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 25, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number 7

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

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

101st ANNIVERSARY OF
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Hon. S. Anton: We are honoured to be joined here today by many leaders of the Armenian community and the Armenian National Committee of Canada to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

Those joining us today are Jack Deragopian, Steve Agopian, Varoujan Basmadjian, from the Armenian National Committee of Canada; and Armenian community members Narine Grigoryan, Aram Khajeek, Ara Balabanian, Hratch Baghdassarian, Krikor Kusbekian; and, also, the author Aram Adjemian, who has written a really fascinating book describing the Canadian response to the Armenian genocide from historical records, which is quite an impressive response that happened at the time.

[1335]

This anniversary is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the tragic history of the Armenian genocide and also to recognize and give thanks for the immense value that Armenian people continue to bring to British Columbia and to the world. Thousands of Armenians across Canada took the time yesterday to gather and pay respects to the victims of the genocide, including at the Armenian genocide memorial at Mountain View Cemetery in Vancouver.

I think, Madame Speaker, that you were there, as was the MLA from Kingsway.

Remembering the genocide helps us to learn, from the mistakes of the past, to shape a better future for all of mankind and to ensure that the memory of those who died lives on forever. I want to acknowledge and thank those who have come to Victoria today for their leadership, for their work and for helping all of us to remember that tragic time.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, you, as member for Richmond East and as Speaker, and I joined with the Armenian community yesterday to recognize this 101st anniversary of the beginning of what’s known as the Armenian genocide. It’s wonderful to reflect on the fact that ten years ago today in this House, in 2006, we passed a motion unanimously recognizing the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity — members of all sides of the House. There were outstanding speeches and presentations that day from members of the Liberal Party and the NDP.

I join the Minister of Justice in welcoming members of the Armenian community and note, as well, that there are many members of the Ethiopian community joining us today. It speaks to Canada.

I want to recognize Gabe Koregian, who was with us yesterday at the Armenian-Canadian commemoration but is, in fact, Armenian-Ethiopian-Canadian. In fact, I think he’s the leader of the Armenian-Ethiopian-Canadian community. He’s joining us here in the House.

I’ll ask all members of the House to make all our guests welcome.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House today Sheryl Lindquist, who is the principal of trades and transition for the Kamloops board of education. Sheryl was here today to celebrate the second anniversary of the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint and the increased investment for pre-apprenticeship programs. Sheryl really is a great proponent of giving kids the skills they need to succeed.

She’s a former grad of NorKam high school in Kamloops in my constituency. Then she went on to become the principal of that school and was there when we, with further investment, made it a centre for trades and technology excellence. Would the House please welcome Sheryl Lindquist to the House today.

S. Simpson: I’m really pleased to welcome here 19 representatives from the B.C. Federation of Labour, the health and safety representatives who are with us here today. I know they’re meeting with members on both sides to talk about critical issues around health and safety in the workplace and how we advance on some of the issues before us.

I know that they’re here, and they’re talking to us about asbestos removal and how to do that in a more responsible and effective and safe way, about workplace violence and about recognition of the Day of Mourning, which is coming up this Thursday, on April 28.

These workers, these activists and representatives, play a critical role in helping to make our workplaces safer across British Columbia, whether they’re union or non-union workplaces. I hope that all members of the House will join in welcoming the B.C. Federation of Labour delegation here talking to us about those issues.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to introduce a number of students that are in the gallery today. They are very capable and skilled. They competed recently in the Skills B.C. Competitions, the provincial competition. They were here today to help us celebrate our second anniversary of the skills-for-jobs blueprint.

I’m very pleased to introduce Mark Francis, who won a gold medal — all of these are in post-secondary auto-
[ Page 12304 ]
mation and control electronics — Mitchell De Sousa, who won silver; Krystian Maron, who won bronze. Post-secondary electrical wiring, silver, is Roland Olsen. Their instructor is Don Zaklan, and they’re all from BCIT.

Joining them is Patti Falconbridge from Knappett Projects, who was recognized as being an exceptional employer sponsor of apprentices today.

I hope we would make all of these very special guests welcome here in the precinct today.

[1340]

I would also like to join with the member opposite in welcoming members of the B.C. Federation of Labour occupational health and safety group today. We had a very constructive and, I think, positive meeting today, where some important recommendations were brought forward. They were done in a thoughtful and careful way. I look forward to continuing dialogue about those recommendations.

V. Huntington: I am pleased to introduce two distinguished members of the Delta Amateur Radio Society who are in the House with us today. Mr. Doug Barry is president of the society, and Mr. Chris Scholefield is a communication technology consultant and former instructor of law and ethics in information technology at BCIT. Both gentlemen have been involved in amateur radio for decades.

B.C.’s amateur radio operators, all of whom are federally licensed, are highly skilled volunteers who provide invaluable services to our province and communities, especially in times of emergency. I’d also like to thank the Minister for Emergency Preparedness and the Solicitor General for meeting with us today to discuss significant issues facing the amateur radio community. It was much appreciated by Radio Amateurs of Canada. Would the members please make Doug and Chris very welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the House today two members of MeningitisBC: Ms. Patricia Wall, who has been coordinating vaccines, and Janet Munro. Janet lost her son Bradley many years ago to meningitis, and she has turned her tragedy and become a very passionate advocate for children and students with respect to the issue of meningitis. She’s here today to listen to my two-minute speech. Would the House please make Patricia and Janet very welcome.

Tributes

ACHIEVEMENTS OF NANAIMO
STUDENTS AT MONTEREY JAZZ FESTIVAL

L. Krog: As many of the members know, Nanaimo has produced some outstanding musicians in its time — Diana Krall and Ingrid Jensen, just to name a couple. Well, hon. Speaker, you can add two more names: Kenton Dick and Ethan Olynyk.

At the Monterey Next Generation Jazz Festival in Monterey, California, which showcases mostly American students — 1,300 students — these two young men won the first place in the high school combo competition. Each also won the outstanding soloist award. Once again, Nanaimo is sending forth into the world two incredibly talented musicians, all under the able direction of Carmella Luvisotto, an outstanding music teacher, a second-generation Nanaimo music teacher.

I’d ask the House to give a round of applause to two outstanding young Canadians who demonstrate that Nanaimo, unlike what Frank Ney once said — that Nanaimo preferred corn over culture any time — prefers culture over corn every time.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: Today I had the opportunity to meet with Ted Armstrong. Ted Armstrong is a member of the Cariboo regional district and has served continuously for the past 38 years. I want to thank Ted for his leadership and his friendship, and I would kindly ask: would the House please make him welcome.

J. Wickens: I’d like to take a quick moment today to say a very happy 47th birthday to my husband, Brian, who is at home watching us on TV. You know your life has changed considerably when you spend your day off watching your wife on the television. To my hard-working milkman of a husband, happy 47th birthday.

Statements

PARTICIPATION IN RUN EVENTS
BY MLAs AND LEGISLATURE STAFF

Hon. T. Lake: Spring is when many British Columbians take part in various runs across the province — in fact, across North America. We had a number of MLAs competing in the Vancouver Sun Run, including the Minister of Justice. We had a number of people competing in the TC 10K — including the Minister of Social Development, who kicked everyone’s butt — and at Boogie the Bridge in Kamloops yesterday, the Minister of Transportation barely eked out the Minister of Health over 10K.

Our own House Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, about ten days ago, ran the Boston Marathon, which, of course, is the ultimate. We want to say congratulations to Kate for doing such a great job.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I have four guests joining us in the precincts today. Joining us is Leslie Chapman, her son Cedar
[ Page 12305 ]
and her daughter April from the Comox Valley. They are also joined by Leslie’s mom, Dorothy, who is a resident of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1345]

J. Shin: If you ever need your dose of open arms and embrace, look no further because they are here. Every time I visit my friends of Ethiopian heritage, it’s a table-thumping, standing ovation that they greet me and my colleagues with every time. I’m thrilled for the opportunity to reciprocate today.

Ethiopian Canadians in B.C. have a rich history. They started to arrive as early as the 1940s, and today they are over 10,000 strong and proud. Many of them are second and third generation, contributing to our society not just in a wide range of professions and businesses but also with their generosity and commitment to social justice and well-being. Our local Ethiopian Canadian community is united and strong, having celebrated the 30th anniversary of the association just last year.

This is their second visit to the Legislative Assembly to earn the support of the House for their Ethiopian House project. ECA recently passed a special resolution at their AGM to form the Ethiopian House society with a mandate to realize the initiative under the leadership of President Bereket Kebede.

Our 49 guests, who are filling the gallery on either side today, are joining us from 21 different constituencies in the greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions. They are very excited to see their MLAs in action today, but they’re also very hopeful for our support to make their Ethiopian House a reality. Would all the members please join me in giving our special guests our very best Ethiopian welcome.

Tributes

100 MILE HOUSE WRANGLERS

D. Barnett: Well, they won the KIJHL, they won the Cyclone Taylor Cup, and they went to Regina and won the Western Canadian Junior B hockey cup, the Keystone Cup. The 100 Mile House Wranglers did it all. I’d like the House to congratulate them.

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: I want to join my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed and other members of the House in welcoming the large group of Canadians who trace their origins to Ethiopia. While we welcome them here, many are thinking back to their homeland, which is facing catastrophic drought and putting the lives of 15 million at risk.

The Ethiopian-Canadian association is raising awareness of this tremendous blight and drought in Ethiopia. This Saturday and May 14, in Burnaby, there will be the beginning of a community outreach to raise funds to support drought relief in Ethiopia. I’d urge members to support that as well.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M220 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEAVE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016.

M. Karagianis: I am pleased to move that a bill intituled Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: Victims of domestic violence, more than 70 percent of whom are women, who flee their homes can face further victimization by losing their jobs when they are unable to make it to work because of their abuse. The lack of job security also causes some women to stay in dangerous situations because they can’t leave their abuser without jeopardizing their livelihood.

This bill gives victims of domestic violence job security. It removes a barrier to them seeking safety by guaranteeing that they will have a job to return to, if they need to, and if they need to take leave. Leave can be crucial to allow victims to access support services or find a safe place to live.

Other provinces already have or are in the middle of considering similar legislation that supports the safety and security of victims of domestic violence. I ask all members to please support this bill and support victims of domestic violence fleeing abuse. No woman should have to be in a position where she faces further abuse or threats to her life simply because she cannot get the day off from work in order to move herself and her family to safety.

I move that this bill be placed on the order papers of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M220, Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M221— RIDESHARE
ENABLING ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016.
[ Page 12306 ]

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1350]

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016. Ride-sharing is a key component of the new and emerging creative economy in British Columbia. While numerous jurisdictions around the world have passed legislation to allow for the introduction of ride-share technology in their markets, British Columbia is quickly falling behind. In fact, Vancouver is now the largest city in North America without an operating ride-share company such as Lyft or Uber.

Legislation is needed to provide provincial standards that must be followed for any ride-sharing program to exist in our province. The Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, details the process by which a transport network company can operate in British Columbia.

It builds upon best practices in North America to outline the required driver and vehicle records to be provided by ride-share drivers. It further details the required ride-share driver background check and ride-share vehicle inspection and insurance requirements.

In January of this year, 22 CEOs and founders of key B.C.-based tech companies signed and released an open letter. The letter stated: “We are compelled to express our concern regarding the provincial government’s long-standing inaction on ride-sharing regulation in B.C. and how we now find ourselves falling behind the rest of the world.” This bill is aimed at ensuring that British Columbians remain at the forefront of innovation in the technology sector.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M221, Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FRIENDSHIP TRAIL PROJECT BETWEEN
MOUNT CURRIE AND PEMBERTON

J. Sturdy: Trails are a vital part of connecting people and communities across British Columbia, and West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is no exception. Over the coming years, we look forward to seeing the completion of the friendship trail, which links the village of Pemberton with the community of Mount Currie along a seven-kilometre, non-motorized, multi-use trail. The project is a joint effort by the village of Pemberton, Squamish-Lillooet regional district and the Lil’wat Nation.

It was originally conceived by the Winds of Change group, a collaborative public policy initiative that identified the significant public safety issue of both adults and children travelling Highway 99, along its narrow shoulders with its big ditches. The need for a safe alternative was clear — an alternative that would encourage commuting by bike and foot and that would be a safe and friendly means to physically, socially and economically connect the nearly 6,000 residents in the SLRD, the village and the nation.

We knew this trail would connect the industrial park and the outstanding Pemberton mountain-biking terrain. But little did we know at the time that this valley trail will also connect the rest of the community, a new recreation facility site and the Pemberton festival grounds, with this year’s projected 140,000 visitors.

The friendship trail is also an important extension to the Sea to Sky Trail, which, when complete, will be a 180-kilometre, multi-use trail linking Howe Sound with D’Arcy and Anderson Lake. Partial funding for the friendship trail project is being provided through the use of gas tax funds, while Innergex Renewable Energy will also donate half a million dollars to the project and has provided significant technical support, engineering advice and assistance with sourcing potential contractors.

An issue and a critical piece of the friendship trail will be the construction of a multi-use bridge over the Lillooet River. The goal of the community is to have this bridge section completed later this year. It’s a wonderful community-building project. I am very, very pleased to see it underway.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

A. Dix: On April 24, 1915, some 250 Armenian community leaders and intellectuals in Istanbul were rounded up, arrested and subsequently murdered. In the eight years that followed, some 1.5 million Armenians were killed because of who they were, the result of Ottoman state policies of deportation, torture, massacre and murder. This was the Armenian genocide.

Ten years ago, in April 2006, members on all sides in the B.C. Legislature came together to support a motion that recognized the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity. Because of worldwide education efforts, the recognition of the genocide has expanded exponentially after generations of organized denial.

Three events in the past year allow us, I think, to reflect on the importance of the Armenian genocide to the present.

[1355]

In the past year, one of the great multicultural centres of culture in the world, and of Armenian culture, in Aleppo
[ Page 12307 ]
in Syria, has been destroyed by war. The majority of Armenians in Syria — and, of course, many, many others — have been forced to leave Syria by repressive and racist policies. We as people have an obligation to learn the lessons of history and support human rights in the present.

Second, after the genocide, the surviving Armenian people were promised a state by the world at the Treaty of Sèvres, and they were betrayed. People have a right to self-determination, and the current violence against people in Nagorno-Karabakh in this context is an unacceptable conflict in the present day.

Finally, as noted in Mr. Adjemian’s book, Canada’s first major international humanitarian effort involved the arrival of Armenian refugees after the genocide. They were known as the Georgetown Boys, and it occurred in 1923.

In your constituency, hon. Speaker, at St. Gregory’s Church in Richmond, they have welcomed this year 70 refugees already, with two dozen more to follow — 94 refugees, one church. This demonstrates, beyond anything else, the ongoing commitment of the Armenian community in Canada to a better and just world.

DIRTY LAUNDRY ANTI-RACISM
CAMPAIGN IN WILLIAMS LAKE

D. Barnett: B.C.’s multiculturalism policy states that violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of racial identity have no place in our society. The province’s anti-racism program empowers communities and organizations to maintain partnerships and develop projects to promote multiculturalism, address racism and build inclusive communities.

I am very proud to tell the House about people and organizations in Williams Lake that are taking aim at racism. Recently the Canadian Mental Health Association, Cariboo-Chilcotin branch, began brainstorming on ideas for an anti-racism campaign. They settled on the name Dirty Laundry because they agreed everyone has dirty laundry that needs washing every now and then.

The Dirty Laundry campaign came about after the branch received a grant for $10,000 from our government to go toward anti-racism initiatives. The campaign is educating and engaging the people of Williams Lake in learning about the causes of racism and what everyone can do to make their community a more accepting, tolerant and happy place.

The Dirty Laundry campaign already has the support of school district 27, Thompson Rivers University, Cariboo regional district, the city of Williams Lake, the Cariboo Friendship Society and many other community organizations and individuals.

