 2015, the province invested more than $5 million in civil forfeiture grant funding to support community-led anti-violence and crime prevention initiatives, with $3.4 million devoted to projects that support the vision for a violence-free-B.C. strategy. More than $1 million in civil forfeiture grants this year were provided to fund 58 projects, focused on supporting aboriginal communities in anti-violence and prevention initiatives.

[1015]

The Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women provides advice to government on how to improve the quality of life for aboriginal women. In December 2014, the advisory members chose 37 community-based groups in B.C. to share $350,000 in grants for programs aimed at changing behaviours and attitudes, and mobilizing communities.

There is lots of good work going on in the province in regards to support, but it’s a topic we need to talk about. It’s a topic that communities need to actually address. But there still is that stigma of talking about it. I know many civic leaders who, if you talk about violence against women in their community, will say: “We don’t have that here.” But we all know that it is there, and we need to address it.

Thank you very much to the member opposite for bringing it forward today, and I hope that we continue the good work we are doing.

M. Karagianis: Thank you for the response from the other member.

I think that despite some of the resources that the member has listed, we know that having 45 resource centres in a big province like this is not going to cover all of the territory.
[ Page 11995 ]

I know that in canvassing rape kits and their availability, the Minister of Health said there were 21 centres that have appropriate rape kits.

We see an escalation of assaults. We see an escalation of domestic violence, so it means that all of these initiatives are not reaching the mark. Here in B.C. and across Canada, we need to take steps to change the culture of violence against women, most certainly.

We can create a different environment for women, one that provides immediate support and assistance when a woman reports a violent incident. We can ensure that every police department and officer knows how to collect and document sexual assault testimony, in a respectful way. We can ensure that whenever a woman seeks medical help and attention evidence is preserved appropriately, and she is given care and counselling.

We can make sure that every woman fleeing violence from a spouse has shelter, assistance and job security. Without that, their lives are in tatters, and they often return to their abusers. We can educate young women on how to be safe and how to seek the appropriate help when needed. We can all view violence against women as a blight on our entire society and make sure that our sons and our brothers treat all women with courtesy, respect and offer protection when needed.

And last, along with our attitudes about violence against women, the laws must change. The legal and court system must do a better job of allowing, encouraging and supporting women to come forward with the confidence that they will get justice and not be treated like the criminal. All women must believe that justice is their due.

While we are aware that sexual assault is on the rise, we are not doing enough to reach out and make changes that are necessary. Young women from campuses across this province have been meeting with the government recently to talk about the fact that there are not adequate resources in place for them.

We know, as we’ve seen the escalation in domestic violence numbers, that we are obviously missing out some huge component for those women — not enough resources, not enough supported services for women. Women certainly need to have the confidence that they can come forward, that they will have a respectful and thoughtful process that they will go through, and that they will be supported and encouraged to seek justice — that they deserve justice — for whatever form of sexual assault that they experience.

I’m here today to say that we need to do more. I will be tabling a bill to talk about domestic violence supports. Certainly for women, some job security would be a piece of the story. But women have to find it easier to access justice. It can’t cost them money. It can’t have insurmountable barriers for them to climb over.

In this month of awareness, I want us to do more than just be aware.

GROWING B.C.’S ECONOMY

J. Martin: I so do enjoy my Monday mornings here, private members’ time.

When I found out I was going to have the opportunity to speak about growing B.C.’s economy — well, everyone just knows I was just going to absolutely leap at that opportunity. It’s a pleasure to speak about what this government is doing to grow B.C.’s economy.

Before I leap right into this, I should just issue a trigger warning, because I’m going to be talking about a lot of the great things that are happening in B.C.’s economy here. We have steady economic growth that provides the means for new and increased funding for services that helps families with the cost of living.

[1020]

Without economic growth, we would have to turn to taxpayers for more money to pay for the many valuable services that we provide to British Columbians. With a growing economy, we have more money coming in to pay for health care, social services, education, infrastructure and so much more. This is how we support our most vulnerable citizens.

When it comes to B.C.’s growing economy, just last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that B.C. has the highest job vacancy rate in the country, at 3 percent. This is representative of 50,300 positions waiting to be filled. This means that businesses are thriving, and they’re looking to hire. You cannot deny it — the people want to come to British Columbia. We’ve seen an influx of people moving here.

Net provincial migration reached a decade high at the end of 2015. As provinces east of us struggle with low oil prices, people are looking for stable employment, and they’re looking to B.C. And why wouldn’t they? Our economy is the most stable in the country. We lead Canada in economic growth, and we’re predicted to stay there as a leader for years and years to come. We’re also leading the country in job creation.

We saw more good news last week with Moody’s reaffirming the triple-A credit rating and stable outlook for B.C. Nobody else can say the same.

Our labour force is growing. We have more people working in B.C. than ever. We are Canada’s top performer when it comes to job growth over the last 12 months. We gained 72,000 jobs year over year in March. We have recorded a job growth rate of 3.2 percent — the very best in the country.

With low commodity prices right now, we can see the importance of diversifying our economy more than ever. Other sectors in our economy are thriving and contributing to our economy — this includes our tech sector, our film sector, housing, tourism and retail sales, just to name a few. Providing supports for our many different sectors helps all of British Columbia thrive. That’s why the B.C. jobs plan focuses on eight key sectors.
[ Page 11996 ]

A major part of growing our economy is getting to yes — getting to yes on responsible economic development projects across the province. So we have said yes to projects such as Site C. We have said yes to projects such as Pacific NorthWest LNG. Site C alone will create 10,000 direct jobs during the eight-year construction period. And it’s not just the direct jobs but all of the other lasting economic opportunities that will benefit northern communities and aboriginal groups. It astounds me that many are still opposed to so many well-paying jobs in B.C.

Finally, last week we saw what stance some are taking on the Pacific NorthWest LNG after a letter was unearthed. The opposition — surprise, surprise — officially said no to LNG. This is a $36 billion project that will create 18,600 jobs — the single largest private sector investment ever in Canadian history. Additionally, it has the backing of local communities and conditional support of the First Nations along the entire natural gas pipeline route and at the terminal site.

It’s very easy to say no to projects, but it takes leadership to find a way to get to yes. That’s what this government does time and time again.

When we compare all of the great things that are going on today in British Columbia to a few decades ago in the ’90s, back then B.C. had the highest personal income tax rates in the country. More than $2 billion in annual tax increases, fees and licences were introduced. B.C. went from first to worst. Our capital economic growth fell to dead last in the country. Per-capita economic growth was well below….

Interjection.

J. Martin: Opposition members are free to leap in anytime they want if there are any interjections here.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the statements must be non-partisan. All right. Carry on.

J. Martin: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Well, when it came to overall economic growth, by 1999, B.C. was No. 9. That’s a stark, stark contrast to where we stand today. We’re at the top of the list — the very, very top of the list. People and businesses used to leave B.C. in droves. Between ’97 and 2001, we had a net loss of 52,000 people due to interprovincial migration. Today we now see the reverse of that. We see people coming back to B.C. because of how great this economy is doing because of how we are leading the country. They know that they can find the jobs here.

I thank you so much for the opportunity to talk about the growing economy in beautiful British Columbia.

[1025]

S. Simpson: When the member talks about strong economies…. I think the reality, though, is that this is a government that when they talk about a strong economy in a fundamental way, they talk about the line at the bottom of the page. They talk about balancing the budget. We all know that everybody wants to balance budgets. If you can do that, that’s an important thing to do. But when we talk about a strong economy….

Budgets of governments are not like private sector budgets. They’re not like corporate budgets, because they are all about people. They’re all about the people of the province, and they’re about meeting the needs of the people of the province. They’re about meeting citizens’ challenges and being able to move forward in meeting those challenges.

The problem that we have with this government’s view of a strong economy is that it does not address the issues of so many of our citizens in this province. The government, which has had the preoccupation with the zero in the balance column, has generally ignored the imperative of meeting the needs of many of our citizens.

We’ve seen the increased costs in MSP and hydro and ICBC. We have had a vigorous debate going on in this House about the issue of bus passes for people with disabilities and the clawback of those bus passes. That’s been a vigorous debate in this House over this session.

We’ve seen downloads, unfunded downloading, around education in Osoyoos — almost a thousand people show up to talk about school closures. There will be more than a thousand people at a meeting tomorrow night in Vancouver to talk about education and cuts that are being made that directly link back to provincial funding decisions.

We know the challenges we’ve seen in health care. We know the challenges we’ve seen around seniors care — the seniors advocate’s recent report on that. We know that social services to meet the needs of children and seniors have been seriously challenged. But for this government, that’s a strong economy.

At Site C. The member talked about Site C and his enthusiasm for Site C and the 10,000 jobs that will be created there. Yet what we see this government saying is that they will be excited if 70 percent of those jobs go to British Columbians. That means that the taxpayers will be paying for about 3,000 people, out of taxpayer dollars, to come to this province to work at Site C. That’s 3,000 people who could largely — not entirely but largely — be British Columbians.

That is an issue, because while the economy is pretty good in Metro Vancouver, in the Lower Mainland, affordability is a huge challenge. We also know that the economy is pretty flat outside of the Lower Mainland. In communities around this province, there are significant challenges around jobs. There are significant challenges because we’ve had zero wage growth. There are significant challenges around affordability and reducing inequality. The contrast of 20 cents for minimum wage — that I know embarrassed the government, and they
[ Page 11997 ]
may, in fact, change that — is a $236 million tax cut for the top 2 percent.

The reality is that strong economies need to be about people more than about the final line on the balance sheet. The reality for this province is that the B.C. Liberal version of a strong economy has left hundreds of thousands of British Columbians behind. That’s the sad legacy of the Liberal idea of a strong economy — that there can be lots of losers and that’s just okay. Sadly, that’s what we have today.

J. Martin: I thank the member for leaping in and offering that rebuttal. I would, though, caution the member that, in being critical of the prospective number of jobs on Site C, our numbers are still an awful lot better than zero, which would be the alternative.

As part of the growing B.C. economy, it’s critical that we get to yes on responsible economic development. We believe that we can develop our natural resources in a responsible way that ensures this province remains as pristine as we found it for generations to come.

On the weekend, we saw one of the national parties represented in the House of Commons with their convention, where they endorsed the principles of the Leap Manifesto. Now, I’ve never actually read the entire Leap Manifesto, but I haven’t read the manifesto by Karl Marx or the Unabomber either. I think it’s pretty indicative that there are some that are prepared to say….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. Be careful what you are saying.

[1030]

J. Martin: Thank you.

Well, I guess, maybe we’ll just ask Joe Barrett, the son of former Premier Dave Barrett, who said that this motion passing is going to be a message to B.C. that we are against everything under every circumstance.

What have we been against in this province? What have we seen? The Coquihalla Highway, the Alex Fraser Bridge, Expo 86, B.C. Place, the Trade and Convention Centre, the 2010 Winter Games, the Sea to Sky Highway, the Port Mann Bridge, the South Fraser perimeter road, the new Massey crossing, the northwest transmission line, Site C and LNG.

We’re growing the economy, and we’re growing in B.C. better than anywhere else in the country, because we get to yes.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege based on the comments by the previous member.

Private Members’ Statements

PEOPLE’S VOICES
IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

C. Trevena: I am very pleased…. I’m not responding to the remarks of the previous member, who has talked about how pleased he was that he was involved in private members’ statements and then basically gave a very biased and very government-oriented slant on his views of what has happened over the last few years. He brought in very little of his own…. Well, maybe it is his own personal views, but it is very clearly the hypocrisy and the spin that we so often hear from that side of the House.

This is private members’ time. We are supposed to be talking about issues that relate to us as private members. We can bring in, obviously, some of our ideological points of view. That’s necessary of politicians.

I’m speaking about the importance of people’s voices in infrastructure projects, which relates to my role as the transportation infrastructure spokesperson. What I have seen over the last number of years is the fact that when we have a discussion about an infrastructure project, whether it be the Site C dam or the new Massey crossing or B.C. Ferries, we have more of an announcement rather than any serious consultation.

The member who just spoke has shown why. It’s because this government is so blinkered in its approach and is so unwilling to look beyond its own parameters on getting new ideas that it’s fearful of having a true and honest consultation. I think that it is very sad for the people of B.C., who deserve so much better. They deserve…. If the government is going out to have a discussion about something that they think is important to public policy, they should really listen to the people of B.C.

I’m going to focus on just a couple of examples in my few minutes that I have the floor. One is the new Massey crossing and the second is the continual consultations — or so-called consultations — that people face whenever anything happens at B.C. Ferries. The coastal communities are being so consulted to death that they are cynical when the word “consultation” comes.

We have the new Massey crossing coming. The billboard’s been up since 2013 — that there is going to be a new crossing in 2017. I’ve got to say that it really is a classic example of what the previous Transportation Minister and one-time leadership candidate for the B.C. Liberals, Kevin Falcon, said of the now Premier — a classic example of “Ready, shoot, aim.” What we have is the desire to announce some great project, the desire to say: “We’re going to do something for this community no matter what. We like bridges.”

There is also the question of another bridge on Okanagan Lake, although we’ve just had one open under the previous minister Mr. Falcon’s mandate as
[ Page 11998 ]
Transportation Minister. The Premier obviously likes bridges. She wants you to know that.

In 2013, the Premier decided she was going to announce that there’s going to be a bridge across the Fraser River there and it was going to start construction in 2017. Now, this came without consultation, without people being involved in the need for this — the discussion with the community about this.

It was never in the government’s…. I know that the member for one of the Chilliwack ridings doesn’t like the word “manifesto,” but coming from the British tradition, I’m very tempted always to talk about a political party’s platform as its manifesto. This is the truth for the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and all the other parties. But in their platform, they didn’t mention that this was going to happen.

[1035]

There was no forewarning there, so people weren’t consulted through the electoral process. They were not given a business plan. In fact, we only got a business plan last year, two years after the announcement. There’s no sense of consultation in any respect.

Now the government is playing catch-up. It’s saying: “We’re doing consultation. Don’t worry. We’re going out to talk to people.” But if they’d looked at the work of previous governments, if they’d looked back less than ten years ago at their own government, they’d have found they would have had a great alternative. That is looking at upgrading the tunnel and twinning the tunnel. There was solid support for that across the communities. It didn’t become an issue of friction. There was solid support for that: upgrading seismic levels and doing a twinning of the tunnel. It would also, I think, be much cheaper.

There are different ways of looking at consultation. One is the electoral process. We went into the 2013 election, where the government could consult and we could consult — all political parties consult — with the people about the broad strokes of what they want to achieve.

The other way, if you don’t like that, is going to a referendum. The government thought it was fine to consult that way for TransLink, to look at saying: “We need more public transit, so we’re going to go to a public referendum. You’re going to vote on whether you want more buses, more SkyTrains, more public transportation.” That’s fine.

But when it comes to spending $3.5 billion, as a base figure…. A base figure — we haven’t even started the spending. We did see what happened when the spending started on the Port Mann Bridge. It ended at $3.6 billion. It started about $1 billion. At that rate, I can imagine that in a few years’ time when we finally get the final bill for the Massey replacement, if it is this bridge, we’re going to be talking around $5 billion plus.

I’m sure that if people were consulted, properly consulted, they would say there are a lot better ways of spending that sort of money. There are a lot of better ways — on public transit, on improving other crossings — of making sure that traffic can flow freely. We all know that there’s a problem at the Massey Tunnel. We all know that it’s a big bottleneck. If people had been consulted, they might have come up with some different solutions.

You can have a consultation through a referendum when it comes to public transit, but here it’s just the Premier standing up in front of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, in front of the elected officials from across the province, and saying: “We’re going to build this new crossing. We’re going to replace the tunnel.”

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues across the floor on this.