Anti-racism posters and displays will be set up at public and private buildings around Williams Lake, and T-shirts — laundry — will carry words and slogans to highlight various aspects of racism and encourage conversation. In the words of coordinator Margaret-Anne Enders, this is an opportunity to learn and become more aware and sensitive to other people and their cultures.

I’m also very proud that the Williams Lake Tribune newspaper has taken up the anti-racism cause and will publish a feature story about combatting racism every two weeks. It’s up to all of us to take a unified, community approach to tackle racism and hate crime, just as Williams Lake is doing right now.

CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE PARK
IN BURNABY

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to speak about a very successful business in Burnaby, the Canadian Motion Picture Park. It is the largest film and TV production complex in Canada, a 400,000-square-foot, purpose-built complex that has 15 stages, ranging from 5,500 to 40,000 square foot of area. It has all the state-of-the-art facilities for mega-film productions and to accommodate TV show productions on site.

Only a few weeks ago, the CMPP added one more 48,000-square-foot, brand-new studio to its credits. It was not even officially opened before it was leased by Sony Pictures for one of its major productions employing over 300 people.

The CMPP has a very impressive list of films produced in Burnaby, such as Godzilla, Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol, Tron, Eragon and Watchmen, just to name a few.

In the last few years, over 18 feature films and five television series have been produced, and many TV commercials. Currently all CMPP studios are booked by Hollywood, employing hundreds of skilled employees.

[1400]

My favourite part of the facility is the 18-acre backlot, known as the Streets of America. Just recently, CMPP invested another $1.5 million to upgrade it. It’s worth watching how quickly the look of the street can be changed to create a different scene.

Since 2001, the CMPP has brought over many big-budget films and TV productions to Burnaby, providing well-paying union jobs to hundreds and hundreds of people. Congratulations to president Alec Fatalevich and his entire administrative team for the new studio, and thank you to CMPP for being a good and responsible corporate citizen of Burnaby.

MENINGITIS AWARENESS AND
IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

L. Reimer: Meningitis is an acute inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and the spinal cord. Meningococcal disease is caused by bacteria that spreads from one person to another by coughing, sneezing or close face-to-face contact.

Infections are serious and can be life-threatening. Permanent complications of infection include brain damage and
[ Page 12308 ]
deafness. For every 100 children who get sick, up to 15 will die. Symptoms include headache, fever and stiff neck. Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to bright light, confusion and a purplish skin rash.

There are families in B.C. communities such as that of Janet Munro, who is with us today and who lost her son Bradley to this terrible disease. There are also the Chan and the Campbell families in my community, who both tragically lost young men with tremendous potential in the prime of their lives. Leo Chan and Brodie Campbell were both only children to their parents. Yesterday marked nine years since Brodie passed. Both had bright futures ahead of them.

I would therefore like to thank the Minister of Health for his announcement this morning that will boost protection for all youth in British Columbia. Since 2003 the meningococcal C vaccine has been part of B.C.’s routine immunization program. It protects against meningococcal bacteria, type C, and will continue to be given to infants. Previously, a booster dose of the men-C vaccine was provided to all children in grade 6.

Following the minister’s announcement this morning, starting in September 2016, that booster will be replaced with a quadrivalent vaccine which protects against A, Y and W alongside the C and is administered in grade 9. Expanding the program to include this vaccine means that children will now have protection against three additional types of meningococcal disease.

With both National Immunization Awareness Week and World Meningitis Day upon us, this is a good time for parents to make sure that their children are up to date on the meningitis vaccine and all their shots. Let’s get educated on this subject.

50th ANNIVERSARY OF
CARIHI SECONDARY SCHOOL

C. Trevena: In 1966, Campbell River got a brand-new high school. Then-principal John Young led students to the new buildings on Dogwood, and a new era began — an era of innovation in education, of giving students the responsibility of embracing ideas and engaging people.

Carihi attracted many excited teachers eager to try new approaches to learning. That philosophy of respect and acceptance has underpinned the work of the whole school district right through till today.

Carihi has been groundbreaking in its indigenous teaching culture-language approach with its First Nations studies program. It’s fair to say that Carihi has led the province in this. That was acknowledged at the 50th anniversary celebration, when Curtis Wilson and fellow Carihi grads William and Junior Henderson, along with Jesse Shay and George Lewis from the Wei Wai Kai First Nation, welcomed people with two celebratory songs. As Curtis said, 50 years ago, First Nations would not have been part of the evening at all.

About 400 students, teachers, principal and staff alumni toured the buildings, checked out the historical displays, enjoyed comparing class pictures and shared stories. Then, with the with the set of the Carihi production of Cinderella as a backdrop, they participated in a more formal event in the school gym, which wasn’t part of the original construction.

Present students played a part in the program with the Carihi choir, under the baton of Beth Kingston. Gio Bellosillo performed a violin solo, and alumnus Rory Shade sang. Of course, sporting glories past and present were highlighted by coach John Jepson, and, a little belatedly, the 1966 male athlete of the year, a rugby player, was recognized.

It’s a school where the arts are also taught and celebrated. A grad of about a decade ago, actor Malcolm Masters, was the keynote speecher, and more recent grad Michael Stevantoni sent a video message from L.A., where he’s working on his first feature movie.

It’s a school which made its mark in the community and across the province in the last 50 years. Its students and approach to education will continue to make a mark for our country for many years to come.

[1405]

Oral Questions

WAIT TIMES FOR SURGERIES

J. Darcy: After waiting for a knee replacement for close to three years, Denise Tessier from Quesnel is in extreme pain. This extreme pain led her today to take the extreme step of staging a protest over unacceptably long surgical wait times at the University Hospital of Northern B.C. in Prince George.

We all know that the B.C. Liberals love to do photo ops at ribbon cuttings, but they don’t seem to care nearly so much about providing the proper operating funds in our hospitals to provide the care that people like Denise need. Under this government’s mismanagement of the health care system, close to 40 percent of knee replacements are not being performed within the 26 weeks of Northern Health’s own benchmarks.

Why is Denise, and so many other people like her, forced to wait almost three years in excruciating pain to get the surgery that she needs?

Hon. T. Lake: Everyone in this House would have sympathy for anyone waiting for any kind of treatment when they’re in pain. Let me just talk about what we have done in terms of surgery over the last 14 years.

While the population has increased about 14 percent, the number of knee replacements we have done has increased 153 percent; the number of hip replacements, 104 percent; the number of cataract surgeries, 57 percent. There were over 550,000 surgeries performed in the province of British Columbia last year.
[ Page 12309 ]

Does that mean that we’ve got all of those wait-list issues solved? No, we haven’t. We put $10 million into an initiative last fall. In that initiative, we’ve seen 6,000 extra surgeries performed around the province of British Columbia, particularly addressing those who’ve been on the wait-list the longest. Is there more to do? Of course, and we’re working hard to make sure that we can ensure that people get the surgery they need within a reasonable time period.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: The minister’s words of sympathy and his reciting of statistics over and over again are not what Denise Tessier needs. She needs action, and she needs it now.

So does Leo. Leo is a five-year-old boy from New Westminster who’s been having difficulty hearing since last June. He has a really hard time pronouncing pretty simple words. After Leo had his hearing tested, his parents were told that he had fluid in his ear and that when they speak to him in a normal voice, he hears it in a whisper.

They are very worried about his ability to learn when he starts kindergarten next fall. Leo needs a very simple procedure to place small tubes in his ear canals, but he’s already been waiting eight months for day surgery at Surrey Memorial Hospital, with no end in sight. My question is to the Minister of Health. Why does Leo have to wait eight months for a simple procedure just so that he can begin to hear?

Hon. T. Lake: Physicians certainly have the opportunity to place someone further up a list if they feel that it is in the interest of the patients. We always encourage patients to go back to their physicians and discuss those kinds of issues.

The reality is that we’re doing more surgeries than ever before. We have an aging population, which puts pressure on the system. There’s no question about that. Provinces — like Quebec, like the Maritimes — with similar demographics have the same challenges. That doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to look for ways of improving the system.

Some of the challenges we that we face that we are addressing. The challenge with OR operating nurses and making sure we have more nurses trained — we have an agreement with the B.C. Nurses Union to train more operating nurses. One of the challenges has been the supply of anaesthetists in some parts of the province. We are working, in each health authority, to ensure that that’s the case. And we are working on a provincial surgical strategy to make sure that people are getting more timely surgeries.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a final supplemental.

J. Darcy: The Health Minister is always quick to say: “Go back to the doctor. They should push harder. That’s the problem.” The reality is that in both of these cases, the doctors can’t get enough OR time in the hospitals. That’s the minister’s responsibility, not individual doctors.

Hon. Speaker, 69-year-old Denise from Quesnel can’t get knee surgery. She’s needed it for almost three years. Little Leo from New Westminster can’t get a very simple tube put in his ear, and he’s been waiting eight months. The common denominator is a Liberal government that doesn’t care enough to make sure that British Columbians aren’t forced to wait months and sometimes years to get medically necessary surgery. Denise, who’s been waiting almost three years for her knee surgery, said: “My life right now is hell.”

Why are Denise and Leo and thousands of other British Columbians forced to wait so long to get the health care that they need and that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: I am really growing weary of people on the other side of the House here pretending that they’re the only ones who care about the people of this province. If they cared about the people of this province…. If the answer to every problem is more money, as they seem to think, then maybe they’d get out of the way and allow people to develop the economy of this province so that we could put more money into more services.

The only answer from the NDP is to pour more money into every problem. Yet they stand in the way of the government’s ability to raise revenues as we see the economy of British Columbia grow.

We are looking after people in British Columbia. We have a great health care system, the best outcomes in all of Canada, and we will continue to provide that to the people of B.C.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, please know the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

EMERGENCY SERVICES IN OLIVER

J. Rice: There is a health care crisis in rural B.C., and it involves not just unacceptable wait times for surgical treatments. The depth of the crisis is so severe that they’re actually closing down emergency rooms in hospitals. Just this weekend, in Oliver, the ER at South Okanagan Hospital was closed both Saturday night and Sunday night due to the doctor shortage.

What is the Minister of Health going to do to fix the ER closure for the people of Oliver?
[ Page 12310 ]

Hon. T. Lake: This is always rich, coming from the NDP that, in the ’90s, decided the way to manage health care was to restrict the number of doctors practising.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Excuse me, Members.

Surrey-Whalley, we’re proceeding when everyone is quiet.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: We have over double the number of physician-training opportunities in the province of British Columbia. We have a multiple of ten times the number of IMG, international medical graduate, resident spaces in the province of British Columbia. We have practice-ready assessments for physicians that have been practising in other countries to welcome them into British Columbia. If the NDP government in the ’90s had done that, we’d have 1,000 more doctors in the province of British Columbia today.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: In January, the people of Oliver were warned that there’d be no doctor available to assess them at their local emergency room after midnight. Then, this weekend, their ER was actually closed for two nights running. In Boundary-Similkameen, it’s getting harder to go to school, and it’s dangerous to get sick. We’ve seen this government’s lack of response to the education crisis in Osoyoos.

What is the Health Minister going to do to fix the ER problem in Oliver?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: I know the hospital in Oliver is an amazing hospital. I’ve been there and visited with them, and they do amazing work. But the challenge for many rural areas — not just in British Columbia, all over North America — is the attraction of physicians and other health professionals.

We have a suite of programs available in the province of British Columbia, and we have seen communities like Clearwater, like Princeton and like Quesnel, where we have eight more physicians this year than we did last year. We have more physicians per 100,000 people in the province of British Columbia than we ever have. However, the population is changing. The profession is changing. It is a challenge to meet all of the demands of that population.

We’re working very hard, and when we have issues like we do in Oliver, we work hard to solve them, and we’ll continue to solve those problems.

ACCESS TO HEALTH DATA FOR STUDY
ON ACNE MEDICATION USE BY WOMEN

A. Dix: A question to the Minister of Health about the ongoing impact of the Health firing scandal on health research in British Columbia and people’s lives. As the minister knows, women taking Accutane, widely used to treat cystic acne, must avoid pregnancy while taking it and for a significant period afterwards, since it can lead to birth defects and increases the rate of spontaneous and elective abortion.

Today the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a new study about this, which has found that women are not properly warned in B.C. and elsewhere about these risks. The study is significant and should have been published years ago.

Why was it not published years ago? Because the government delayed this story for more than two years, delayed this study by more than two years, blocking access to the researchers involved to needed B.C. data. The result is that critical information found in the study was delayed, and health was put at risk.

Will the minister recognize the consequence of the government’s action, today, and explain what he intends to do to make up for the damage done to people in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: We know that in the Ministry of Health, there was inappropriate use of data. We also know that the reaction that was taken — the results — in some cases was inappropriate. That is all before the Ombudsperson. We will wait for the Ombudsperson’s study and look forward to the results of his work.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: What we know is that the government knew the importance of the study and intentionally denied access to the data. We know that the consequences of this for women in British Columbia and in Canada were serious. What I’m asking the minister…. The study concluded….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The minister from UBC is actually heckling on this issue of women’s health. He’s actually heckling on this question.

It was the government that denied access to this in August and September of 2012.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: It’s the government that did it. They sent a letter denying that access. They made the decision to delay this
[ Page 12311 ]
study, and the consequences are what we know: a study that showed that adherence to proper use of Accutane is poor in British Columbia and requires action. So I’m asking the Minister of Health today to acknowledge the failure of the Ministry of Health in this matter and to say what he plans to do to address this problem.

Hon. T. Lake: We know that we take the people’s medical health information, the confidentiality of that information, very seriously. When there was a concern about a breach in terms of the use of that data, we worked with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to review the situation. That resulted in some access delays; there’s no question.

[1420]

We took the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner, implemented all of those to be able to restore access to information. We did what we needed to do to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of medical health information in the province of British Columbia.

C. James: The conclusion of this research is critical. It says that the province is not doing a good job explaining to women, particularly young women, that becoming pregnant while taking Accutane poses a significant risk of birth defects. This is the very reason why we do health research: so we can warn people about risks. By denying health researchers access to this critical data, the government stalled off this research, to make it available to doctors, for two years. Will the minister please explain why he let that happen?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I know that the members opposite have a script, and they can’t get off of it, even when they hear the answer to the question previously. But the reality is I just explained….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: As I explained to the previous member, there was a concern about breach of confidential medical information.

Now, the members opposite, I suppose, would think that we should not be concerned about that. We were concerned about that. There were 20 information-sharing agreements with the researchers at a number of organizations that had to be suspended while an investigation was conducted, while we followed the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to make sure we had better security of our data.

That is why there was a delay in access to research, not a nefarious attempt to somehow hurt women of the province of British Columbia. That is disingenuous, and the members opposite know it. They are the champions of fearmongering. The reality is we did what we needed to do to protect confidential medical information.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I would think the Health Minister knows that with this government’s record on the health care firings, there’s good reason to be fearful for what this government is doing — good reason to be fearful. We know the impact that the health firings had on the lives of the government’s own health researchers: reputations trashed, careers ended and a life lost. But the government made it worse.

We only need to look at media coverage recently on the Zika virus to understand the need for public education and how critical it is. What possible reason could the minister have had for allowing this important public health research to be shelved for over two years?

Hon. T. Lake: Once again, to the members opposite, security of confidential patient information is extremely important to the Ministry of Health. There was an unfortunate breach of that confidentiality. We had to suspend access for a period of time. That work was done to follow the recommendations of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Changes were made, and that access was reopened.

I’m not sure what else the members would have us do in the face of a data breach. I think we took the appropriate steps to secure that information to make sure that we protected people’s confidential health information.

WORKERS DAY OF MOURNING LEGISLATION

S. Simpson: April 28 is the Day of Mourning in British Columbia and across Canada. It’s the day that we recognize that too many workers have lost their lives on the job. So 187 B.C. workers never got to go home at the end of their shifts last year.