J. Yap: It’s a pleasure to rise today to respond to the member’s motion, as I take great pride in what we’ve been able to accomplish when it comes to transportation infrastructure in British Columbia.

We have been making key investments to ensure goods can move and jobs can be created to support families in every part of our great province. The B.C. government and its partners have invested more than $17 billion in vital transportation infrastructure upgrades since 2001. We will deliver $2.9 billion more over the next three years to support families, communities and economic growth.

Recently we were pleased to see that spending on public transit and on highway infrastructure was a big part of the federal budget. We look forward to learning more about how this will be applied in British Columbia in the future. I should note that just this last week the federal government reiterated its promise to inject $460 million into B.C.’s transit system in the next two years, which is very positive.

If we take a look back at what we’ve accomplished thus far, what we have heard time and time again from the opposition is nothing but no. No to the Canada Line in my own backyard in Richmond, which has exceeded passenger targets and boosted economic development along the line. Meanwhile, there are other significant projects that are benefiting people in my community and in neighbouring areas and that are also bringing big benefits to the entire province because they keep our economy moving. Yet the members on the other side of the House have opposed those as well.

Projects like the $1.26 billion South Perimeter Road, which has seen motorists cut their commute times in half and truckers move their goods faster and more efficiently than ever. That project created 4,000 construction jobs and is expected to lead to the creation of 7,000 permanent jobs in Delta and Surrey as a result of industrial development. But the opposition said no.

[1040]

The Port Mann Bridge, where we invested more than $3.3 billion, is another example. There we also see commute times cut in half, with 8,000 construction jobs created and buses finally able to cross the span. But once again, they opposed it. They’ve opposed our extensive highway upgrades. From the Highway 97 Cariboo con-
[ Page 11999 ]
nector to the Highway 1 Kamloops-to-Alberta stretch, all we’ve heard is no.

In addition to these types of projects, we’re also investing in our public transit. Since 2011, government has provided more than $2.2 billion to TransLink. Since 2001, government has leveraged more than $1 billion in federal funding for the previously mentioned Canada Line, the Evergreen line and Expo Line upgrades.

Also looking ahead, we see the George Massey Tunnel replacement project on the horizon. We know that the tunnel is nearing its end of life and needs to be replaced. That is the worst traffic bottleneck in the province. The new bridge will be built to modern seismic standards and improve safety for the tens of thousands of people who use it daily as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save rush hour commuters up to 30 minutes a day.

The crossing is too important for those who rely on this corridor and use it daily to do nothing. That’s why we on this side of the House are proud to say yes to these projects and to say yes to an improved quality of life and economic growth for our communities. For the NDP, “consultation” is just a code word for them to get to no.

C. Trevena: I find it quite remarkable how the members opposite make stuff up. They’re making stuff up, and they put it on the record, saying we are the evil people who oppose everything. [Applause.]

Well, I’m assuming the government is applauding us for saying that we are evil people. We have a duty as the opposition to question what the government is doing. We have a duty and a responsibility. That’s why we get our paycheques. We get our paycheques to represent our constituents, as does every member over there, and to be a close watch on what this government does. If this government is misspending taxpayers’ money, misspending public money, it’s our responsibility to look at that.

So the Port Mann Bridge. If the members would look, we didn’t actually oppose the Port Mann Bridge. What we have done is question what has happened since. We have questioned the fact that this government that boasts that can it look after the economy can, on one infrastructure project, be so massively overspent — $1.6 billion overspent. And this is a government that claims it knows what it’s doing with public money.

I mean, give us some credit here. It’s our responsibility to look at that, look at why nobody is using it. Traffic is still down. Traffic on that bridge is less than it was before. If the government had done its job and listened to people and consulted people, maybe it would have been able to operate better. But I have a sense that….

You know, we talk about those overspends. Across the board, they have mismanaged public money on nearly every single infrastructure project that they have been in charge of in the last 16 years. And they have the gall to stand up here and say that we are opposed. Of course, we’re opposing it. They’re incompetent.

The other area that I did want to touch on — I only have a couple of minutes — is this government’s absolute cynical approach towards B.C. Ferries and consultation with that. This is our marine highway. This is the connection for businesses, for economies, for communities across the province. Those communities have been so-called consulted to death — literally. People are leaving those communities because of the decisions made before consultations even happened. The last round, two years ago, saw routes cut, saw fares go up.

If the government really listened to people, if they took their consultation seriously, they’d know that on B.C. Ferries what you need to do is keep routes going and reduce fares to revive coastal communities.

[1045]

HOSTING THE WORLD

D. Ashton: Good morning. On behalf of the wonderful people of Penticton, Summerland, Peachland and Naramata, it is my pleasure today to speak about British Columbia and how it welcomes the world.

As lucky residents of this incredibly beautiful province, we’re very fortunate to enjoy its pleasures every day, but neither do we mind sharing what we have. We roll out the welcome mat continually for tourists from every point of the world. But we know that there’s lots of global competition in the tourism industry, and through Destination B.C., we aggressively market our province around the world.

Our government also understands how important major events are in attracting visitors to this province — sporting events, conventions, concerts. Did anybody see the Iron Maiden concert last night in Vancouver? I know of one. Something is going on all the time, and every one of them is a contributor to B.C.’s lucrative tourism industry.

Our government has long recognized the importance of events and sport tourism. It’s hard for me to believe, and I suspect that it is for a lot of you, that it has been 30 years since we hosted the world at Expo 86. You could say that Expo 86 was B.C.’s coming-out party on the world stage, when Vancouver, arguably, became a world-class city.

That reputation was cemented, of course, by the largest and most successful sporting event ever in British Columbia’s history, the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. The games of 2010 brought spinoff benefits to every region of this province — benefits which continue to this day, with new tourists who were attracted to British Columbia and Vancouver by watching the Olympics and Paralympics on television.

Our government has fostered and supported sports tourism in a big way. In fact, since 2001, we have invested more than $1 billion to promote sports in our province. Additionally, thanks to public amenities such as B.C. Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre, British
[ Page 12000 ]
Columbians and visitors can enjoy major spectacles like international sports events, music concerts and conventions. Together, B.C. Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre generated more than $400 million of economic benefits last year.

Sports tourism in British Columbia’s smaller cities is also a major economic generator. For example, the economic activities generated by the 2015 Winter Games in Prince George accounted for $123.4 million to British Columbia and $83.2 million to the Prince George area alone. That’s after the government invested $12.8 million into the games. Through a $2 million contribution to help Vancouver host the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2015, the province of British Columbia realized an economic impact of $59 million, a 30-to-1 return.

Recognizing the economic importance of sports tourism, the city of Kamloops in 2002 officially registered its trademark as Canada’s tournament capital. For many years, Kamloops has been renowned for its ability to play host to top-notch sporting events, thanks in many parts to the enthusiastic volunteer base there and the terrific venues that Kamloops has.

Just last week, we watched Canada’s women’s hockey team battle the United States for gold in the world women’s championship. Where? In Kamloops, in front of a full house of more than 5,800 fans and a huge national television audience. Our government provided $150,000 to help stage the tournament, which had eight teams from around the world.

Just last month B.C. Place hosted the two-day, sold-out World Rugby Sevens stop in Vancouver. Our government invested $245,000 for broadcasting and hosting costs for this hugely successful event, which brought visitors from around the world.

My hometown of Penticton is no stranger to holding world-class events. For more than three decades, Penticton has hosted a top-calibre triathlon for some of the world’s best female and male triathletes, and the economic impact for the South Okanagan has been astonishing.

There were a few events that were held around B.C., and here are some of their economic impacts. The 2014 Canada Cup International Wheelchair Rugby Tournament, $1.8 million; the Tim Hortons Brier Canadian men’s curling championship in Kamloops, between $5 million and $7 million; the 2014 Skate Canada International in Kelowna, between $2 million and $4 million; the 2013 men’s curling championship in Victoria, between $12 million and $15 million; the 2014 Summer Games in Nanaimo, up to $2 million; the 2014 Seniors Games in Langley, up to $3.1 million; and the 2014 Winter Games in Mission, $1.6 million. We’re still feeling and adding up the effects of the 2016 Winter Games in Penticton.