Across our province, we recognize and honour those workers. I know that the minister has participated in those ceremonies, but it is time to do more. Will the minister commit to recognizing the Day of Mourning formally in legislation, including ordering that flags be flown at half-mast on public buildings in B.C. on that day?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, every person in this Legislature realizes that one life lost in the workplace is one life too many. We have spent a great deal of time and effort working with WorkSafe on a number of areas to ensure that workplaces in this province are safer.

I met earlier, as I said in the introduction session, with the B.C. Federation of Labour. It is a recommendation that they have made. I committed to going and looking
[ Page 12312 ]
at how that is possible to do. I can tell the member opposite that since we met earlier this morning with the B.C. Federation of Labour, I have asked that…. I am in the process of sending a memo out to public institutions, as is the normal practice, concerning the lowering of the flag to see what we can do in the interim to ensure that we encourage buildings to display that respect.

Of course, I’m willing to look at the recommendation. We only met earlier this morning. In the meantime, I want to send an important reminder for organizations to consider lowering their flag this Thursday.

S. Simpson: We know that many individual jurisdictions choose to acknowledge workers who have died on the job. They lower their flags. We did that here at the Legislature. What’s disappointing is that the government not commit to formalize this recognition for workers who will never go home again. Unlike Red Tape Reduction Day, which this minister and the B.C. Liberals were very enthusiastic to legislate…. Why is it that there is not equal recognition and enthusiasm to recognize the Day of Mourning? This is an inexplicable position and reflects badly misplaced priorities.

On April 28, I will introduce the workers day of mourning recognition act that would acknowledge this and bring this into force. I’m asking the minister to reconsider her reluctance to act now and wish that she would join in supporting passage….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

S. Simpson: I’m asking the minister to join in supporting passage of what is a very non-partisan piece of legislation during this session. Will the minister do that?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it’s moments like this where one feels the most disappointment about issues like this — to suggest it’s non-partisan and then to stand in the House and be critical of an answer that I just provided to the member opposite.

At nine o’clock this morning, I met with the B.C. Federation of Labour and accepted the recommendations and agreed with them that I would go and look at the process in order to make a legislative change.

To the member opposite: you can shake your head all you like.

We’re talking about worker safety. In the meantime, regularly, memos are sent out a week in advance of very important days in British Columbia, where a reminder about lowering the flag takes place.

In addition to the one that went out a week ago, I asked today that a message go from me to remind people about the importance of doing just that. There is no hesitation, there is no reluctance, and I can assure you I don’t intend for the issue of worker safety to be a partisan one in this House or outside.

WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS
LOGGING CONTRACT DISPUTE
IN PORT ALBERNI AREA

H. Bains: At Franklin River, near Port Alberni, there’s a David-versus-Goliath story playing out. Forestry giant Western Forest Products is demanding concessions of an independent logging contractor that the contractor can’t possibly afford. As a result, 160 loggers have been put out of work.

Instead of standing up for the workers and the contractor, this government, true to form, actually rewrote the rules in favour of Western Forest Products, allowing Western Forest Products to circumvent the “use it or lose it” policy, while resetting the cut control period.

[1430]

My question to the minister is this: why did you change the rules for Western Forest Products and let 160 people be thrown out of work?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is an issue of a dispute between a primary contractor and the company. They are working to resolve the dispute. That’s the appropriate place for that to take place, under the regulations. We have also talked to the Truck Loggers Association, Interior loggers and northern loggers association about a review of the contractor rate situation — a broad review of that. They understand that, they know that, and they support that process.

That work will get underway. The appropriate place for this to be resolved is between the primary contractor and the licensee, in this case. I know that work is underway to do that. We’re encouraged that that work is taking place. In the meantime, the Port Alberni mill is up and running fully, back with production in place from the previous slowdown. So I’m confident that this issue will get resolved where it should get resolved — between the primary contractor and the licensee.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: It would be a dispute between those two parties until this government decided to stick their nose in it. They are the ones who went and interfered in their dispute resolution by changing the rules. That’s what is at the heart of this dispute. They stood with Western Forest Products, allowed them to rewrite those rules and extend the cut control period. Now they are not to sit down and come to the table and end that dispute.
[ Page 12313 ]

It’s thanks to this government not only that there are 160 loggers out of work and contractors have been sidelined, but there are also 70,000 cubic metres of logs lying on the hillside rotting for up to two years now. That’s 70,000 cubic metres of logs that are supposed to create jobs in logging and wood manufacturing, sitting there rotting, thanks to this government.

My question, again, to the minister is this: why did you rewrite the rules in favour of Western Forest Products, which put 160 loggers out of work?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, this is a rate dispute between a primary contractor and a licensee over rates and lots of issues within that. That’s the appropriate place for that to be resolved. And, as I said, work is underway to resolve those. The member opposite is also wrong. This lumber is not rotting. I’m advised that it is available. It still can be used and still will be used when the dispute is resolved. I’m confident that it will be resolved, and that’s the appropriate place for that to take place.

B. Routley: There are 70,000 cubic metres of logs on a Western Forest Products site near Port Alberni that are lying on the ground rotting, despite what the minister says. The fact is the fate of this wood is tied up in a dispute between Western and the TLA logging.

To put the 70,000 cubic metres in perspective, there are between 35 and 40 cubic metres on a highway logging truck. So 70,000 cubic metres is a lot of jobs. Western Forest Products recently laid off 100 workers at their Port Alberni mill, which was operating at just half capacity. Western blamed this on log shortages.

To the Minister of Forests: why are you failing the communities of British Columbia? Why are you allowing 70,000 cubic metres of the public’s logs to rot when 160 loggers from Franklin River are out of work and 100 millworkers are laid off in Port Alberni?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I pointed out, wrong on two counts. Firstly, all workers are working at the mill. The Port Alberni mill is operating fully, as to plan. So all of those workers are working, and the production is there. Secondly, I’m advised the logs are not rotting. They will be available.

The issue is a rate dispute between a primary contractor and the licensee. That’s the appropriate place to have that worked out. In the meantime, we’ve also committed to work with the Truck Loggers Association, the Interior loggers association, the northern loggers association and the forest associations on reviewing the contractor rate issues generally to ensure that we have a competitive industry here in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the following report: the Labour Relations Board annual report for 2015.

Petitions

N. Macdonald: I rise to present a petition strongly urging the B.C. government to cover the cost of hearing aids for seniors. The petition is signed by 502 of my constituents.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — and, in this chamber, second reading of Bill 13.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time.

I am pleased to present amendments to the Safety Standards Act. These amendments strengthen safety oversight of liquefied natural gas and other oil and gas facilities. They are the result of work by the B.C. Safety Authority and the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission to prepare for LNG.

The Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for this industry under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Under the Safety Standards Act, the B.C. Safety Authority is responsible for technical equipment throughout the province, including in the oil and gas sector.

There are responsibilities that overlap as a result. These amendments improve the areas where this can create problems. Oversight by the B.C. Safety Authority is amended in two key areas. Pressure piping and refrigeration systems within the oil and gas sector will be overseen exclusively by the Oil and Gas Commission. This will eliminate overlap between the regulators and ensure that complex refrigeration associated with LNG will be governed by the best-suited regulations and agency.

The amendments also address safety oversight for elevators and ropeways, which may be present in large LNG facilities. The B.C. Safety Authority will oversee these, along with boilers, pressure vessels and electrical equipment. There’s no change to gas systems. They remain exclusively with the Oil and Gas Commission.

In addition to providing certainty for industry, these amendments maintain the Oil and Gas Commission as
[ Page 12314 ]
the primary regulator for oil and gas but also ensure that B.C. Safety Authority technical expertise is present with regards to this industry. It ensures all equipment is covered by the best legislation and standards by both agencies.

I’m pleased now to move second reading.

B. Ralston: As the minister has said, this is a shift of regulatory oversight of proposed LNG facilities — the liquefaction aspect of the LNG plants — from the jurisdiction of the Safety Standards Act to the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1440]

The minister has set out the two principal areas, pressure piping and refrigeration, and where the facility would have elevators and ropeways, those would be transferred as well. It would also leave the jurisdiction to regulate other refrigeration schemes, such as rinks, ice arenas and cold storage facilities, with the B.C. Safety Authority.

Now, what is clear about prospective LNG facilities is that much of the initial fabrication will be done offshore, barged to British Columbia and then, if there’s a go-ahead on any of these particular projects, would be assembled in British Columbia. So the first question that arises in a safety…. These are huge facilities and very complicated refrigeration systems, much more complicated than anything else that’s ever taken place in the province.

The first test for safety would be the commissioning phase — in other words, the phase that decides that the facility is suitable for operation, for safe operation. That will be complicated by the fact that the standards for fabrication will have to be carefully scrutinized, because a lot of the work will have been done not in British Columbia, under British Columbia’s standards, but under, presumably, the jurisdiction of the companies and their contractors in China, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, wherever the fabrication takes place. So the issue of safety is really paramount at the commissioning stage. In other words, will the facility be safe to operate?

While the Oil and Gas Commission is taking on these responsibilities, the question naturally arises: does the Oil and Gas Commission have the personnel, the capacity, the expertise and the experience to undertake these kinds of inspections and, particularly, the commissioning? That’s a question that I’ll explore with the minister in the committee stage of what is an admittedly very brief bill.

The other issue that arises is, clearly, the ongoing standard of safety maintenance — the regularity, the detail of the inspection — and how that will be carried out. One would expect, given that this would be new for British Columbia, that the Oil and Gas Commission would draw on its expertise — and its sister agencies, perhaps, in the United States or overseas — to train personnel, to gain the experience that’s necessary to operate these kinds of facilities and inspect them safely.

The literature, the safety literature, suggests that LNG facilities are generally safe, although in some cases and some of the operators…. Some of the standards that one would expect in a jurisdiction like British Columbia have not always been adhered to in jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. One, of course, would expect high and consistent safety standards here in British Columbia, and that’s something that those people who are to work in those plants, should they ever be built, would expect and want and that their families would want as well. The issue becomes, I think, rather than a simple jurisdictional transfer to the Oil and Gas Commission, more an issue about the capacity of the Oil and Gas Commission to undertake that.

[1445]

Now, we will see. I expect I’ll be provided with the usual assurances. But these are important issues that really merit serious consideration and some assurance in the sense of detail of inspection plans, training plans and a commitment for a budget within the Oil and Gas Commission, out of its headquarters in Fort St. John, as to how that will be done.

Those are the questions that I think are important to pose when considering this particular bill. There will be a brief debate at the committee stage, although there are not many clauses in the bill, so it will be brief. Those are the details of questions that I will be posing on behalf of the official opposition when we consider this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite for Surrey-Whalley, I’m looking forward to those discussions. I will advise him that for the last couple of years, the Oil and Gas Commission has been spending the time to understand the pressure vessels and those sorts of things in and around oil and gas, particularly LNG, because they do it with gas plants now. They’ve done some international research with regards to that. I think we’ll cover that well in committee.

Having said that, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee stage for Bill 6, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016.

[1450]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND
DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. T. Lake: I’m pleased to welcome a couple of my ministry staff to the committee stage of the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016. On my left is Mitch Moneo, and on my right is Brian Westgate. They are here to support me as we go through the different sections of this bill.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister and his staff. In general, I think the minister knows, from our discussions in second reading, that we’re very supportive of this bill and the amendments that are made to the act as a result. Just a few specific questions.

Section 2 gives the College of Pharmacists more discretion, as we have heard, over who is issued a licence. The former language used the words “registrar must issue” a licence. The new licence says “a direct owner may apply.” The former language, I understand, had codicils to prevent just anyone from getting a licence, but the “must issue” language appears to be more directive.

One of my questions on this: what avenues do direct owners have if they believe their application has been wrongly rejected?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is around the process. Essentially, the process will be that the registrar would, in many cases, approve the application, but if there are any questions that the registrar feels should be addressed, it can go to the application committee, which is created in these amendments, and the application committee would then make a decision. Should the applicant not be satisfied with that decision, there is an opportunity for a judicial review.

[1455]

J. Darcy: Also in this section, the new language only allows for “direct owners” to apply for licences. Why are there still references elsewhere in the legislation to indirect owners?

Hon. T. Lake: It is the direct owner that would be the essential holder of the licence for the site. The reference to indirect owners. These are people that may be part of the corporate ownership of the company and are named so that they can be subject to aspects such as criminal record checks — in other words, a fit and proper test to ensure that we know who is involved in owning a pharmacy.

That’s been one of the issues that we’ve had in the past with numbered companies not really understanding who was involved in the ownership of the pharmacy.

B. Ralston: Can the minister say whether beneficial ownership would be barred by these provisions?

The Chair: Member, could you please repeat your question?

B. Ralston: Can the minister say whether beneficial ownership — that is, ownership by means of a trust — would be barred? Typically, in a beneficial ownership — and I’m sure that the minister has legal advice available to him — there would be one person nominally on title as the legal owner, but the real control and ownership would be owned, through a trust mechanism, by someone else.

Does this legislative provision bar that kind of ownership? Since the purpose of the legislation is to bar ownership by people that the college does not wish to have ownership, surely that’s an important consideration.

Hon. T. Lake: The direct owner…. Let’s say we had a trust that wanted to purchase or to establish a pharmacy and apply for a licence. They would name an individual as the direct owner, the representative who would then hold the licence, but all the members of the trust would be considered indirect owners and, therefore, would be subject to the reach of the College of Pharmacists.

B. Ralston: Is that something that was specifically contemplated in the drafting or, if I might put it this way, an answer, in response to my question, somewhat improvised here?

I think it is an important question. That very, very small minority who have operated these kinds of pharmacies in the past that the minister, quite properly, seeks to regulate have shown a certain legal ingenuity in the way in which they operate.

I’m concerned that we’re creating a legislative scheme with the very best of intentions. It’s good red tape. It’s important red tape. Yet I wouldn’t want to see our legislative efforts here come to nothing and be frustrated by some arcane legal manoeuvre that takes place in a way that hasn’t been contemplated here by the legislative process.

Hon. T. Lake: I understand the member’s question and concern about leaving a gap, if you like, in the objectives of this legislation.
[ Page 12316 ]

If we look at the definitions, a direct owner means “the owner of a pharmacy, other than an indirect owner.”

[1500]

Then, let’s see. Okay, what is an indirect owner? An indirect owner means “in respect of a corporation that is traded publicly….” A publicly traded corporation would be the officers and directors, and “in respect of a corporation that is not traded publicly, (i) the officers, directors and shareholders of the corporation, and (ii) if a subsidiary corporation, the officers, directors and shareholders of the parent corporation.” The term “corporation” is defined in the Interpretation Act very broadly, and I think that does capture the member’s concern.

The reference in the definition of “indirect owner” to a corporation takes on that meaning in the Interpretation Act, and that refers to “an incorporated association, company, society, municipality or other incorporated body, where and however incorporated, and includes a corporation sole.”

J. Darcy: Also, still on this section, the former language made references to the physical location of the pharmacy, in section 2. Is there no more requirement for physical location of the pharmacy, or is that dealt with by other means? Could the minister explain the thinking behind, the reason behind, the issue of location within the pharmacy? Also, does this bill in any way contemplate on-line pharmacies?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, the location within the building of the pharmacy is contemplated, but it has been moved. It appears in section 8 of the amendments and under section 21 of the act, so we’ll come to it in section 8. It actually is subject to one of the amendments that were put forward.

In terms of on-line pharmacies, this bill does not deal with on-line pharmacies. On-line pharmacies in British Columbia essentially aren’t allowed to access PharmaNet, and all pharmacies in British Columbia have to access PharmaNet, so it virtually eliminates the use of on-line pharmacies.

J. Darcy: Can you have a licence without a physical location for a pharmacy?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is no.

[1505]

J. Darcy: Could you set up a pharmacy in B.C. and operate it from elsewhere?

Hon. T. Lake: Can someone from outside of British Columbia set up a pharmacy in B.C. and operate it? Yes. They would be subject to the college of pharmacy bylaws and to the legislation.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Darcy: I want to deal with the issue of Criminal Code convictions.

Section 3(f) essentially bans anyone with a Criminal Code conviction from holding a pharmacy licence for six years after conviction. Does this apply to all Criminal Code convictions? For instance, if someone took part in a protest and was convicted, would that mean that they were not eligible to have a pharmacy licence? And given the changing nature of our legal climate, federally, and perhaps provincially, in the not too distant future, someone who had been convicted, for instance, of a personal-use amount of marijuana…?

Does this apply to all criminal convictions or only the types of criminal convictions directly related to misuse, abuse of one’s role as a pharmacist? And is there any avenue for appeal under these provisions? Are we talking about indictable offences, or is a conviction on a summary offence enough to have someone banned from having a pharmacy licence?

The Chair: Member, is your question directed to section 3 or 4? Your question, I think, was related to section 4, wasn’t it?

J. Darcy: You’re absolutely right, hon. Chair. Thank you.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Darcy: Okay, I asked the question, and the minister could now answer, if he would.

Hon. T. Lake: The intent is obviously to prevent someone that has a conviction of an offence that is relevant to the practice of pharmacy. If the direct owner was found to be not eligible due to a criminal record check, the application committee looks at it and essentially would determine whether or not the offence was relevant to the practice of pharmacy.

The member is quite correct in that we know that there may be some things that happen in people’s lives, and they may find themselves at odds with the law. But if it is not relevant to the practice of pharmacy, then the committee would take that into account.

The member, as I’ve mentioned earlier, asked about whether there is an appeal. That would be through the judicial review process.

B. Ralston: The language used here is “criminal record history” and, in proposed section 5.1, the direct owner’s and indirect owner’s and manager’s history of “charges and convictions.” That’s a bit more sweeping than convictions, obviously.
[ Page 12317 ]

Does this contemplate convictions and charges under the Criminal Code? Does it contemplate convictions and charges under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? Does it contemplate charges or convictions under the Income Tax Act? Does it contemplate charges or convictions of regulatory offences such as those under the Workers Compensation Act?

[1510]

Typically speaking, there is a syndrome of action around people who might merit more scrutiny and perhaps be denied a licence in the sense that they tend not to adhere to safety standards, income tax requirements and other offences that, certainly under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, would be at the very heart of what a pharmacist would do.

The language here seems to me to be vague and subject to possible interpretation. So I’m interested that the minister…. As the minister will know, one of the aids to interpretation, should the matter be litigated, would be the minister’s very words in dealing with the legislation here in the Legislature. A judge can take notice of that in a case, potentially. I think it’s important that the minister clarify, as best he can, what is meant by this particular proposed section.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is asking: how sweeping is this? Section 5.1 says: “A direct owner, an indirect owner and a manager must provide to the registrar the information specified in the bylaws respecting the direct owner’s, indirect owner’s and manager’s history of charges and convictions as follows: (a) on the making of an application for a new pharmacy licence…(b) if requested by the application committee…(c) if the direct owner ceases to be eligible, under section 3 (e) or (f), to hold a pharmacy licence….”

Going back to section 3(e) or (f), you can see that in that section it says: “(e) no direct owner, indirect owner or manager has, within the previous 6 years, been convicted of an offence prescribed under the Pharmaceutical Services Act for the purposes of section 45 (1) (a) (ii) of that Act.” So if someone is guilty of essentially breaking the Pharmaceutical Services Act, that would constitute ineligibility — or, under (f): “no direct owner, indirect owner or manager has, within the previous 6 years, been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada), other than an offence to which paragraph (e) applies.”

Essentially, it’s saying that Criminal Code, Pharmaceutical Services Act and then, under (g), has “had a judgment entered against him or her in a court proceeding related to commercial or business activities that occurred in relation to the provision of (i) drugs or devices, or (ii) substances or related services within the meaning of the Pharmaceutical Services Act.”

If you go back to section 3, hon. Member, it will essentially delineate the reach of those charges and convictions.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister’s clarification, and indeed, that is more specific.

I must say I’m surprised by the omission of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which would seem to me to be directly relevant to this particular profession and business. Secondly, I don’t understand why one would omit, given that there’s a reference to business practices in 3(d) — that no direct owner or indirect owner is “subject of an order or a conviction for an information or billing contravention.” It’s not clear what that is, but certainly what seems to be contemplated there is financial irregularity or misfeasance in reporting or disclosing billing matters. It would seems to me that a violation under the conviction or a charge on the Income Tax Act would be directly relevant to the proposed conduct that’s to be scrutinized here.

If I might, I’m going to suggest to the minister that he consider an amendment to include reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Income Tax Act and also the Workers Compensation Act, since those are offences or charges that merit the same kind of consideration in deciding the suitability of someone to be granted one of these licences.

Hon. T. Lake: The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is captured under the Pharmaceutical Services Act, hon. Member, so I think that is covered off. As I said, 3(e) says the offence, if it’s an offence prescribed under the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, falls within that act or is referred to in that act.

[1515]

In terms of the Income Tax Act, paragraph (g) of section 3 says that “no direct owner, indirect owner or manager has, within the previous 6 years, had a judgment…against him or her in a court proceeding related to commercial or business activities that occurred in relation to the provision of (i) drugs or devices, or (ii) substances or related services within the meaning of the Pharmaceutical Services Act.” So I would counter that any financial irregularities would be captured under paragraph (g) of section 3.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the minister seeking to reassure me. I think the legislation would be better constructed and we would be better served if it was made explicit rather than inferential in the way that the minister has suggested, particularly the latter reference to the Income Tax Act, because on a plain reading of (g), I don’t see that, necessarily, the Income Tax Act would be part of that definition.

I’ll leave it there, but I must say that if we’re trying to close regulatory loopholes using good red tape, I think that’s something that we should do now rather than wait for an interpretation that requires an amendment somewhere down the road.
[ Page 12318 ]

Hon. T. Lake: On the order paper is an amendment.

[SECTION 4, in the proposed section 5.1 (a), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(a) on the making of an application for a new pharmacy licence or for the renewal or reinstatement of a pharmacy licence; .]

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this changes (a) to “on the making of an application for a new pharmacy licence.” That is simply shortening the sentence to say that when you are applying for a new pharmacy licence, you would be subject to the criminal record checks, noting that they would still be required every five years and still could be required by the application or the college should there be any need to go back, if there was any question about ownership activities.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Darcy: This section, as I understand it, essentially broadens the prohibitions against illegal pharmacies. I’m curious if there are specific examples of events requiring these changes both in section 6 and in section 7, meaning: what are the problems that this section is meant to address?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, essentially what this says is that unless you’ve met the requirements of the College of Pharmacists to be awarded a licence upon application, you’re not allowed to act as a pharmacy. In the past, we’ve had pharmacies, for instance, that were numbered companies. They were shut down and then essentially reinvented under another numbered company and applied for a licence. This would allow the College of Pharmacists to say that you’re not allowed to operate a pharmacy unless you have met the requirements of applying for a licence, which include the criminal record checks and kind of having that fit and proper test of the direct and indirect owners.

I have an amendment to that section on the order paper.

[SECTION 6, in the proposed section 7 (3), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(3) Unless authorized under a bylaw or by a pharmacy licence, aA direct owner, an indirect owner and a manager must not operate or permit the operation of a pharmacy if the direct owner ceases to be eligible, under section 3, to hold a pharmacy licence.]

[1520]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Darcy: A new paragraph, (c.1), in this section gives the board the authority to levy fees for an application for a licence, which is specifically referenced in the former language. There are references to fees for issuing a licence in the former language. Is this allowing for fees that weren’t allowed before?

Hon. T. Lake: There were fees contemplated in the existing legislation. It’s simply been moved into this section for clarity.

J. Darcy: Okay, so it doesn’t contemplate fees that were not allowed for before.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the college has the ability to create bylaws which may involve fees. Those bylaws would have to be approved by the ministry.

Hon. Chair, there is an amendment on the order paper.

[SECTION 8 (b), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(b) in subsection (1) (d) (ii) by adding “including with respect to the location within a premises to be occupied by a pharmacy, and a pharmacy’slocation, layout and floor plans,” after “requirements for premises,”, .]

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this clarifies that what this section is getting at is approval for the location within a building. It’s not where the building sits on the street; it’s the location of the pharmacy within the building. If you look at a number of stores that have a pharmacy within their store, this is about the physical location of the pharmacy within the store.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please elaborate on the importance or significance of where the pharmacy is located within the physical premises and on what this amendment does that wasn’t there before?

Hon. T. Lake: The location within the premises is important. The college has had this ability before, particularly for confidentiality purposes, for instance. They would like to see the location, the design of the pharmacy within a larger premises to ensure patient confidentiality and the professional deportment of the pharmacists involved.

The initial language we had in this section that we have amended was a little ambiguous, in that some people were concerned that we were referring to the location of the pharmacy on the street. Essentially,
[ Page 12319 ]
they were concerned that the college would have the ability to say: “Well, you can’t have a pharmacy in that neighbourhood” or “You can’t have a pharmacy on that street.”

We’ve just really tightened the wording to mean the location of the pharmacy within the building, not on the street.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND
DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 6, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. T. Lake: Now, hon. Speaker.

Madame Speaker: By leave, now. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND
DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 6, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee stage of Bill 16, the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND
ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:28 p.m.

Hon. T. Lake: I am pleased to start committee stage of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016. To support me, I have, on my right, Doug Hughes; on my left, Sharon Stewart; and behind and to my left, Katherine Thiessen-Wale. I want to thank them for the support they are providing on this bill.

On section 1.

S. Robinson: I have a number of questions on this section, so I guess I’ll just dig right in. In reading this bill, it’s not clear to me how assisted living is different from independent living. Perhaps the minister can explain how he understands the distinction.

Hon. T. Lake: When we think of living arrangements…. It’s primarily for seniors. It’s not always for seniors because other British Columbians would fall into some areas of assisted living or even residential care, but it’s primarily seniors that we’re talking about.

[1530]

Independent living would be, essentially, people living by themselves. They may have services provided to them in their home at their own discretion, but essentially, they are independent of government services.

Assisted living is a type of living where there is a group of people who are living together in a — I hate the use of the word “facility” because it sounds so institutional but for lack of a better word — facility where a variety of supportive services are provided. It may be assistance with daily living. It may be medication management. It may be financial management. It may be intensive physical therapy or psychosocial therapy.

Currently, under the current act, those are called “prescribed services”. Some of the things we’re changing are the ways that we describe the type of assistance that people can have in assisted living. Essentially, it is to allow people a range of options to keep them in an environment that is home-like and that provides them with supports that they may not be able to access if they were living by themselves in independent living.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister’s description. I’m thinking more specifically about independent living residents. There are some companies, for example, that offer seniors residential living that may also offer not necessar-
[ Page 12320 ]
ily a prescribed service but some of these sorts of services — where they might help with some financial management, where they might be doing communal meals, for example, and they might have a special therapeutic meal. But they’re not really an assistant-living residence.

I’m just trying to figure out what the distinction is between those who are living in independent living residences…. Oftentimes they’re quite lovely. There’s communal eating. There might be a hairdressing shop inside the residence, and there might be a podiatrist who comes by periodically. But technically, it’s not an assisted-living facility. I’m just trying to wrap my head around how the distinctions are made.

Hon. T. Lake: The type of environment the member describes is independent living. It’s essentially the private provision of whatever the residents want, so it’s like staying in a hotel. You have the things you need for sleeping and eating, and you can order some things that would be included in your monthly fee and other things that would be à la carte. They essentially are independent of government. It is whatever you want on the menu, in terms of services that you can purchase.

When we talk about assisted living, people go through an assessment to be eligible for assisted living. This is when their care needs, in their view and in the assessor’s view, would be higher than they could support in independent living, so they would be assessed and placed, if requested, in assisted living, where a higher level of services is provided. In many cases, that would be subsidized by the government.

S. Robinson: Again, I just want to make sure that I have it clear in my own mind. The minister described what I would call, let’s say, hospitality services — what you would get in a hotel. My understanding is that there are, certainly, private assisted-living facilities that don’t have any government subsidy and that would fall under this legislation as well, in addition to subsidized units.

Just in the private realm, is there a distinction between those that offer hospitality services — the independent living; you can buy whatever you want — and assisted living that is also private but has this set of regulations?

[1535]

I’m just trying to, again, make the distinction around where that line is.

Hon. T. Lake: We’ll go back to independent living, which focuses on hospitality services. These are primarily non-medical and don’t support complex ongoing supports. For instance, in independent living you could have low-sodium diets, for instance, but not medical diets provided. You could purée food but not provide physical assistance with eating on an ongoing basis.

When the level of care is higher and someone is assessed for assisted living, they would go into…. It could be private assisted living or public assisted living, both of which would be registered and fall under the auspices of this act.

S. Robinson: That’s a helpful distinction. I appreciate that.

If I understand correctly, then, just because you have an independent living residence…. If I was the owner of an independent living residence and offered hospitality services, sometimes that might mean helping residents move things because they’re heavy. Or it might mean — I don’t know — connecting them with other services that they might need, whether it’s helping them find an accountant because they have some complex accounting to do or whatever. This bill doesn’t apply to those residences.

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member striving for clarity. I think it’s important for people that are following this bill. The second page of the bill, under section 1, describes assisted living, a definition. Essentially:

“‘assisted living services’ means one or more of the following: (a) assistance with the activities of daily living, including eating, moving about, dressing and grooming, bathing and other forms of personal hygiene; (b) assistance with managing medication; (c) assistance with the safekeeping of money and other personal property; (d) assistance with managing therapeutic diets; (e) assistance with behaviour management; (f) psychosocial supports; (g) other types of prescribed assistance or support.”

In other words, services could be added by regulation, that are prescribed. But the independent living is essentially offering up those hospitality or non-medical, non-essential services, and those are offered on an à la carte basis. The independent living, private, would not be captured by this legislation.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that. There is certainly some conversation and some angst around whether or not this would be captured, so I think it’s important that we have some clarity about what those are.

As I’m sure the minister can appreciate, “assistance with” is sort of vague, right? What is assistance? Is referring someone to an accountant…? That’s assistance with the safekeeping of money and other personal property. It’s a little bit vague in terms of these definitions, and I hope that the minister can appreciate that that’s part of what’s creating, I think, some of the angst.

Perhaps he can provide some examples of where that line is around what is providing assistance and what’s providing just a service — if there is some sort of understanding of what that is. When I say providing a service from a hospitality end…. If somebody needs a cleaning lady — I don’t like to clean — is that now assistance with daily living? If I’m living in independent living and I don’t want to clean my apartment — I’d rather get somebody — have we slipped over to assisted living?

[1540]

Hon. T. Lake: The new definition of “assisted living” clarifies that it is a premises “in which housing, hospitality services” — which, I believe, is what the member is referring to — “and assisted living services….” So if there’s housing and hospitality, that’s fine. But if you start adding assisted-living services, as defined in section (b), then it falls under the definition of “assisted living.” Independent living, where housekeeping and all those types of hospitality services are offered, would not be captured.

We will be consulting with the providers in this sector, as regulations are developed, to ensure that they are confident and that there’s clarity and to listen to any concerns they might have over the development of the regulations.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that there will be some fulsome consultation. I hope that the independent living group will also be included in that consultation, because I know that there’s substantial angst among those folks.

I will note that in section (a)(a)(ii), it talks about “do not require, on a regular basis, unscheduled professional health services” as one of the exclusionary criteria. Can the minister talk about “regular basis”? I’m thinking about the case where somebody lives in independent living, they go to have some surgery, and for six weeks they need some of these services because they are recuperating. How does the minister explain regular versus temporary?

Hon. T. Lake: I believe the member is trying to determine or help us understand, essentially, what we mean by regular, unscheduled professional health services. This is to capture someone that needs an ongoing high level of health care, not the person that might have a sporadic or intermittent health care problem that can be resolved so that they no longer need that regular….