[1050]

Collectively, these events around the province have created an economic spinoff of more than $210 million. Sports tourism, in welcoming visitors from around the world to play in our magnificent province, is an integral part of this province’s marketing strategy, and the evidence shows the money has been spent very well.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

J. Yap: I reserve my privilege to raise a point with regard to the comments of the member for North Island.

Debate Continued

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to the member’s comments in relation to hosting the world. Certainly, as British Columbians, we’re all incredibly proud of our province and our responsibility to set a good example to people around the world and also to welcome them to our beautiful landscape and the incredible amenities that we offer here.

It’s very interesting to see where this government allocates the very scarce resources available to go into tourism — for example, to go into the opportunities that are available to encourage and help build our tourism industry to, in fact, welcome the world.

This government spent an inordinate amount of money replacing the roof of B.C. Place. Now, why did they replace the roof of B.C. Place? Well, they replaced the roof because the old roof was leaking.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for reminding the House why the government replaced the roof: because the old roof was leaking. But in fact, the new roof that they’ve replaced the old roof with continues to leak. In fact, it leaks on people in the bleachers when they’re attending B.C. Lions games. It leaks on people attending trade shows. It leaks, and it leaks, and the government appears totally unable to solve this, despite spending more than $100 million on this roof — significantly over the original budgets.

There are many, many opportunities for us to dedicate public resources to promoting tourism across the province. When I think about the cancellation of the circle route by the cancellation of the ferry line that serviced the coast, where tourists could actually stay overnight and see our amazing coastline and all of the amazing amenities that are offered….

This government actually cancelled that overnight ferry that was so central to the tourism plans of so many service providers in our province, resulting in them slashing the number of rooms that they had available, the number of bookings that they had available — dramatically affecting people in the Cariboo, dramatically affecting tourism service providers, actually, in Kamloops, which is hard to imagine.
[ Page 12001 ]

People do a full circle route from Vancouver all the way up around the coast, and they used to come down on this beautiful overnight ferry all the way through our amazing Pacific coastal rainforest. It was quite a magical ferry. I took it myself, and I enjoyed it very much. But this government, with their shortsighted cuts to B.C. Ferry Services, has decimated that. In fact, there were bookings made and cancelled as a result of that shortsighted decision.

Here’s a government that’s got more than $100 million to fix a leaky roof — the fix still leaks — but they don’t have the resources necessary to support the hard-working tourism operators that were reliant on the coastal ferry service that drove a lot of tourism to this province.

While I certainly welcome the member’s comments in relation to welcoming the world…. Certainly, in Vancouver–Point Grey, we love welcoming the world to the University of British Columbia, a leading research institution. We’ve got the Triumph facility there, a particle accelerator that scientists from around the world visit. We’ve got amazing scenery that tourists from around the world come to see. We’ve got amazing restaurants that tourists from around the world come to visit.

I would encourage this government to look at where they’re putting the limited public resources that we have, to support the hard-working tourist operators.

It brings me to my final point, which is in relation to liquor policy, where the hard-working tourist operators have to buy liquor from the government at full retail price rather than getting a wholesale price from this government. So when people visit British Columbia and they pay $12 for a glass of wine, just so that they know, that’s this government’s policies.

[1055]

The extra $89 million that they took in liquor taxes this year is on the backs of hard-working hospitality operators in the tourism sector — welcoming people to B.C., supposedly, with $12 glasses of local wine when the price should be much cheaper. They should be able to access a wholesale price, which this government could easily provide because they took almost an extra $100 million in taxes from these service operators in the last year alone.

Those are my remarks, and I thank the member very much for bringing forward this important point.

D. Ashton: I’d also like to thank the member from Point Grey for his comments — greatly appreciated.

Our province has two major facilities that generate hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity every year. B.C. Pavilion Corporation is a provincial Crown corporation of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. PavCo, as we call it shortly, owns and operates two world-class public facilities in downtown Vancouver — B.C. Place Stadium and the Vancouver Convention Centre. From hosting global summit meetings to world-class sporting and entertainment events, PavCo performs on its mandate of generating economic activity for the province of British Columbia and the citizens of British Columbia.

B.C. Place, which opened in 1983, is one of the busiest stadiums in North America and generates a massive amount of economic stimulation for this province. In addition to being the home field for two professional sports teams — the B.C. Lions and the Vancouver Whitecaps — B.C. Place hosts many professional and amateur sporting events, major concerts, festivals, exhibitions and other special events on a year-round basis. The economic benefit generated by B.C. Place between 2014 and 2015 was $122 million, and in 2015-16, it will be higher — possibly as high as $180 million.

Before the stadium’s revitalization a few years ago, the average economic benefit was approximately $58 million a year. So we can see the growth in world events that take place here in British Columbia. The B.C. Place revitalization project has assured the province that this world-class facility will continue to attract valuable and high-profile events. In the first five years since opening the Vancouver Convention Centre, we’ve hosted more than 2,750 events, welcoming 2.6 million guests from around the world, and realized over $1 billion of direct expenditure.

It’s also worth noting that the convention centre is the most profitable per square foot in Canada — something that we’re very envious of in Penticton. We have a wonderful convention centre there, and the spinoffs that we get are attributable to those that come from all around the world to see the province. Together, B.C. Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre will generate more than $400 million this year in…. Sorry, I’ll retract that. Together, these convention centres and B.C. Place have generated more than $400 million in economic benefits to the province last year.

Every one of us loves living in British Columbia. We love showing off this incredible province to those that come and see us. We all know that we are the envy of the world. We all seek, each and every day, to ensure that those who come…. We treat them with the type of hospitality that Canadians are well renowned for around this country and around the world.

As we all know, in our incredibly physically active province, our facilities large and small are first-class, from Dawson Creek to Fort St. John, Vancouver, Victoria and also Penticton. Thank you very much for the opportunity this morning.

Hon. C. Oakes: I now call debate on Motion 10.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 10 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.
[ Page 12002 ]

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 10 — STANDARDS
FOR CARE HOMES

S. Robinson: I move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House call on the government to take immediate action that ensures all licensed and regulated care homes are meeting all government standards of care.]

Hubert Humphrey once said that “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life — the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

This motion is about government taking responsibility for ensuring that those who are in the twilight of their life, our elderly, have a minimum standard of care in our province’s care facilities. Members of this House will talk about those who built our province. We like to talk about our obligation to them, as they built our economy. We like to talk about them, about our obligation to them, because they paid their taxes, and they made British Columbia what it is today.

[1100]

We can all say these words, but it is our actions that are the measure of our words. So let’s talk about how we, the next generation, those of us who say that we are obligated to care for and honour our seniors, that we’re obligated to respect them…. How do we take action based on these words?

A few weeks ago, the seniors advocate released an on-line directory of 292 publicly funded care facilities in the province. The directory is a comprehensive listing that has details such as size of facility, number of licensing complaints, kinds and amount of care services provided and other details that families would find useful when their loved one is in residential care.

This directory also lists the number of funded hours the care facility gets from this government. Now, most people would recognize that not all residents need the same level of care, but we do recognize that our care facilities are home to the most vulnerable seniors. Government has actually, in fact, established a minimum standard of care hours so that there is some assurance of a minimum standard of care. This government has set a rate of 3.36 hours per resident per day to ensure that there are enough hands to do the work of caring for our seniors.

This work includes helping people to the toilet, giving them a bath, helping them to eat and even holding their hand as they are in the twilight between life and death. I can’t imagine that there would be anyone in this House who did not think that this was the least we could do for our most frail seniors. Now, 3.36 hours of care per resident per day is a minimum standard. This is not a fully loaded model of care. This is a bare-bones standard.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

What has the directory revealed? Well, it reveals that of the 292 publicly funded facilities in this province, 84 per cent of them, or 232 of these facilities, are not even meeting the minimum standard of funding care for residents.