If someone needed a nurse to come in on a weekly basis for a year or a number of years, that would be scheduled. But if someone is constantly…. If an ambulance is showing up weekly or twice weekly, then it’s obvious this person requires a higher level of complex care.

So “on a regular basis” is used to convey a situation where emergency care is required unexpectedly but with some frequency, as opposed to a situation where one’s care is planned, scheduled and managed routinely.

S. Robinson: I’m sure the minister can appreciate that “regular basis” is pretty vague. Where someone might say an ambulance has come three times this last year because so-and-so forgot to take her medication and as a result had an episode and needed additional assistance….

[1545]

That may, to some, seem sporadic, and others might say: “Well, it’s regular. It has happened three times over the year.” I think there’s certainly some concern about: how does one determine who assesses what “regular” means? I think that would be really helpful. Who determines that?

Hon. T. Lake: A couple of things. First of all, if there was a concern that had been identified with someone that had what looked like regular, unscheduled medical services, then the health authority assessor could reassess, on an as-needed basis, that individual. As we go through the regulations and consult with the sector, we will have a little more definition, if you like, around what that means.

S. Robinson: I really appreciate the minister’s willingness, through the consultation process, to better define “regular” because I think that has different meanings to different people. I think that would be a really good direction to take.

I have another question. There is a list of assisted-living services. Is there an expectation that all assisted-living facilities would now offer this entire list? Is that an expectation?

Hon. T. Lake: The definition says “one or more of the following.” So if any of those services are offered, that would meet the definition of assisted living.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the intention of this change in this legislation, which is to allow people to stay longer. But there might be some assisted-living facilities that only offer three of these and that is all they offer. If someone now needs a fourth or a fifth, it really isn’t going to have the effect of them staying longer because they may not have those services.

I’m wondering, if that’s going to be part of the consultation — if the intention is to assist people in staying longer so that their lives aren’t as disrupted — there would be some encouragement or support to ensure that these prescribed services are available.

Hon. T. Lake: An assisted-living facility may offer only a number of these services, in which case, obviously, the assessment done by the health authority would determine if that was a suitable location for that particular person. If, however, during the course of that person’s stay, they progressed to the point where they needed another service, two things. An opportunity could be found to move them to a different assisted-living residence, but probably more likely, that service could be provided through the home health services of the health authority.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear that the more likely option would be to bring the service in, if we’re trying to get away from having to move people. You could well imagine that three months after they move, they might need a fourth or a fifth service, and if that’s not offered…. These things are unpredictable, and making sure that people can stay in one place, I think, at the end of the day, is the preferred choice.

I do have a question about, in this list, “(g) other types of prescribed assistance or support,” which, of course, is
[ Page 12322 ]
quite vague. I’m wondering if the minister has any idea about what kinds of things might be included in that broad category.

[1550]

Hon. T. Lake: Section 1(b)(g) allows other types of assisted-living services to be prescribed in the future. This essentially allows cabinet to add to the list should other services be identified either through consultation with industry or, for instance, if the seniors advocate were to recommend that something be added. That would allow us the flexibility to add something.

I don’t have in my head, hon. Member, an example of what that might look like, because it allows contemplation of things that we haven’t thought of today.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that. I recognize that we need to have as much flexibility as possible. That’s what this is striving to do. Trying to imagine what that might look like…. I don’t know either, and so I’m just trying to get a flavour for what that could look like. Would that be — I don’t know — podiatry services? I’m not sure if that would be a sort of in-house service that would be available.

I do have another question that has to do with assistance with behavior management. Again, that’s broad, because assistance with behavior management could be very psychosocial in its nature, but again, that would require, certainly, well-trained staff understanding cognitive behavior therapy, or it could involve drugs and using that to help manage behavior. Is that all-inclusive of all of those sorts of things, or is it a little bit more specific than what I’ve just suggested?

Hon. T. Lake: Through to the member — who, I know, with her personal background, has far more knowledge in this area than I do — we must remember that the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and assisted living pertains to group homes that may have people with developmental disabilities. This is referring to behavior management and not, however, medical management. Any kind of medication would be referred to in (b), which is “assistance with managing medication.”

It’s essentially assisting with behavior management, and that behavior management would be on the recommendation of or prescribed by a counsellor, a psychologist, psychiatrist, etc.

S. Robinson: One of the things that I think we need to be really clear about is that behavior management, really, in order for it to be effective, has to be regular and unscheduled, because you can’t always predict an outburst or a frustration. If that’s the criteria for…. If you need behavior management on a regular basis, and it’s unscheduled health services, it becomes one of those challenges, I think, where you’re sliding down a little bit of a slope.

There’s lack of clarity. I suppose that’s what I’m trying to say, because behavior management is not as predictable. It’s one of those situations where it has to be ongoing or it doesn’t work. I’m wondering where the line is for making that distinction, again, when we think about regular and unscheduled.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I think a behavior management plan would be part of the residents’ care plan, which would be prescribed by a professional. So that would not be considered an unscheduled health service, because it’s outlined in the plan.

[1555]

Just to reiterate, I know the member is trying to get real clarity on all of these things, but, of course, every person is different, so it’s really hard to have a formula that applies in every case. There is always going to be discretion on the part of people supplying the service and people regulating the service. I know the member knows that very well.

S. Robinson: Yes, and I thank the minister for acknowledging that I do know that very well. That’s why, when it comes to legislation, recognizing that everyone is unique and has unique challenges becomes, certainly, a challenge. People try to abide by the legislation, and there are always exceptions when we’re dealing with people. So the more clarity we have, I think, the easier it is to apply the legislation.

In section (e), this legislation is adding the following definition for professional health services, and it lists out, under that, the Health Professions Act or the Social Workers Act. I’m curious about why this was added. Was there a particular rationale for making sure this was in this legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: Because unscheduled professional health services are referred to in the definition of assisted living, then we need to say what professional health services are. That’s why this is there. It means health services provided by a member of a college of a health profession designated under the Health Professions Act or a social worker who is a registrant defined in the Social Worker Act. So include physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses as well as registered social workers that are covered under those two acts.

S. Robinson: Thank you for the response. I’m assuming, then, that it doesn’t exist in the current legislation, so they’ve had to add it here. It’s a good thing, I think.

Under (f), there has been some change about “spouse” and what the meaning is of “spouse.” I’m wondering if the minister could explain why it was felt it was necessary to include this in the legislation.
[ Page 12323 ]

Hon. T. Lake: There was no definition of “spouse” before, so we needed to put it here and to ensure that it would capture a marriage-like relationship between any two people.

S. Robinson: I’m grateful to see that here, but I notice that it’s limited to a spouse. Sometimes there are siblings that are sharing and have lived together for years. Sometimes — and I would love to hear the minister’s comments on this — as people are living longer, we’re seeing their aging children living with an aging parent. It won’t be unusual have a 95-year-old parent being cared for by a 75-year-old child. There could be these other cohabitating arrangements that haven’t been considered in this legislation, and I would like to hear if the minister has considered that.

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: There was some discussion about expanding the definition, but there was not consensus on how that would look because of the potential complexity and, perhaps, unintended consequences of expanding that definition. But we are committed to continuing to examine that and look, in the future, if we can find some common ground there.

The member is quite right. If you’ve got someone that you’re in a…. The term “marriage-like” is not really defined. You could have siblings that have a marriage-like relationship — unless, of course, they don’t argue every day. No, I’m just kidding.

There is a wide view on what a marriage-like relationship is. I don’t think this is meant to be restrictive, but the member is making a very good point that will be subject to further contemplation.

S. Robinson: I would hope that the minister, when he embarks on consultation with those who provide these sorts of services, can inquire about those kinds of living arrangements. I think we’re going to see more and more of them.

With the increased cost in housing, all those other sorts of challenges, we’re going to start to see, I think, more and more of these sorts of living arrangements, where people live together for a long time in a caregiving-like relationship. It would be, I think, in their best interest to keep them together. To continue the caregiving relationship with some added support, I think, would be a good thing for us to continue to support.

Hon. T. Lake: The member makes a very good point. We will, in our consultation with the industry and the sector, look for some input. I think it is an important one that we will likely, as I say, put some contemplation into for future changes, and that input would be valuable.

V. Huntington: I’d like to go back to 1(b), if I may, for a moment. As much as I think all of us are pleased to see these additional services being listed under the assisted-living portion of the act, one of my concerns is that we might end up seeing a requirement that all of these services be in place at the assisted-living level before somebody can move to residential care.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I’m wondering if the minister could discuss that future possibility, whether he foresees a time when government or the industry will require people to remain at assisted-living level before they enter into residential care, and how the choice to move to residential care might be exercised in the future.

The Chair: Minister of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to committee stage.

Under the existing act, as soon as more than two of the prescribed services were needed, you immediately fell over the edge and had to go to residential care. This allows an individual to be assessed on an individual basis. They would have an assessment done, using the RAI test, to determine whether they needed complex care, which is what is provided in residential care.

There’s no intent to say: “You must need more than what’s here before you can go to residential care.” The intent will always be to assess each person on an individual basis, to see whether their needs are complex enough to warrant going into residential care.

I want to make sure the member is aware that you would not be able to choose to go into residential care. That would be on an assessment that is done by professionals that essentially look at the needs of the individual and determine whether their needs warrant movement into residential care.

V. Huntington: I guess it’s that issue that I’d like to explore a little bit further, because it’s a substantial change, then, to when an individual would start to receive residential care.

[1605]

I think we all agree that having one of these issues, or two of them, pop up and being forced into residential care isn’t the right way either. But what I’m a little concerned about is the possibility that people will start being assessed and require all of these levels of care before the system will allow them to advance to residential care. That may not be in the best interests of a resident in assisted living or satisfy their family concerns that they aren’t receiving a level of care.

I’m just trying to determine whether we are now faced with that assessment by a third party, under all circumstances, before they can advance to residential care.
[ Page 12324 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Residential care is designed for people who require 24-hour professional care and supervision as well as other support services. It’s an essential level of care. As I mentioned, each person would be assessed on their level of care required. The intent of this…. There’s no language in this bill that says: “You’re not going into residential care until you need more than these six services that are listed here.”

What we’re saying is: “Assisted living means one or more of the following….” This defines what “assisted living” is, but it doesn’t define whether or not the person needs to have all of those provided before they are assessed as needing residential care. Residential care needs are assessed independently, using the RAI score.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Robinson: On this one, we have new language — “(i) a prescribed reportable incident at a licensed community care facility, or .” I’m wondering if the minister can describe why this change was required.

Hon. T. Lake: This is to specify that this is dealing with licensed community care facilities. By adding the word “licensed” to paragraph (i), the bill clarifies that the director of licensing may carry out or order investigations of prescribed reportable incidents only at licensed community care facilities. The powers of the director of licensing in respect to unlicensed facilities that may be operating as community care facilities are addressed in section 9.

This section is to do with licensed community care facilities, whereas unlicensed facilities and the power of the licensing director are captured in section 9.

S. Robinson: The other change that I noticed is “a prescribed reportable incident,” as opposed to “a reportable incident.” So it has narrowed the incident. It’s now focused on “prescribed reportable incident.” The original legislation just had “a reportable incident.”

What if it’s beyond the prescribed piece? I’m just trying to make sense of why “prescribed,” because before it just read “a reportable incident.”

Hon. T. Lake: The use of the word “prescribed” means that we can…. As we’re developing regulations, the reportable incidents would be prescribed under the regulations.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Robinson: I’m just noticing language in this one, under “Inspection of licensed community care facilities.”

[1610]

“(1) The director of licensing or a medical health officer may exercise the powers under subsection (2)….” The question is “may.” Are there going to be some sort of determining criteria of when it is a “may” and when it is a “must”?

Hon. T. Lake: “May” is the language that is used in the existing legislation. The medical health officer and director of licensing are essentially independent statutory decision–makers that determine whether to take an action. To fetter their independence by saying “must” would essentially allow them to be directed by an authority like a minister, which I don’t think is what is contemplated. It really is just a reflection of the current legislation language.

S. Robinson: Does this mean, in this context, that because it’s a “may,” there is no standard or regular inspection of these facilities?

Hon. T. Lake: There are regular inspections that occur at the moment. This allows the director of licensing or an MHO to do an inspection should there be a concern expressed in between those regular inspections.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that there are certainly regular inspections and that there’s the power to do in-between inspections. I also note that under this section, 9(2), it says “during the hours of operation of a licensed community care facility.” What caught my attention was “during the hours of operation.” Why just the hours of operation? I mean, it’s 24-7, I’m assuming. These are where people live. I’m trying to understand. Is that sort of breakfast to dinner, or how does the minister understand “hours of operation”?

Hon. T. Lake: This legislation captures child care facilities, as well, so they may not be 24-7. But obviously, in the case of assisted living, those are operating 24-7. So their hours of operations? They’re always operating.

S. Robinson: I have a question. It’s a several-page section. I did have a question on 9.1(3)(a). “The director of licensing or a medical health officer must not exercise the powers under subsection (2) unless (a) the owner of the unlicensed premises or occupant having control of the unlicensed premises consents….”

It looks like one of the two must consent. But what if one absolutely does not consent? You could have the owner consent but not necessarily the occupant. Whose rights supersede the other’s?

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: The section says “or,” so if one of them consents, then the director of licensing or the medical health officer could go into the premises.
[ Page 12325 ]

S. Robinson: Yes, I see that it says “or,” but I’m also thinking about someone who could say: “I absolutely do not want to.” I’m thinking of the occupant. I’m thinking about if the owner is saying yes and the occupant who resides there is saying no. I’m just imagining how that plays out. I know that we would encourage everyone to consent. I’m also thinking of vice versa, where the owner might say no but the occupant says yes. It sounds like as long as one of them does, then it supersedes the other, regardless of who’s actually living there and who the owner actually is.

Hon. T. Lake: That is correct. If one consented, either the owner or the occupant having control, then the director of licensing or the medical health officer could exercise the powers that they have. If they were denied access, the person denying them access would be breaking the law.

V. Huntington: Does the minister contemplate that any routine inspection of unlicensed facilities would be required of the director at any time?

Hon. T. Lake: We of course would not be aware of unlicensed premises, but if there is a complaint, then we would have the right to exercise this section of the bill. That gives us the power with consent, or if consent is not given, then a justice could issue a warrant.

It essentially allows us the ability…. If government, a medical health officer or the director of licensing is made aware of a concern in a facility that is deemed to fall under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, then we could take action as outlined in this section. But because they are unlicensed, no, they do not have regular inspections because we don’t know they’re there unless there’s a complaint.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Robinson: In section 5, it amends the original legislation, section 15. I’m particularly interested in the subsection that’s being added, (b):

“…if a medical health officer receives a complaint in respect of a community care facility within the area for which he or she is appointed, but the complaint does not raise a matter described in subsection (1) (b), the medical health officer may (a) refer the complaint, including all information…to the person responsible for the appropriate program of the health authority having responsibility for the area in which the facility is located or to another appropriate agency….”

I’m wondering if the minister can provide an example what that might be — I was trying to sit and try to figure out what that could be — and if he could also say what prompted that change.

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: There may be situations where the medical health officer is made aware of complaints by a person in an assisted-living facility, for example, but it is not to do with the assisted-living operator.

It could be services provided by the health authority, for instance. The medical health officer may be able to refer a complaint to the patient care quality office, for example. Without including that, then we may run into issues of compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that example. It was a very helpful example. I’m just trying to imagine the complainant. Now we’re going to see people in these facilities who are more frail and more challenged. It might be a child of the resident or a sibling. They have a complaint, and they’re looking to get something resolved. Now they’re told that it’s been referred and to whom. It’s about tracking all these extra people, on these added people around a complaint process.

While I’m not sure how to fix that, necessarily, in the legislation, I’m just thinking about how to operationalize this, where now somebody else has to sort of track and, if it isn’t resolved, how to continue pursuing that. I don’t want to say pass the buck, because I don’t mean it as pass the buck, but there are extra people and extra organizations now pulled into the conversation, and for some families, I think, that often can become overwhelming, especially as someone gets more frail.