What does that mean for our residents? In my community of Coquitlam-Maillardville, we have the Belvedere care home, which only receives 2.78 hours of funding per resident per day, well below the minimum standard of care that has been set out by this government.

What it means is that there just aren’t enough hands to do the work needed to help these seniors be comfortable. It means care providers have to move quickly, so there’s no time for soothing voices and smiles to care for our most frail and vulnerable citizens. It means that some residents will not get a bath when they need it. It means that some residents will not have someone chatting with them as they have their bedding changed. It means that some residents are left sitting on the toilet or in soiled clothing for an extended period of time because their care aide is busy with six or seven other residents also needing assistance to the toilet.

Some of the unintended consequences of insufficient staffing levels are that seniors with dementia are lashing out aggressively when staff don’t have the time to slow down and soothe their fears or anxieties. As a result, we are seeing that more of our seniors are unnecessarily drugged in order to manage these aggressive behaviors. It is called chemical restraint, and it’s wrong.

We are seeing aggression in ways we have never seen before. In the last four years in B.C., 16 seniors have been killed by other seniors who suffered from dementia, and injuries are common among care home staff because of confrontations with violent patients.

We know that these residents need more people around them to care for them, and this government isn’t providing the funding these seniors need. But government doesn’t have to take my word for it. They can listen to Daniel Fontaine, the CEO of B.C. Care Providers Association. His members represent about 60 percent of the government’s contracted-out beds. Mr. Fontaine said that home operators would be happy to provide 3.36 direct-care hours, but the government just isn’t funding those hours.

So I’m asking this government to do the right thing and to take immediate action that ensures all licensed and regulated care homes are meeting all government standards of care, including funding for these care facilities.

D. Plecas: Thank you to the member opposite for this motion — that is, be it resolved that this House call on the government to take immediate action that ensures all licensed and regulated care homes are meeting all government standards of care.

As you know, I have the privilege of being the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, and as part of that, I have an opportunity to talk to a great number of seniors as I travel about the province. They tell me that they want to remain as independent and as active in their communities as possible, and we want to help them do that and continue to contribute to their skills, knowledge and experience in their communities.

[1105]

Seniors built this province, as several members of this House have noted, and we want to ensure that they have safe and high-quality care.

We have created a continuum of care for seniors, which includes home health, assisted living and residential care services. Our focus continues to include timely access to services, consistency and fairness in the delivery of care, and protecting vulnerable seniors from abuse and neglect.

British Columbians can be proud of their health care system, which has helped make B.C. a leader in health care. Our government has worked hard over the past decade to build one of the most efficient health care systems in the country, while maintaining the high quality of care that British Columbians expect.

We have seen a 26 percent increase in the number of publicly subsidized residential care, assisted-living and group home beds. As well, in 2014-15, health authorities spent an amazing $2.8 billion on home and community care. All residential care facilities that provide publicly funded services are held to the exact same standards, irrespective of whether or not they are publicly non-profit owned or private companies.

Professional authority licensing officers, operating independently, monitor all licensed residential care facilities and inspect them regularly to ensure they are meeting legislated standards. Recently, we consulted across the health care sector on our policy paper on primary and community care for seniors. This included key stakeholders, like B.C. Care Providers and the seniors advocate.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I’ve been tasked with working with the seniors advocate and the Ministry of Health to look at issues of care hours and funding, and I’m looking forward to doing that work. The Ministry of Health has made a strategic priority to improve primary and community care. We want to ensure that patients are getting the right care in the right place as close to home as possible.

Speaking with seniors, they tell me they want to stay independent and at home as long as possible. Over the past year, Health has been working with the health authorities to develop a more community-focused health system. We know that many hospital beds are occupied by patients who would be better cared for with other health care services, such as those living in a community setting.

Fraser Health is supporting this ongoing work by realigning some resources to better match the needs of patients. Over the next six months, Fraser Health will be opening 413 beds in its communities, which will increase the overall bed stock for patients.

Fraser Health is expanding resources in the community to help people get home from hospitals sooner, to care for them out of hospital when it’s appropriate and to support people living at home longer. This new thinking leads to a community-based approach which often is the best care option for patients.

J. Darcy: I certainly agree with the previous speaker that most seniors would like to live independently in their own homes as long as they possible can. But let’s look at the record of this government in that respect.

Another report, a different report by the seniors advocate, talked about the fact that home support in three out of five health authorities had actually gone down in the last few years — down, not up. It’s one thing to talk about it; it’s another thing to say that this is actually a real priority in our budget. If we have the funding for tax breaks, $1 billion over four years, for the wealthiest in our society, in our province, surely we could be investing a whole lot more in home support.

As far as residential care, the government likes to talk about more beds and bricks and mortar; the fact is that the number of new residential care beds has gone up by only about a third of the increase in the population of seniors over the age of 75.

Care for seniors is about far more than bricks and mortar. It’s about what happens directly — that human relationship, that care between a caregiver, a care provider, and a frail elderly.

[1110]

We’ve spoken about chemical restraint, which is just a travesty, because we don’t have the staff to care for our seniors with dementia in our care homes. We don’t have the staff to do that human touch, to deal with their social needs, their health needs, their recreational needs. Of course, people with dementia will act out, will be disruptive. That’s the fundamental reason why so many are chemically restrained.

I also want to talk about some of the personal care needs. That’s so much the human side of this. Too many seniors in care homes are gotten up out of their beds at six in the morning — some as early as five in the morning — so that the night shift can assist with getting them up. Then they have to sit and wait several hours before mealtime.

At mealtime itself, often staff are so rushed that they’ve got only 15 minutes to feed a frail elderly person. That means a whole lot of food — important nutrition — is left on the tray.

Recreational therapy. In the province of British Columbia, we provide, according to the seniors advocate, less than half of the recreational therapy that is provided by the province of Alberta and about one-fifth of
[ Page 12004 ]
what’s provided in the province of Ontario. Our seniors deserve better than that.

My colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville has talked about toileting. Too many seniors, because there aren’t enough staff, end up soiling themselves, which is an incredible indignity, when they would like to be able to have the staff to get them to the toilet on time. Or they need to sit there for a very, very long time without staff to be able to take them back.

An issue that I raised last week in this House…. The members opposite said it simply wasn’t true. The fact is that most seniors don’t have access to palliative care. They don’t have access to hospice care. Many, many of them die in seniors care.

We do not allocate extra staffing because someone is at the end of their life in residential care. You can talk to any care aide. They’re often the ones, if family members aren’t there, who want to hold their hands and care for them in their last moments. They simply don’t have the time to be able to do it.

On a human level, on a care level, our seniors deserve so much better. The minimal step that the government can do is enforce existing standards of care. Even those existing standards of care don’t provide the dignity and the respect that our parents and our loved ones, who built this province, who built the economy in this province, deserve in the last years of their life.

When they’re in residential care, it is their home. It is most often their very last home. They deserve the right to live their last years with dignity and respect. The very least we owe them is to enforce existing standards of care.

I think it’s important that we have a serious discussion in the months and the years to come about whether we should not be looking at improving those standards of care. Our seniors deserve the best that this province can give them, not the minimal that this province can give them.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I hope that it will be adopted unanimously. When we say that we care for our seniors, let’s actually put words into action by supporting this motion and, very importantly, by committing the funding to provide them the care that they absolutely deserve.

D. Barnett: Today I would like to rise to discuss the action being taken by government to ensure that seniors across British Columbia are provided with the highest standard of care.

Our seniors have built this province, as many have said, from the ground up. They have worked here, built houses here and raised their families here. I can say I am one of those. Their hard work and dedication has made British Columbia one of the best places to live in the world. For that, they deserve to have high-quality care and support.

[1115]

That is why our government has created a continuum of care for seniors which includes home care, assisted living and residential care services. Our focus has been on facilitating timely access to services, delivering high-quality care in a fair and consistent manner and protecting vulnerable seniors from abuse and neglect.