They may not be able to follow through, and so it requires a caregiver who now has an additional burden of having to sort out a complaint. I wanted to know if this will also be part of the minister’s consultation, because we are talking about people getting more and more frail in assisted living.

Hon. T. Lake: If we look at the situation currently, the medical health officer, if they receive a complaint that is to do with an individual other than that described under subsection 1(b), doesn’t have the ability, because of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, to pass on that information. So essentially, the family is left to figure out the road map themselves.

This puts the onus on the medical health officer to refer the complaint to the appropriate authority, such as the patient care quality office, to ensure that the family’s concerns have been addressed.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

S. Robinson: Section 8 focuses on the protection for persons who report abuse. It doesn’t lay it out here. I went to the original legislation. It’s not that clear. To whom does one make such a report?
[ Page 12326 ]

Hon. T. Lake: That would be reported to either the director of licensing or the medical health officer.

S. Robinson: Thank you. I appreciate that.

What prompted this specific change to the legislation?

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: This is what’s commonly known as whistle-blower protection. It ensures that people that have concerns can be heard without fear of retribution in terms of job loss or job action or any other actions against them for bringing a concern to someone’s attention.

S. Robinson: I appreciate this protection. I think it’s important that anybody connected to caring for people who are vulnerable has the opportunity to lodge a complaint without fear of retribution. This legislation just speaks to a licensee or an employee or agent of a licensee. I’m wondering what the minister and his staff have considered around those that are unlicensed facilities.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, as mentioned earlier, unlicensed facilities are in that grey zone because we’re not aware of them unless a complaint comes forward, in which case, through the earlier section, we have the power, through the director of licensing or an MHO, to go in, with consent or with a judge’s order, to make sure people are safe. But because they are unlicensed, we don’t have the same power to offer protection to people that alert someone to a problem.

S. Robinson: I am sure that the minister appreciates that these people in unlicensed facilities certainly are much more vulnerable, given that these whistle-blower protections don’t exist for those who work in those unlicensed facilities.

In subsection (4), there is a change. “A licensee or other person must not interrupt, discontinue or otherwise adversely affect, or threaten to interrupt, discontinue or otherwise adversely affect, service to a person in care as a result of (a) a report of abuse, or (b) a suggested or stated intention to make a report of abuse.”

I went back to the original legislation and the word “alter” has been removed. It did read that “a licensee or other person must not alter, interrupt or discontinue” or otherwise adversely affect…. Is there a reason why “alter” was removed from the legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: This did come up in discussion through the development of this legislation. “Alter” was removed, and the term “otherwise adversely affect” was added, because “alter” could, in fact, lead to a positive outcome. If someone were to alter their services in a positive way, we would encourage that, obviously. That’s why it was removed and “otherwise adversely affect” added.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

S. Robinson: On section 9, can the minister explain why the original section 25 was repealed and why this one on registration is being substituted instead?

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: Section 9 of the bill, as the member states, repeals the existing section 25 of the act and replaces it with an analogous provision that describes the powers of the assisted-living registrar to register assisted-living residences, as well as new sections, sections 25.1, 25.2 and 25.3, which expand the existing powers of the registrar to allow for inspection of assisted-living residences.

It also establishes powers for the registrar to inspect premises that are not registered but may be used or intended to be used as assisting-living residences, and to clarify the admissibility of evidence obtained through inspection. So it really just broadens the powers of the registrar to ensure protection for residents.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response. I know that the minister well knows that with this legislation, people will be staying in assisted living longer than they currently do, which means that they’re more vulnerable, which means that they’ll need more protections. So I’m really grateful to see added protections in here.

Again, like before, I want to draw the minister’s attention to subsection 25.1(2). Again, we have: “…during the hours of operation of a registered assisting living residence….” While earlier it might have included child care, and that might have certain prescribed hours….

I would imagine a registered assisted-living residence is 24-7, but here we have: “during the hours of operation.” I’m trying to imagine. Is that like seven to four? Is that before breakfast to after dinner? How is the understanding of hours of operation understood in this section?

Hon. T. Lake: It is simply there for consistency of language. As stated earlier, in discussion of a previous section, an assisted-living facility would be operating 24-7.

S. Robinson: That’s fine in terms of consistency, but it’s a little bit of a…. Just that you can go in. I would actually argue that you don’t need those words. There are already lots of words in this document. For me, reading it, it was like: “During the hours of operation? I don’t know what that is.”

Interjection.

S. Robinson: That’s fair enough.

I do have a question about one of the definitions in 25.2, and that is the “non-dwelling area.” In other places,
[ Page 12327 ]
I was reading about “common area.” So I’m just trying, again, in terms of definitions and consistency…. I’m glad the minister brought that up.

Am I to understand that a non-dwelling area means common area? Because I’m thinking a non-dwelling area could also mean a kitchen, or a…. I’m just trying to get a sense of what was intended by the non-dwelling area.

[1635]

Hon. T. Lake: “Dwelling unit,” in this section, is referring to unregistered premises. It’s the part of the unregistered premise that is the personal residence of a resident. So everything else, essentially, is a non-dwelling area. That may be where the operator lives and would also include common areas.

S. Robinson: I appreciate having clarity around that, because we’re heading into a part of this legislation that really talks about powers to inspect. I appreciate that there has been great care taken to be respectful of the residents and their privacy.

In 25.2, subsection (2)(b), it says: “require the owner of the non-dwelling area or occupant having control of the non-dwelling area to produce for inspection or for the purpose of obtaining copies or extracts the financial and other records that can reasonably be presumed to contain information relevant to the purpose for entering the unregistered premises.”

So other records — I just have a question about what that could be. Did the minister give any thought to what that might entail?

Hon. T. Lake: This section refers to when there are reasonable grounds to believe a premises is an unregistered premises or that there’s a risk to the health or safety of a resident. Then they may go in and inspect any part of the unregistered premises and require the owner of the non-dwelling area or occupant having control of the non-dwelling area to produce for inspection copies or extracts of the financial and other records. In this case, other records could be care plans for the people that are there, medication records — anything that could be reasonably presumed to contain information relevant to the reason they went in there in the first place.

S. Robinson: Based on the minister’s response, I would imagine that it has to be relevant to the issue at hand, not: “We want to see your financial records, but there’s been a complaint about the quality of food.” I don’t know what a complaint might be like.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I suppose if the issue around food were to put people’s health in danger, then they perhaps could, in terms of adequacy of provisions, essentially, or quality, in terms of making sure they’re not contaminated and are prepared in the right way. But essentially, it has to be relevant for the reason that the inspector or medical health officer goes into the premises in the first place.

S. Robinson: Further down, in subsection (2)(c), it’s got, “request from the owner of the non-dwelling area, the occupant having control of the non-dwelling area or the staff of either full information respecting,” and then it lists.

What I just want to draw the minister’s attention to is: this is the only time that staff is included. It’s not included in (b), but it’s included in (c). So in other places, we have the owner having to produce records. But here we have staff. In (2)(b), it’s the owner or occupant, but in (c), it also includes staff. Why the distinction in this subsection?

Hon. T. Lake: I believe what…. In terms of records, either financial or other records, that is presumed to be under the control of either the owner or the occupant having control of the facility. But the staff may have other pertinent information that is salient to the reason that the registrar thought there was an inspection warranted. So the staff could be asked about the operations, about the residents.

[1640]

This is essentially to determine if an unregistered premises is acting like an assisted-living facility or not. Because they’re unregistered, obviously we don’t know. But if we were to go in and find out that you’re offering services that are assisted living, and these are some of the concerns that we have, then you should be registered and follow the guidelines and the act and regulations as developed.

S. Robinson: I’m going to come back to the independent living situation and assisted living, only because you could…. I know that they exist, where they have a certain number of units that are independent living, and then they have some units that are assisting living.

Is there a sense about where…? That might become a little bit blurry or very difficult to track. Maybe it doesn’t really quite work, because we’re talking unlicensed, and they would generally be licensed. I just want to see if that would be a place where there might be some challenges, because on the one hand, they offer independent living, but they also offer some assisted-living services, so they’re a blend.

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, we’re trying to, through this section…. Any kind of living facility that is unregistered — if it is made known that there’s a concern, so that the director of licensing would go in and inspect…. They may reach throughout the facility where there is a concern that it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and, therefore — hey — this is a duck.

As I said, the definition of “assisted living” includes all of those things we talked about: assistance with activities
[ Page 12328 ]
of daily living, managing medication. If they’re providing those in the independent living portion, the inspector would say: “Well, hang on here. You’re actually providing assisted living, not independent living.”

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response. I am sure there are some folks that probably are already providing maybe just around the edges of some of those services. Hospitality can slowly shift over, I think, very easily. As part of the minister’s consultation, I’m sure he’ll hear about some of the concerns around: when do hospitality services really move into assisted-living services? I’m not sure that they’re really finite.

I think we all progress differently and will need different things at different times. What once appeared to be just a hospitality service then becomes an assisting-living service. I think that’s just part of what the minister is going to have to address in some of his consultations as he moves forward with this.

In subsection (5)(b), it talks about: “A justice may issue a warrant authorizing the registrar to enter and inspect unregistered premises, including a dwelling unit, and exercise the powers under subsection (2) (b), (c) and (d) if satisfied by evidence given under oath that….” And (b) says: “the appropriate consent referred to in subsection (3) (a) or (4) (a) has been refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the consent will be refused.”

It’s the “reasonable grounds…that the consent will be refused.” My question is: how does one assess something that hasn’t happened?

[1645]

Hon. T. Lake: This is similar to the situation in a community care facility context. A warrant to enter and inspect unregistered premises may be issued by a justice if satisfactory evidence under oath establishes that there are reasonable grounds to believe the premises are unregistered or there is a risk to the health or safety of a resident.

Reasonable grounds is the standard of proof employed in the analogous provision of section 9.1. In deciding whether to issue a warrant, a justice must be satisfied that the owner or occupant or the resident of a dwelling area has refused to allow the registrar to exercise the inspection powers or that there are reasonable grounds to believe the owner or occupant will refuse to consent to the registrar exercising the power.

It really is the justice that has the discretion, if you like, based on the information provided under oath.

S. Robinson: Well, I do appreciate that the justice will have the authority to make that assessment. But it’s very difficult to assess something if you don’t…. If you haven’t asked to enter, but you have reasonable grounds to believe that it will be denied, it’s like…. Well, you don’t know that, because they haven’t even been asked. It becomes one of those, I think, really difficult pieces, when you have to believe that it will be refused. Unless you ask, you don’t know what someone’s going to say.

Someone might characterize…. I’m trying to picture a situation where an owner or an owner-operator might be cranky and obstinate and protective, but unless you ask to see the premises, you don’t know whether or not they’re going to say no and refuse that. I appreciate that it’s pre-emptive, but at the same time, if you don’t ask, you don’t know.

Hon. T. Lake: We’re dealing with the health and safety of residents. So if evidence was provided under oath to a justice, which may be a history of that operator in past interactions with the ministry…. Were we concerned that someone’s health or safety was at risk, rather than go back and be turned down another time — or if you know you’re working with someone who’s unlikely to give you consent, yet you are very concerned about a resident — the judge may say there are reasonable grounds to allow you to do that without getting consent.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me: do the powers of the registrar equate absolutely with the powers of the director of licensing and the medical health officer? If not, how do the powers differ?

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: If the member were to refer back to the original legislation, the powers of the director of licencing are listed under section 4 of part 2; the duties of the medical health officer and the powers of the medical health officer are listed under sections 11 and 15; and the assisted-living registrar powers are listed under part 3, section 24. So these are all outlined in the current act.

V. Huntington: In the current act, section 26 indicates that “a person must not operate an assisted-living residence that is not registered.” The language in Bill 16 appears to give the impression that there can be an unregistered assisted-living residence and that the registrar can enter that residence if there’s a concern.

Is Bill 16 permitting the unregistered residence to exist? Or is the registrar entering to shut it down or force it…? Is there a penalty for existing, for instance?

Hon. T. Lake: If it meets the definition of assisted living, it must be registered. An unregistered facility would only come to light if there was a complaint, and then the power is there to go in and inspect. If the provision of assisted-living services are, in fact, being provided, then they would have to register and meet the requirements of registration.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I’ve missed it at some point — obviously, I have — but could the minister, for clarity, explain what the difference is between an assisted-living
[ Page 12329 ]
residence versus an assisted-living facility? One licensed, one unregistered; one unlicensed, one registered? Could there be a bit of an explanation of what the differences are here and why one is registered versus unlicensed?

Hon. T. Lake: Because the act includes more than assisted living — it can be a child care facility captured under this act as well — it does get confusing when you move between one and the other.

“Assisted-living residences” is the proper terminology, and these must be registered. They could be licensed, or they may be unlicensed, but they all must be registered if they’re providing any of those services that are defined as assisted living.

[1655]

V. Huntington: Could I just ask, then, for my own clarity, are registered…?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry. Can I…?

V. Huntington: Yes, certainly.

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry. I need to correct that. They are not licensed. “Licence” is referring to other community care facilities. With assisted living, they have to be registered. Where we refer in the act to an unregistered residence…. Essentially, that comes to light through a complaint.

Someone may have a residence that we don’t know about, that has a number — let’s say six or ten — of people living there. It comes to light to the ministry that: “Hey, these people are providing assisted living. They’re not registered with us.” Now we have the power to go in — with their consent or, if there’s no consent, with the power of a warrant — and inspect. If they are in fact providing any of those assisted-living services, then they must be registered.

That’s the difference between registered assisted living, which is staying within the letter of the law, and the unregistered, which we don’t know about until we get a complaint.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could say: are registered assisted-living residences receiving subsidized beds? Are they receiving any government funding?

Hon. T. Lake: There are private assisted living, and there are public assisting living, so there’s a mix. They don’t have to be subsidized to be registered as assisted living.

S. Robinson: The member for Delta South asked some interesting questions that triggered, for me, some questions. I apologize to the minister, but it’s like: “Okay, I’m going to put on my local government hat.”

Oftentimes these unregistered assisted-living homes, residences, are in our neighbourhoods, and they are operating a business. Does the minister, or his staff, have any thoughts about the ability to cross-reference? I’d like to believe they’ve got business licences. I’m sure, if they’re not registering, they’re also not getting business licences. Is there some conversation with the local governments around these businesses operating in those communities around the province?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, local government determines the business licence requirements. We’ve seen a variation in approaches from some local governments versus others. The best example is around so-called drug recovery houses. Some municipalities have used their bylaws and business licence requirements very effectively to regulate these.

We work closely with municipalities, with fire departments, to ensure that when someone is providing services that look like assisted living, they in fact then would become registered and be subject to the regulations.

S. Robinson: I’m to understand, then, that the ministry would communicate with the municipality that this is in fact happening in their community and that they should follow up and make sure that it’s properly documented according to that municipality’s guidelines. I just want to make sure that there’s some communication happening.

[1700]

Hon. T. Lake: During the registration process, the operator needs to show proof that the municipality supports the operation of the residence.

S. Robinson: I just love when governments can work together like this and make sure that we have the proper services in place. I was thinking particularly about fire and making sure that the fire department knew there would be more than the usual level of care needed. This would be a particular location that would need added assistance in the case of some sort of incident in that facility.

I think those are all the questions I have.

V. Huntington: It’s to do with unregistered assisted-living residences — or registered. Increasingly, individuals, especially women, are contemplating sharing equity in a larger home, perhaps with a suite attached, and having their own caregiver live in the home so that they can live in home care. In effect, the caregiver…. They’re almost creating their own assisted-living environment.

Has there been any discussion about that situation, which I think is going to become an increasingly viable and anticipated option? Has there been any discussion among officials about where a facility like that, privately owned and hiring their own caregiver, might fall in the spectrum of assisted-living care as time goes on?
[ Page 12330 ]

Hon. T. Lake: There’s no question that we are seeing different living arrangements today than the so-called typical living arrangements that we saw in the past. People may decide to live together and have an in-house caregiver. They may decide to have medical services provided on site on a regular basis. If they fit the definition of “assisted living” which is outlined in the bill, then they would need to be registered.

Now, if they’re doing it and everyone in the residence is extremely happy and all their families are happy and no one thinks that anyone is being harmed, we would not know about it. But if we were made aware of a concern…. You could see, with time, that that may happen. You may have a number of people living together. It all starts out very well. Over time, someone may develop some cognitive issues and be vulnerable.

If we were made aware of that and the inspector went in and, essentially, said, “You are providing assisted living,” then they would need to be registered and fall under the auspices of this act.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

S. Robinson: Section 10 repeals a number of sections from the original legislation. I would like to hear from the minister about what that’s about — in particular, to draw attention to subsection (4), which is about involuntary patients on leave under section 37 of the Mental Health Act, and how that fits in. Why is that repealed in this legislation?

[1705]

Hon. T. Lake: It was determined that it’s not appropriate to continue to allow persons who are involuntary patients on leave under section 37 of the Mental Health Act to continue to reside in assisted living when they are unable to make decisions on their own behalf. Essentially, one of the tenets, if you like, of assisted living is that you are able to make decisions on your own behalf. It was determined that involuntary patients under section 37 of the Mental Health Act would not fit into that definition.

S. Robinson: Just for my own clarity, this is to ensure that we have some consistency in who the clients are that we’re serving and that this is a different client group that would not be appropriate for this kind of living situation?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, that’s correct.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

S. Robinson: This section speaks to persons not allowed to reside in an assisted-living residence. Earlier I canvassed the minister, asking about different other relationships. This comes up again here in this piece of the legislation, where it really just speaks to the spouse and not other sorts of relationships where people might have other living arrangements, whether it’s a sibling or a parent or child.

I was wondering if, as the minister goes along with his consultations, he will sort of keep this in mind. I’m not going to say…. This feels heavy-handed. I guess that’s the way I’m going to look at it. It’s like who cannot…? Does that put some people at risk, where they have lived for 20 years with their parent, and now the parent needs some help — you know, they’re 75; the parent’s 95 — and they can’t make use of a service that would actually make a significant difference? They’re going to get turned away because they are not — it’s really clear — allowed to share accommodation.

This feels like a very heavy-handed piece of legislation, and I would love to hear from the minister about his thoughts on that.

Hon. T. Lake: In our earlier discussion around different relationships, we recognized the potential future change, but we would need, I think, deeper consultation, deeper thought of potential unintended consequences before we’d go there.

This actually allows greater flexibility than we currently have. It says that if you’ve got some difficulty but you have a spouse who’s able to, essentially, keep you both safe, then you can stay where you are; whereas before, as soon as you needed that third service, you were tipped over the edge.

I take the member’s point, and we will certainly seek input on that in our consultation. But again, I would say this actually creates far greater freedom and flexibility for people in assisted living.

S. Robinson: I do acknowledge that this is better than what we’ve got. This isn’t about saying this is a step backwards or anything. This is good. But — if you check with my husband — I’m never satisfied; I always want the best. This, for me, is about pushing for the best. Looking at other relationships, I think we could do even better. So I’m going to leave this with the minister.

On 27.1, which is an addition to the legislation, it says that the registrar “may suspend the registration of an assisted living residence” as part of a summary action or could vary the conditions of registration. It’s a way of monitoring.

I’m also thinking about: if the registration is suspended, is there any sort of registry of offenders? I don’t know what kind of language to use. I’m thinking: I have a place in Surrey, and it gets suspended. It ceases to operate, and then I just go to Burnaby and open up another. I unregister…. I don’t register it, and I just continue to operate. Is that the sort of thing that the minister and his staff had contemplated?

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: The operators are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so if you were to have a serial offender, I suppose, that offender would, hopefully, be dealt with on each particular case. But we do not have the power under this act to deny a licence or registration to someone based on earlier performance, if you like. It’s on the performance of the existing residence.

S. Robinson: Well, I have to say that that actually concerns me. It concerns me because I would imagine, as the government, as the people responsible for protecting vulnerable residents, that we would be tracking. We would have a sense of looking at repeat offenders and serial offenders and have some sort of power, somewhere, to say, “You can’t do this because you’re putting people at risk.”

I mean it’s pretty clear here. It talks about if there’s “an immediate risk to the health or safety of a resident.” Why would we have legislation for this particular operation? They shut it down, and the same person just opens up a home somewhere else and puts more people at risk. I would like to think that, as vulnerable consumers, there is some protection we can offer as government.

Hon. T. Lake: I know what the member is trying to get at, and I appreciate that we’re trying to protect vulnerable people. There may be situations in which vulnerable people are taken advantage of. That situation is addressed by the registrar by suspending their licence or attaching conditions to the registration. The member is saying: “Well, the registrar may do that once, but what if the registrar did that again to this operator or again, the third time?

There’s a balance between administrative fairness…. If someone has not been guilty of a criminal act, for instance, and they say, “You know, I have learned from past mistakes, and I intend to operate in a different way,” then natural justice would say you have to allow that to happen. But there’s a line there.

That is something that will be part of our consultation: are there regulations that could be put in place that might capture the serial offender, if you like? We will add that to the list of items that we will consult on.

S. Robinson: I’m grateful to hear the minister is prepared to consult around creating some regulations to capture the serial offender, but it looks like the registrar…. According to this legislation, they can suspend and they can provide conditions. But the way I’m reading it, it almost looks like, if they promise to do better…. Let’s say it’s the third time, and they promise: “Yes, I’ll do better.” If I’m reading this right, because it’s a fresh opportunity, they get to register because they want to.

Is there some sort of requirement that you have to have not been in trouble with the registrar in the previous three years, five years, something in some way that would say that the registrar does not have to…? They don’t have to get a registration of any kind.

Hon. T. Lake: It says the registrar may suspend the registration, attach conditions to the registrations. Theoretically, the registrar could say: “Listen, we’re going to register you, but because of other history, or whatever, we’re going to attach conditions to your registration.” Those conditions may be inspections on a six-month basis, for instance.

[1715]

That is something, again, through the regulations, that can be worked on, and we’ll include that in our consultation.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a question about the transparency of the process. The minister has spoken about: each application is taken on its own. What about whether or not the results or the registrations, if there are conditions on the registration and so on…? Is that information publicly posted on websites? I know that, for example, licence inspections now, through a change, I think through this government, many years ago…. Those inspection reports are, I think, on line now. What about conditions of registration and so on?

Hon. T. Lake: Currently they are not. We don’t have a website that lists conditions attached to an assisted-living registration. It’s something that, again, we could include in our consultation.

K. Corrigan: If somebody had a loved one that they were assisting in finding an assisted-living arrangement, what could they do to ensure that it was a good facility?

I know there are organizations and so on, but is there nothing that they would be able to access at the present time other than, presumably, inspection reports? There’s nothing that is government information that would be related to concerns about a particular facility? There’s no way that somebody could have a chance to figure out whether or not this would be a good place, apart from their own intuition and questions, for their loved one to live?

[1720]

Hon. T. Lake: Substantiated complaints about a specific assisted-living residence are available on the website of the Ministry of Health, but from a patient perspective, it’s not easy to find. The member’s point is that if I’m looking for something for someone in my family, it would be nice to have a website that sort of gives you that basic information. We have it for residential care. We should have it for assisted living as well.

As part of our consultation and working with the seniors advocate…. I know she is very much in favour of us increasing the amount of transparency and patient-centredness or resident-centredness to the processes.

Substantiated complaints are there, but I think we could do a better job of incorporating that into a portal that provides information more directly to people that are looking for assisted-living residences.
[ Page 12332 ]

The member noted that even if you were just to google “assisted living in B.C.,” there’s lots of information out there. But in terms of what we provide as government, I think we’re not doing the job that we could be doing. So we’ll endeavour to improve that.

K. Corrigan: I also want to ask, then, about the registration and the responsibility for registration that the registrar has, looking after the health and safety and so on. How does that fit together with the licensing inspector — the inspection side of it, where you have the licensing of it?

[1725]

I know that, with long-term-care facilities, there has been a lot of work on the inspection of premises and that, depending on the risk profile, there is more or less inspection. Is there that same kind of inspection regime for assisted-living residences? I imagine not, because the acuity or the frailty of the residents would be different. But what are the responsibilities that government has through inspections and licensing to ensure that the registration is appropriate, and how do the two fit together?

Hon. T. Lake: We had quite a large discussion earlier about the powers of inspection for registered or unregistered assisted-living facilities. So no, there are regular inspections of registered assisted-living facilities. Then, if there’s a complaint, an inspection could occur in between those regular inspections. If there is a complaint about a facility that is a residence that is not registered, another earlier section that we had debated earlier allows the registrar to go in, under certain circumstances, to inspect.

Sections 11 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND
ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 16, Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I request a five-minute recess while we make some changes in the House.

Madame Speaker: This House will stand recessed till the call of the bell.

The House recessed from 5:28 p.m. to 5:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:34 p.m.

On section 1.

G. Heyman: I have a number of questions of clarification with respect to this bill, notwithstanding the fact that we are generally very supportive of a number of aspects of this bill.

[1735]

I note that in section 1, there are a number of changes. Formerly Okanagan Mountain Park and Okanagan Falls Park…. I’m not going to attempt the pronunciations here. Perhaps the minister will. I wish I could, and I will endeavour to learn them in future, for certain. Why are they being moved to schedule D?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s an existing power line in the area that we are adding to the park. Without moving it to schedule D, we wouldn’t be able to grandfather existing uses.

G. Heyman: To understand this fully, is it possible to…? Do you move it to schedule D and then grandparent the current use, or is it possible to grandparent without the move to the schedule D?

Hon. M. Polak: Just to be clear, there are a lot of letters being used. The member is, possibly, confusing schedules and classes. It remains a class A park.
[ Page 12333 ]
Currently, it’s under schedule C. But in order to allow the pre-existing uses on the land that’s being added, it would have to be moved into schedule D. It wouldn’t be able to continue as a schedule C. In either case, it remains a class A park.

G. Heyman: The minister did answer my question, and I did understand that I was referring to the schedule and not the class of the park.

Parks in schedule D have transitional provisions in the Park Act that allow a number of other activities — permits and licences, for instance, for things like cattle grazing — which are not allowed in schedule C. Is the potential there for additional activities to be permitted in these parks, or is the minister prepared to say that it is only for the purpose of the power line?

Hon. M. Polak: It only applies to pre-existing uses. Currently, there’s the power line, and there’s also a grazing lease. Those would be grandfathered. But it wouldn’t allow for new activities to be added or expanded.

G. Heyman: Could the minister assist me by pointing me to where the actual prohibition about additional uses would be contained?

[1740]

Hon. M. Polak: Schedule D contains, in section 30, the enabling of allowing for pre-existing uses. If there was to be something new that was contemplated, then that would have to go through all the ordinary processes of the Park Act, like section 8 and section 9.

G. Heyman: Sorry, the last words the minister spoke — she referred to some specific sections if additional uses were to be contemplated. I just missed it.

Hon. M. Polak: Within the Park Act, the place where we govern what activities are allowed or not allowed is in sections 8 and 9.

G. Heyman: Additional uses might be allowed through a process at some point in the future, but none are currently contemplated. Is that what I’m understanding the minister to say?

Hon. M. Polak: There is nothing additional contemplated. It would be managed as any other class A park, with the same standing prohibitions.

G. Heyman: Part of the changes contained within section 1 are, as I understand it, to protect glass sponge reefs. I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate on that point.

Hon. M. Polak: Glass sponge reefs like this are found in other places in the world — or on our coast, even. This is the shallowest place that they are found that we’re aware of, which of course means that it’s much more accessible to recreation use and activity.

G. Heyman: Within section 1 is an amendment to the boundary description of Garibaldi Park. It’s fairly straightforward and routine. The minister’s staff explained this to a couple of us in a meeting a number of weeks ago, but I have some questions related to Garibaldi Park itself.

I’m trying to get, by asking these questions, to some of the intent of the minister or the ministry, based on a number of ideas for the park that have been put forward by a group called Garibaldi Park 2020. I’m going to ask a number of questions of the minister with respect to different ideas and requests that have been put forward by this group, who are requesting some changes to the park master plan by the year 2020, to determine if the minister has an opinion on them and if consideration was given to including them in this bill, Bill 15, at this time, if they’re under review by the ministry.

The first one is a zoning change for Skookum Creek and Mamquam Icefield to acknowledge intensive recreation and permit the restoration of heritage trails as well as new trail development.

[1745]

Hon. M. Polak: It wouldn’t be included in legislation. Those changes would be made through the park management plan.

G. Heyman: That answer may well pertain to a number of other questions I’m asking. I’m curious if the minister can say whether that is a matter that is under any active consideration by the ministry, as it relates to this park whose boundaries are encompassed by this bill.

Hon. M. Polak: Staff aren’t aware of any submissions having been received with respect to this. Hopefully, that’s on its way, and we can take a look at what they have proposed.

G. Heyman: Given the answer, I would ask the minister if that is the same answer that would be given for concern about the Darling Lake heritage trail and restoring it, including a new footbridge over the east fork of Skookum Creek.

Hon. M. Polak: We’d have to see what the actual proposal is. Depending on what that looks like, it could just be something that gets handled through ordinary annual capital investments that we make in parks. It might not require addressing it in the park management plan.

G. Heyman: Another concern raised by this group is a proposal to connect Garibaldi and Pinecone Burke provincial parks with an alpine route from Skookum Creek to Pinecone Lake and Knothole Lake trailhead. Has the ministry received submissions on this, or has this come up in any discussions regarding Garibaldi Park?

I think the minister and I have exchanged discussion in spending estimates with respect to wildlife corridors and the relationship to ecosystem integrity, etc.
[ Page 12334 ]

Hon. M. Polak: We don’t have anything in our possession, but staff have advised that they will follow up with regional park staff to see if, perhaps, something is being discussed at their level.

G. Heyman: Is any consideration being given to the restoration of the heritage Knothole Lake trail through the Pinecone non-motorized zone?

[1750]

Hon. M. Polak: We don’t have those details, but we can reach out to regional staff to find out if there are discussions taking place. I’d also certainly benefit from…. If the member has notes with respect to overall proposals that this group has, it would be helpful if we could receive those to follow up.

G. Heyman: I will provide some information I have, and perhaps the minister and I will have a chance to discuss this in person in the future. There is a website, garibaldipark2020.com, that the minister and the minister’s staff might want to review.

Finally, on Garibaldi, the minister certainly knows that activities adjacent to a park can have an impact on the park and on wildlife that moves in and out of the park. There’s currently a proposal — it is, frankly, just at the proposal stage — called Garibaldi at Squamish. It’s a very, very significant resort proposal. The perimeters border Garibaldi Provincial Park and Alice Lake Provincial Park, which are highly sensitive ecological areas, including a winter ungulate range.

This group has suggested that studying Brohm Ridge and considering a protected wilderness area — with respect to future development proposals and protecting wilderness — be undertaken by the ministry, and in fact suggests a biosphere reserve in order to protect the winter ungulate range and the ecosystems within the park itself.

Is the minister’s staff aware of potential impacts of the Garibaldi at Squamish proposal? Has the ministry done any research on impacts that it could have on Garibaldi Park, the fauna within the park and the ecosystem as a whole?

Hon. M. Polak: The Garibaldi at Squamish project has been granted an environmental assessment certificate. Of course, there are a number of conditions in place for that, some of which have to do with lands that could be impacted by the project.

The project will now go through the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations process, in the hopes of attaining a master development agreement. Certainly, all manner of issues relating to impacts on surrounding areas will be discussed, and Parks would provide their input to that process.