We recognize the importance of helping seniors remain active and independent in their communities. With this objective in mind, government has provided $26 million in funding to enhance and support the Better at Home program. This program offers seniors non-medical home support services — such as yard work, transportation and grocery shopping — to help them live independently in their homes for as long as possible.

The province has also provided rent subsidies to the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters program to help more than 17,000 low-income seniors remain in their homes. At the same time, our government is expanding options for seniors housing and care across this province.

B.C.’s strong economy has allowed us to make significant investments in our health care system, including our residential care system. In the 2014-15 fiscal year alone, health authorities spent over $1.8 billion on residential care. As of September 30, 2015, B.C. had almost 32,000 publicly subsidized residential care and assisted-living and group home beds, which is an increase of over 6,500 new beds since 2001.

We have ensured that all residential care facilities that provide publicly funded services are held to the same high standards of care. In 2009, we passed the Health Statutes (Residents’ Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, which sets out clear commitments regarding the care and rights of seniors living in residential care facilities. This act requires operators of care facilities to comply with the residents bill of rights and to promote the health and dignity of residents. Independent professional health authority licensing officers monitor all licensed residential care facilities and inspect them regularly to ensure that they are meeting legislative standards.

We recognize there is still work that needs to be done to improve quality of care for seniors in our province. This is why our government passed first of its kind legislation to enable the creation of a B.C. seniors advocate in 2014. The office of the seniors advocate provides a strong, independent voice for seniors and is working hard to identify ways to improve care for B.C.’s aging population.

Our government will keep working with this office and with other stakeholders to address the needs of seniors in our province. We will keep working to ensure that every patient in a residential care facility in B.C. receives the level of care appropriate for their individual needs. We will continue to invest in the health and well-being of our senior citizens, providing them with the respect and dignity that they so rightfully deserve.

L. Krog: My grandmother used to quote old Pope John. He was often referred to as the Peasant Pope because of his background, rising to be a Prince of the Church and
[ Page 12005 ]
then pope of the Catholic faith in the church. He used to say: “God bless the very young, and God bless the very old.” The pope well understood that those two stages of life are when we are at our most vulnerable — when we need the assistance of others, when we rely on the assistance of others.

The motion today, “Be it resolved that this House call on the government to take immediate action that ensures all licensed and regulated care homes are meeting all government standards of care….” What an absolutely appropriate time. We are here gathered in this chamber where, a few short days ago, the report was released by the seniors advocate indicating that, indeed, God needs to bless the very old in British Columbia. If you’re old in British Columbia and you’re in a facility, you are not receiving the services and the level of care that most of us would expect.

I don’t care whether it’s somebody’s loved one or not their loved one. That’s not the issue here. These are our fellow citizens. They deserve and have earned the right to be cared for in a manner that is appropriate to their age.

[1120]

When you see statistics that indicate how significant the problems are, you’re rather shocked as a British Columbian. The ministry has a minimum standard. It’s 3.36 hours. Of 292 facilities in the province, 232 don’t even meet the minimum requirement.

Now, I doubt there is a member in this chamber this morning who doesn’t have someone they know or someone they care for or have had an opportunity to visit a seniors facility in this province. You would have to be wilfully blind not to understand and appreciate what is going on there.

If you’re an MLA, obviously, you must have received the same complaints that I do in my office on a pretty regular and sad basis from people who are concerned about the level of care. It’s almost, invariably, the same comment: “The staff is working really hard, and they’re doing their best, but there simply isn’t enough time. There are too many people for one staff person to care for.” It is repeated over and over again.

This just didn’t happen overnight. This isn’t something that developed in the last six months. This is the result of deliberate B.C. Liberal government policy that they started back when they first got elected in 2001. They brought in Bill 29. They decimated the Hospital Employees Union — a union composed largely of women — in order to drive down wages, to drive down the quality of care in this province for our seniors. Today the results are readily apparent, as are confirmed by their own independent seniors advocate. Shame on this government for doing this.

Now, what’s going to be the response? Are they going to ask indirectly — as they do because of the placement of and existence of Bill 29 — for the workers, who are now poorly paid and receive poor benefits in comparison to what they used to, to take another cut in order to support the seniors in the province, in order to allow for the hiring of enough workers, nurses, LPNs and professionals to provide the care that would meet their miserable minimum standard, which they’re not meeting today in 232 of 292 facilities? Is that going to be the response from this government?

Probably, I say with incredible cynicism, because this is the same government that brags about a balanced budget constantly. And who’s it balanced by? It’s balanced by a lack of care for the seniors of this province who deserve better. When they had an opportunity to raise taxes on the highest-income earners in this province — $236 million a year — they, in turn, cancelled that. Now they drive down the care for seniors in this province. Shame on them.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order in the House. Member, Member.

L. Krog: Shame on them. That’s what the balanced budget is all about. It is about refusing to deliver the services to the most vulnerable in our province. They continue to do so.

Until this government stops crowing about its balanced budget and realizes what its responsibilities are, nothing is going to improve for the seniors of this province. They had better not look to the workers of this province, who are already stretched, in all of these facilities, providing care for those people who have no other source of support and care.

I say to those members: “Wake up. Do the right thing. Restore higher taxes, and give benefits to the seniors that they deserve.”

L. Throness: Allow me to dial down the rhetoric a little bit by welcoming a couple of senior friends of mine who are watching, from Chilliwack, today, George and Netty. I’m glad that they’ve joined us.

I’m proud of what we’re doing in health care. We have made tremendous strides for seniors in the past decade or so. We now have 32,000 publicly subsidized residential care beds. Over 100,000 seniors receive home health services, many through Better at Home, which is now operating in 67 communities in B.C.

We spend over 40 percent of our budget on health care every year — $19 billion, and $1.8 billion of that is spent on residential care. We just put $3.2 billion, over the next three years, into health care. No government has a greater commitment to health care than our government, and we don’t have to apologize to anyone.

[1125]

Now, I want to focus on an issue that concerns me. That’s the use of antipsychotic drugs. The Canadian
[ Page 12006 ]
Institute for Health Information said that despite the known health risks of antipsychotics, 39 percent of residents in long-term care in Canada — similar number in B.C., a little lower — were prescribed an antipsychotic at least once in 2014. I find that quite disturbing.

The rise in use of antipsychotics has been astounding. In Manitoba, for example, in 1997, 15 per 1,000 patients were prescribed antipsychotics. In 2009, that rose 18 times to 268 patients per 1,000. That’s huge. The side effects of these drugs are very real — sudden drop in blood pressure, falls, fractures, stroke, even death.

Our government totally agrees that we need to reduce the reliance on antipsychotic medications, and we’ve been working hard on it. Their use has started to decline. We’re developing guidelines on appropriate use. We’re working to support doctors with prescribing, educating care providers to better manage challenging behaviors rather than using antipsychotics. For instance, the CLeAR program, which stands for “call for less antipsychotics in residential care,” saw the use of antipsychotics in participating facilities decline by 60 percent in the first year.

The opposition wants to make this an issue of staffing levels, even though in Manitoba they reduced their drug use by 18 percent over four years while saving money. I would rather simply find new, creative ways of dealing with behavioural issues and use fewer drugs, which will actually reduce overall health care costs, rather than hiring more staff, which would cost the system more.

To me, this isn’t just about staffing. It’s a symptom of a society-wide issue — that of the growing use of drugs to address mental health and behavioral issues across the age spectrum. For example, in 2011, Statistics Canada said that 150,000 children aged six to 14 were prescribed drugs for ADHD.

I think of young people, who might be prescribed legal drugs in the normal way, like the 275,000 young women aged 15 to 24 who, Statistics Canada said, took antidepressants in 2011. Youth are more likely to use illegal drugs, whether that’s prescription drugs or street drugs. I think of middle-aged British Columbians who use and abuse all sorts of prescription drugs.