G. Heyman: In that case, could the minister walk us through the considerations that were given to impacts on the winter ungulate range and how those impacts could be managed or if, in fact, they could be managed at all?

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. In light of what we were discussing in the bill, I don’t have that information present with me. Their certificate is fairly detailed, as I’m sure the member can appreciate.

[1755]

I would be happy to set up some time to go over that with the member, but I wouldn’t be able to effectively deal with that here, nor do I have the appropriate staff to go over that.

G. Heyman: Given the minister’s comments about the availability of the appropriate staff with respect to this committee stage on Bill 15, there’s not much more I can ask or say other than to indicate to the minister that a number of people have raised concerns with me about their ability or the public’s ability or the government’s ability to further improve the park and its accessibility to recreational users, as well as deep concern over the potential impacts of the Garibaldi at Squamish proposals, specifically on winter ungulate range, and their feeling that it’s pretty difficult to manage those impacts other than to not have any.

I’d be happy to pursue this discussion at some other time with the minister and her staff. If I get more material with respect to this, in addition to what’s on this particular group’s website, I certainly will provide it.

Having said that, I think that concludes my questioning on section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Heyman: Section 2 contains a boundary adjustment. It removes 1.2 hectares of land as part of a negotiated settlement with the Boston Bar First Nation with respect to an access issue. Could the minister describe how this actually resolves the issue and what impacts, if any, this will have on the park or beneficial impacts for the nation?

Hon. M. Polak: The nature of the trespass was the western footings for a bridge spanning the Fraser River. In discussions with the Boston Bar First Nation, what they sought was land that had water frontage.

The only place that was achievable was using these small areas from the park. It was the assessment of B.C. Parks staff that this change would not negatively impact the values of the park, especially with the understanding that the First Nation has agreed that they will manage the land consistent with the park purposes, meaning there would be no resource development or use of that land
[ Page 12335 ]
other than for recreational purposes. Also, the public will continue to be able to gain access to the waterfront.

[1800]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Heyman: Among the issues addressed by section 3 is what many people consider the highlight of this bill, which is the establishment of a new class A park in the north — whose pronunciation I will attempt — Chun T’oh Whudujut Park. For those who know how to pronounce this properly, my apologies for undoubtedly getting it wrong but, I hope, close.

Perhaps the minister could say…. Given that part of the point of establishing this park was to protect some of the regional old growth, could the minister indicate exactly how much of the regional old growth will now be protected, and how much this adds to the total, both in hectares and percentages?

Hon. M. Polak: Out of the more than 11,000 hectares that will now be protected in the Ancient Forest, about 6,000 hectares are considered by FLNRO to be old growth — in other words, greater than 141 years. We don’t, however, track what that would be in terms of a percentage or what the total old growth would be around the province.

G. Heyman: This is a class A park. It’s the most protected type of provincial park, but it is in schedule D, so some uses which were being carried out when the park was established may be continued. Could the minister indicate which of those uses are occurring in this park and would be grandparented by putting them in schedule D?

Hon. M. Polak: In consultation with the community, it was felt important to maintain the operations of a guide-outfitter who has a Range Act tenure for grazing his horses, and also, some general hunting would be preserved — again, pre-existing uses, albeit with necessary restrictions for safety.

[1805]

G. Heyman: Presumably, that will be it.

I just want to make sure that the question that I’m about to ask is the same as the answer I received to my first question. That is: the only use in Okanagan Mountain Park that’s being grandparented is the power line that was referenced, or did I misunderstand that?

Hon. M. Polak: In this case, it is for grazing leases. There is no power line involved in this one.

G. Heyman: I thank the minister for the clarification of my misunderstanding of the earlier answer.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I would request a five-minute recess.

Madame Speaker: The House stands recessed till the call of the bell.

The House recessed from 6:07 p.m. to 6:09 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016.

[1810]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — GREENHOUSE GAS
INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 6:12 p.m.

On section 1.

G. Heyman: Section 1 deals with changing definitions of “compliance period” — new entrant compliance periods, etc. The government has, for many years now, stressed the growth of LNG in the province. Given that this is
[ Page 12336 ]
an amendment to an act that we originally debated and passed quite some time ago, why were new entrants and transitional provisions not included in the original act?

Hon. M. Polak: The problem wasn’t one that we were alive to until it came time to put in place the regulations supporting the bill.

G. Heyman: For the benefit of the members present and for the benefit of British Columbians, could the minister detail what the problems that this provision and amendment are intended to address are?

[1815]

Hon. M. Polak: In the case of a plant that is being commissioned, the steady state for what emissions will then continue over the life of the project is not…. The steady state is not reached immediately. There are fluctuations in emissions during the commissioning of the project.

In addition to that, there are activities that take place during construction and commissioning that won’t continue to be present for the general operations of the project. Also, it’s important to note that while, for the purposes of the compliance period, the requirements are altered here, nevertheless, the emissions — all of these emissions — will still be monitored and reported.

G. Heyman: Would the adjustments in the start-up period be the only cause of fluctuations? Or are there other causes of fluctuations? If so, what are they?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s only during this period of commissioning. Once they are fully operational, then any subsequent fluctuations — spikes in emissions, what have you — would all be accounted for under the regular requirements.

G. Heyman: I’m a bit at a loss. Wouldn’t the fact that fluctuations would exist and adjustments have to be made be well known to proponents and the government before the original bill, now an act, was drafted? There are other LNG plants in operation in other parts of the world. My understanding is that the original bill, now an act, was drafted after extensive consultation with the industry proponents in order to put in place a regime that met their needs.

I’m trying to determine what has changed between the time the original act was brought into place and now, in terms of knowledge. I’m not aware of any change of knowledge or awareness that has occurred. There may, in fact, be a change in economic conditions.

Hon. M. Polak: While the member is correct that there are LNG facilities operating all around the world, there are no other places in the world where they regulate the emissions of the facilities in this way, so there was not any other example to follow at the time of drafting. It was not apparent as a problem. When it came to the work to develop the appropriate regulations and implement the act, then the challenge did become apparent.

G. Heyman: Notwithstanding the fact that there is no other place where emissions are regulated in this manner, certainly the proponents were well aware of their procedures in bringing a plant on line and, surely, this would have been canvassed by them in discussions with government.

Is the minister saying this was never raised, never discussed, never understood by anyone on the government side in all the research they did into the LNG industry as part of preparing legislation and being very, very vigorous and active proponents of the industry?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, in fact, we don’t discuss draft legislation with proponents, so it wasn’t until this legislation was introduced and passed in the Legislature that those discussions were able to take place on that detailed a level.

[1820]

G. Heyman: I just want to be absolutely clear that I’ve understood what the minister has said. The original act was drafted and introduced in order to provide some certainty to the industry about what conditions would underpin their economic investment in British Columbia in an LNG industry. There were no discussions with industry — perhaps not about the details of the act but about how things worked in the industry — and what impact the bill might have on them?

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, discussions took place to understand the industry and, therefore, draft the original act.

However, in the absence of the level of detail that was present once the act was fully drafted and introduced to the House and then enabled us to have those detailed discussions with industry…. It wasn’t until that time that this challenge became apparent.

G. Heyman: Hmm. I can’t…. Well, I could, but I won’t ask the same question any more times. I find it a bit hard to comprehend.

Let me ask another question for clarification. Is it the intent of the legislation that the term “new entrants” will encompass new operations that may come on line, or does it have any other meaning?

Hon. M. Polak: One of the criteria that they would have to meet is to be a new facility.

G. Heyman: So it could be a new facility of an existing operation or owner?
[ Page 12337 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I think I understand the member’s question, if the member is asking if it is referencing the facility or if it is referencing a company that already has holdings here. It wouldn’t have to be a new company. It could be a company that already does business here. If the facility is new, that would be one of the criteria that the director would look at to designate them as a new entrant so they qualify for this.

[1825]

G. Heyman: So should I infer from that that the ministry drafted this bill on the understanding from the industry that it is a particular operation or facility, even if it’s a mirror image of an existing facility by the same owner and operator…? The same degree of testing and fluctuation would occur in the early stages?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s based on the facility, not the company. If there is a new facility, even if it looks exactly the same as another facility, it would be examined individually — each facility on its own.

Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. McRae in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $1,451,160,000 (continued).

D. Donaldson: I’d like to start off with a couple of questions that are left over from when we were in this estimates debate 11 days ago.

One of them was that I asked the minister the number of level 3, level 2 and level 1 foster care homes that have exceeded the maximum standards as far as the number of children in them. She committed to getting me the answer to that. I’m wondering if she can supply that now after our 11-day break.

Hon. S. Cadieux: It’s rather lengthy. We were planning to send it to you in letter form. If you would prefer, we could move on to another question and have someone print that off and bring it to us, and you could have it now.

D. Donaldson: Yes, that would be fine. If you could print it off and bring it in letter form before the end of this estimates discussion we’re having today, that would be helpful.

The second question I had that the minister was going to try to supply me with an answer to was in regards to children in care under five who have not had a permanency plan within 12 months of coming into care. The numbers of children — the minister said she was endeavouring to get that information back to me after we resumed after the break last week.

Hon. S. Cadieux: That’s going to take more time. We are working on it. We’re partway there, but we don’t have it complete for the member yet.

[1445]

D. Donaldson: I’d like to move on to a discussion of performance measure 1 in the service plan. This is a new performance measure that is: “Rate of aboriginal children and youth in care per 1,000 population.”

Looking at the performance measure, you see the number of aboriginal children in care under this target go from 55.2 per 1,000 population forecast for this year to 54.9 per 1,000 for next year. Can the minister explain how that target was set? How many children would that represent?

[1450]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We’ll start off with why. The thought was to add an aboriginal measure to show the real trend, as the aboriginal children-in-care numbers could go up or down and the percentage could go up or down as a percentage of kids in care. As a percentage of the overall population, or the overall population of aboriginal children, the rate of children in care has been steadily falling
[ Page 12338 ]
— slowly, but steadily falling. We feel that’s a more accurate measure of progress.

The slight downward trend. We expect it to continue and hope to speed up the rate of decline and expect that increased use of strategies like family preservation, out-of-care options, kinship arrangements and so on, and higher permanency rates and efforts in that area will speed up the rate of decline in that regard.

As for the number of children in care, none of the math minds here want to venture a guess as to that. We will get you that number and sort it out as quickly as we can. We have the other information from the previous question available for you now.

D. Donaldson: Well, this is a new performance measure. It’s one that has to do with the number of aboriginal children and youth in care, which is a huge concern. Sixty-three percent of those in care are of aboriginal descent, which is way out of proportion with the population of aboriginal people in the province at 5 percent. The minister can’t provide what the rate decrease will actually produce in numbers. I find that troubling.

The actual number of children in care, according to ministry figures, at this moment — aboriginal children — is 4,417. So what does a 0.3 decrease in the rate from this year to next year actually represent in real numbers?

[1455]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It is 24 fewer children.

D. Donaldson: When the performance measure talks about the rate of aboriginal children and youth in care per thousand population, is that both in the ministry and in delegated aboriginal agencies?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

D. Donaldson: We filed a freedom-of-information request around this measure asking for all documents produced or discussed between last September and the budget, and it came back with “no responsive records.”

I’m just wondering, if this is a new performance measure, how is it possible that no one in the ministry produced or referred to a single document regarding this measure in the half year preceding this service plan’s release?

[1500]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The new performance measure is based on a trend line and nothing more. The service plan is the final document and the document where that is held.

The performance measure was developed by the executive director of modelling and analysis, through taking a look at the data held in the data warehouse for the ministry, who then suggested that it be included in the service plan. That happens through a series of meetings, not documents, and that’s how it comes to be.

If the member would like a briefing on what lies behind the data in that measure, we’d be happy to arrange that briefing with the executive director of modelling and analysis.

D. Donaldson: Am I to understand that this important performance measure…? It’s new. It was introduced, and it’s supposed to provide some confidence to First Nations people and aboriginal people in the province that the ministry is actually tracking what’s going on. Am I to understand that one person in the ministry developed this?

No one questioned the efficacy of the performance measure. No one was cited in research around how this important performance measure was put forward. There’s no documentation to that whatsoever. Is that the way the ministry comes up with new performance measures?

[1505]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The information is in the data. The measure is based on the data. The benefit of this ministry is that we have data going back decades in our data warehouse. We undertake, on an ongoing basis, lots of analysis, both on the historical trends and evolving trends, and estimating projections.

We have staff whose job it is specifically to analyze that data. The executive director then has the obligation to bring forward suggestions for the most appropriate measures to track progress in the ministry. He looks across jurisdictions at how best to report information so that it is most accurate and comparable. Actually, in this case, it certainly focuses more attention on aboriginal kids specifically by doing it on a per-1,000 basis and makes it harder on the ministry to achieve the targets. It focuses very specifically on the kids.

We could, alternatively, go back to a measure that purports the percentage of aboriginal kids in care, but then, if we increase the number of kids in care overall, the percent of aboriginal kids in care would go down. That wouldn’t be an appropriate measure of what’s happening for aboriginal kids specifically.

This is an effort to really focus on the data, focus on aboriginal kids specifically and what is happening for that particular group. This is the most appropriate measure, and it has been presented by the person in the ministry whose job it is to present that information for the service plan.

D. Donaldson: What I’m asking is: how does the minister decide whether it’s the most appropriate measure? She talked about lots of analysis done on data to create, such as this, a new performance measure. So where is that analysis?

We asked for all the documents produced under freedom of information around how this measure was cre-
[ Page 12339 ]
ated. Was there not a rationale based on that analysis brought to the senior management team and brought to the minister so that she would be most informed on how well this new performance measure works?

[1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Freedom of information is a useful tool. However, in this case, it perhaps is not the best tool. Given that I have explained how this performance measure came into being and that it happens through a process, including a number of meetings and then into the service plan….

Just as there was an opportunity for the member for a briefing prior to estimates, where this question could have been identified and more information could have been provided to the member, I have also offered a briefing again today with the individual who’s specifically responsible for the data. I’m happy to have that occur.

I think it’s important to note that we don’t create information in response to a freedom-of-information request. We can only give information that exists. In this case, there were no documents that existed because the development of the measure was a part of an ongoing process with development of the service plan.

I will note for the member, though, as he does seem to be very interested in this particular measure, that it will also be a measure that is tracked in more detail in the performance management report, and the next issue is due out relatively soon.

D. Donaldson: Well, you can only give out information that exists. That’s the shocking part, I would say — that there doesn’t seem to be any information written down that exists about the rationale for this performance measure. If there were meetings held, I would assume there were notes taken, and yet we don’t see any rationale written down.

I’ll switch my questions, then, to another line. That would be…. The minister says that this decrease that they’re looking for, their target of rate of aboriginal children and youth in care per-1,000 population between this year and next year in real terms, represents 24 children out of 4,417 in care. Is the minister satisfied that that’s an acceptable target?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Based on the historical data, the trends, the work that is ongoing in the ministry and the change in how we operate and focus on this particular group of children, yes, I think that is a reasonable target. I would hope we could outperform it. This target was set before we had the benefit of seeing the federal budget and federal commitments to aboriginal children specifically.

It would be my hope that our work with our federal counterparts, in relation to aboriginal children in care and aboriginal children generally, will help to see the rate of decline improve significantly over what is projected at this time.

D. Donaldson: The minister mentioned the upcoming performance management report. The performance management report for 2015 was issued in March. For 2014, it was issued in April, and 2013’s was issued in April as well. Why is the 2016 performance measurement report late?

[1515]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For clarity, there’s a six-month lag between the collection of the data and the compilation of the report. The performance management report with the date March 2015 is data for March 2015 that was issued in September 2015. That was volume 6. Volume 7, for data up to September 2015, will be released in the next few weeks. The process for that is that first I am briefed, then we need to brief the representative and then the report is released, at which point it is public information.

I would mention — I’m sure the member would agree — that it’s becoming a fairly comprehensive report. It’s now at 122 pages of