Canada has the second-highest rate of opiate use in the world. We add to this the well-known practice of medicating seniors. Drugs prescribed to restrain behaviour, so-called chemical restraints, are a subset of this larger societal problem. I worry about yet a smaller subset, which is the issuance of drug doses without personal consent, and I think here specifically of seniors.

I don’t want to condemn anyone because workers in our care homes are well-intentioned. They have very difficult jobs. Some of these behavioural issues are very difficult. I can think of all sorts of categories of behavior that might be troublesome in the future that could be subject to this, and I think this is a matter of real concern. It’s not just theoretical. Each of us in this House has the potential to spend time in a facility like this in the future. We are shaping our own future, so we need to ask: is this the way we will want to be treated?

We need a conversation about the use of drugs writ large. I think the principle we should hold to is that just as we don’t want more operations than we have to, just as we don’t want more heart medication or hip or knee replacements, we don’t want more antipsychotic or other drugs than we absolutely need to be healthy.

The principle should be that when it comes to the use of drugs for mental health or behavioural disorders, our aim should be to maximize human freedom from drugs, to maximize human potential and to maximize the quality and the enjoyment of life at every stage of our lives. I think this is the principle that our government will proceed on and a principle which I would fully support.

J. Rice: There are 292 government-funded care homes in British Columbia, and 232 of those 292 do not meet the government standard for staffing for assistance in such things as bathing and eating and toileting.

What do these care homes sound like? They sound like a haunted house: moans, groans, shouting, crying outbursts, bells incessantly ringing. What do they smell like? They smell of the putrid stench of urine, feces, body odour and chemicals. Why is that? There are not enough staff working to take care of our seniors to provide a clean, safe environment for themselves and those vulnerable seniors.

The recently released report from the seniors advocate shows that 82 percent of residential care homes aren’t funded well enough to meet the minimum standards for care hours. The province’s benchmark is 3.36 hours of direct care per resident per day. Fewer than one in five meets that standard, and that’s a minimum standard.

[1130]

That’s not even a standard of quality care. That’s the bare minimum.

Numbers don’t tell the whole story, though. It’s the results that are most heartbreaking. The result of insufficient funding is that our loved ones — our mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers — are getting poor quality care. We’ve heard stories of people being woken up at six o’clock in the morning, sometimes earlier, for a breakfast that they’re not even going to see till hours later. We’ve heard stories of seniors being left in the bathroom because the staff don’t have the time to wait with them.

We’ve heard stories of seniors getting bedsores from not being shifted in their chairs or their beds, sitting there for hours, not being moved. Pressure points develop, and these pressure points become open sores, rubbed raw. These open wounds become infected because seniors are sitting in urine and feces for hours on end, with no one able to take them to the toilet in time.

We’re seeing documented cases of chemical restraint: seniors being prescribed antipsychotic medication with-
[ Page 12007 ]
out a diagnosis of psychosis. They’re keeping seniors drugged because they don’t have the time to care for them. They don’t have enough staff to care for them. There’s not enough time to talk with seniors, to de-escalate their anxiety, to distract them from being agitated because of their dementia — a proven approach to dealing with someone with dementia. Taking the time, a proven approach.

Unless your diagnosis requires these medications, no one should be taking these antipsychotics. It’s like being trapped in your own body. You can hear everything around you, but you’re so doped up that you can’t move or speak. You’re so tired and groggy that you can barely communicate. Your head weighs a ton, and you can barely lift it up. So there you sit, like a slump, in a chair or a bed, all because there are not enough people to take care of you.

This is how we are treating seniors, the seniors who have built our province and built this country. They are our mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers, our friends, our partners, our relatives. As my hon. colleague here has just mentioned, they are people. And no one deserves to be treated as such….

What does this government have to say about the fact they’re not meeting the minimum standards? This government’s response was, quite frankly, outrageous. Last week, we were talking about our vulnerable seniors, and the Health Minister talked about the Coquihalla Highway. We wanted to know why frail elderly were being treated without dignity, and the Premier responded by talking about LNG — her laser-focused obsession on LNG. Our vulnerable citizens are not being taken care of, and she still wants to talk about LNG.

I’d like to talk about a care home in my constituency. We have the Acropolis Manor in Prince Rupert. I would like to first acknowledge that I truly appreciate the hard work of the staff in that home, from the housekeepers to the laundry staff, to the nurses — the LPNs, the RNs, the health care aides — to the people serving the food, the volunteers. Everyone does a phenomenal job in my small town to look after our seniors.

However, I would like to talk about the staffing level at Acropolis. It’s a 61-bed facility, and we have three wings — however you’d like to imagine that — or three arms with 20 residents in each. We have three health care aides to take care of them, always short-staffed by one.

M. Dalton: I’m happy to compare the record of the B.C. Liberals, the government, with that of the NDP anytime. As has been mentioned, there have been 6,500 net new residential beds since we’ve been in power. Compare that with that of the NDP when they were in government. If my memory serves me correctly, based on previous debate, there were no net new beds when they were in. Just one example alone is in Fraser Health. This year alone we are seeing 400 new beds being built. It reflects a tremendous investment that this government is putting into care, into providing the best services and facilities possible.

[1135]

We have a responsibility to look after our senior citizens. They are the ones that have worked hard to build this province to what it is today, to raise families and contribute to its prosperity.

I’m thankful for my own folks, who poured their lives into our family. My mom passed a number of years ago, but dad is 82. I talked to him last night. He’s been a tremendous strength to myself, my family — an example. He was in the RCAF. He’s been a hero in my eyes, and his health is failing. For a man that stayed away from hospitals and doctors for so much of his life, being very healthy, at the point he’s at right now, he’s there, it seems like, almost every week. I know that the medical system is there. I care deeply for him, and I know that we, as a government, and all of us care for our seniors, and we want to stand in support of them.

I’m pleased that this government has a strong and consistent track record of supporting its seniors. We also strive to do all that we can to protect vulnerable seniors from abuse and neglect. We are blessed to live in a prosperous province with a world-class health care system that all British Columbians can take pride in. Our government has worked over the decades to build one of the most efficient health care systems that continues to deliver some of its best outcomes for its seniors and citizens.

A key part of the system is the care that we provide for seniors. All across this province, new care facilities are opening to provide our elderly with the resources they need, including in my home riding of Maple Ridge–Mission.

One example. Two years ago the Residence in Mission opened and has provided 192 private suites for residential care. The facility was designed with patients in mind and with a goal of promoting comfort, independence and a sense of belonging. It was built for almost $30 million. It provides residential care to seniors with complex care needs, dementia and to citizens with acquired brain injury.

There are 190 private suites and five double-occupancy suites for couples who want to stay together. Each resident has an activity plan and a meal plan developed to meet their needs. This new 28,000-square-foot facility houses complex care patients on the second and third floors in neighbourhoods, reflecting the community of Mission. It’s far from being a haunted house.

Each neighbourhood is secured and has its own dining room, lounge and kitchen that can accommodate up to about 25 residents. There are also four secure courtyards and six large, secure balconies for residents to use. An adult day program for non-residents is also available three days a week to give families and caregivers a break. There’s a 12-bed respite hotel that’s located in the facility.

This facility employs 200 people, including 12 regis-
[ Page 12008 ]
tered nurses, 36 licensed practical nurses, 102 health care assistants and casual employees. That’s just one example. I encourage people to go visit this site. It’s quite a beautiful site, and the staff are committed to those that reside there.

In Maple Ridge, I believe in a couple weeks, we’re officially opening another facility. It’s a mental health residential campus with three levels of supportive care in the same site. This is an additional 21 licensed care beds that the Fraser Health has announced. There are another 20 beds there that are for other needs.

This is just one riding, but across the province we’re seeing the same sorts of investments and results.

S. Hammell: I’m glad to take my place in this debate. I just sometimes wonder at the over-the-top rhetoric — or not rhetoric, but even just quiet facts — stated by some of the members opposite. I think at some level, we are all trying to do what we think is best, and what we have in this House is a debate over whether the government is actually doing enough.

[1140]

I think one of the points to make right away is…. The parliamentary secretary from Abbotsford South, the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, started the comments off by saying that seniors wanted to be independent and active in their communities, and none of us would disagree with that. I think as long as people are able to be active and able to contribute in any way at all, they are happy to do so in their own communities.

The parliamentary secretary went on to say that there had been developed, created, a continuum of care: home care, assisted living and residential care. I don’t think many people would dispute the fact that none of those three levels of care are actually doing their job effectively. Of course, individual pieces are, here and there. But when you take an overview of the whole system, you do see that, as members before me have said, out of the 292 publicly funded residential care facilities for seniors…. When 84 percent of them do not reach minimum levels of staffing, you probably have a problem. When you have the amount of home care support dropping, you probably have a problem.

In any one of the continuums of care, you can find moments or places of excellence. But if you look at the system as a whole, there’s a problem. I would imagine that is why the parliamentary secretary has been asked to do a consultation on how to — I imagine it’s how to — improve care hours and funding for seniors and improve primary and community care. If there wasn’t a problem, you wouldn’t have someone looking into the problem. You wouldn’t have somebody looking for solutions.

One of the solutions mentioned was realigning their beds, in particular in the Fraser Health care system. We’ve raised this in the House before. I can’t imagine anything more absurd than to cut acute care beds and realign them in residential beds when you have a crisis in the acute care bed system already through long waiting lists and knee-high people waiting in emergency wards. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

The seniors advocate also mentioned, in one of her reports that chronicled some of the problems for unpaid caregivers…. I wanted to bring the unpaid caregiver in as a sort of insight into the window of people who are trying to improve or trying to deal with home care around some of their loved ones. The seniors advocate found that 29 percent of unpaid caregivers were actually experiencing distress. As I’m watching someone in my family care for a dying loved one, I know up front and personal how incredibly distressing and sapping of someone’s personal strength it is to look after someone who is indeed distressed.

I had a friend. Her mother, whose name is Mary — that’s a fictitious name — had dementia. She was at home for a number of years in what I would call an extremely serious state. She hid in her bedroom from care workers. She saw murders in her mind. But she was not able to get into residential care until she was unsafe for herself.

So I wish the member for Abbotsford South well, because he has a big job in front of him.

L. Reimer: I would like to thank the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for bringing forward this motion on health care standards for seniors. This is a subject that touches everyone’s heart, especially if they’ve gone through the experience of transitioning a beloved family elder from their home residence into a care facility.

[1145]

Many of us in this House have gone through that. It’s hardly an easy process, either for the children who are taking responsibility for their parents’ care or for the person making the transition from an independent household to a multi-unit assisted-care facility. It’s a fact that people in British Columbia do live longer and better than in any other part of the country. Most seniors are active, healthy and live independently in their own communities. In fact, more than 90 percent of seniors live at home, which is the preference of most senior British Columbians. It also means that we have an aging population, a significant change in demographics, because we are living longer than previous generations.

The government is well aware of the challenges this fact poses on our health care system. We need to treat our seniors with dignity and respect. As the Minister of Health noted in the House last week, it is the reason why this government established the office of the seniors advocate of British Columbia. The purpose of this office is to monitor and analyze seniors services and issues in the province and make recommendations both to government and service providers to address systemic issues. Again, this government made it a priority to establish the office of the seniors advocate precisely because we
[ Page 12009 ]
want better care options and added protection for our senior citizens.

Naturally, everybody wants to live as long as they can in their own home. Perhaps even more importantly, seniors want to live in their own community as long as possible too. When the time comes to move into an assisted-care facility, nobody wants to leave their chosen community, because that would also mean leaving their closest family and their friends.

Currently there are 292 publicly subsidized residential care facilities in British Columbia. Licensed facilities in B.C. are governed by two different legislative acts: the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act. Both of these pieces of legislation cover health authority–owned and –operated and privately owned and operated sites.

In addition, in the fall of 2009, this government brought forth the Health Statutes Amendment Act, which included a residents bill of rights. This document outlines the rights of seniors, particularly those who are in ill health and are vulnerable, and specific commitments that include a commitment to care; rights to health, safety and dignity; rights to participation and freedom of expression, especially as it pertains to a person’s individual care plan; and rights to transparency and accountability.

The residents bill of rights ensures that seniors are protected from abuse and neglect; have access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints and resolve disputes within the facility; are informed as to how to make a complaint to an authority outside the facility; and have family or a representative exercise their rights on behalf of a resident.

Before I conclude, I would like to draw the public’s attention to the fact that the office of the seniors advocate recently added a tool for families seeking out assisted-care facilities in the form of a comprehensive directory. This invaluable resource provides key information on the 292 publicly funded care facilities in B.C., including inspection records, reportable incidents and accreditation status. The B.C. Residential Care Facilities Quick Facts Directory is available on line, or you can contact the seniors advocate directly, toll-free, at 1-877-952-3181.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Let’s be clear here. I am sure all of the MLAs that are here share the same experience that I do, and we are dealing with these issues in the constituency office all the time. So this report would be a surprise to nobody.

The challenge always is that, of course, staff are really not able to come forward and talk about this in a public forum. Families are often reluctant, and I understand that. So we know about it, but it’s not out in the public realm in the way that it is now with the report from the seniors advocate. That’s what makes this report important — not that the news is new to us, but that it’s in the public realm and we’re able to talk about it.

These are facts. This is the state in many of our seniors facilities, and it’s not good enough. That’s what the Premier said. Rhetorically, that’s what everyone said. So let’s solve it.

Let’s be clear. Since I was elected — and, in fact, running — in 2004, we were dealing with seniors issues. At that time, it was facilities. This government was closing down facilities with a promise to build something new.

[1150]

I can say that community activism…. There were marches, there was intense political activity in all of these communities to get new facilities, and we did. Many of the government responses are to deflect to facilities. We have a new, beautiful facility in Revelstoke. We have them in Invermere. We have them in Kimberley.

This issue is not about that. This issue is about the level of care in these facilities. What we have seen is that in British Columbia, where we have one of the lowest minimum requirements of care hours for seniors in residential care, in 80 percent of cases we are not meeting that minimum requirement. While it is a statistic — an appalling statistic — of course, the statistic actually represents real people, real lives and real experiences. So it cannot be good enough to simply argue around issues that are separate from this one.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We have, laid in front of us as legislators, a situation that, rhetorically, everyone agrees needs to be fixed. The central issue is that there is underfunding. There is an underfunding to these seniors homes, which means that there are not enough people to properly look after those that are in care.

These are wonderful people. If you live in a…. Well, I think no matter what community you live in, you know people that work at these facilities. They are wonderful people doing a very difficult job. What they will tell you, in confidence and in private, is that their job is made impossible if there are not enough of them, if they are not supported in the way that they need to be supported. That is the nub of the issue here.

In my view — and it was articulated very nicely by the member for Nanaimo — the one thing government centrally must do is that you look after the children and you look after your seniors. Now, whether it’s a provincial government or, if you go back hundreds of years, a small community, that is the human thing that you do. You look after your children; you look after your seniors. Here we have clearly articulated evidence that we are not doing well enough.

I do not dismiss the fact that governments have to spin and push back. I accept that. But what I want to see….
[ Page 12010 ]
I have a lot of respect for this parliamentary secretary. I think he will put in front of this House a report that sets us in the right direction. It will cost money. So often we’ve had reports that have said the right thing — good work done by backbench MLAs and opposition MLAs — but that go nowhere.

What I want to see from this report, which I have confidence in, is that it will point to a direction that cabinet will support and put the funds that are needed there. That is what needs to happen so that we are not here in five or six years talking about the same issue. This is seniors. You look after them properly.

The fix is self-evident. I have confidence it will come in a report that will point the direction that cabinet needs to go, and my expectation is that cabinet will do the right thing and will appropriate the funds to make sure that our seniors are looked after properly in seniors homes.

N. Macdonald moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
and webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada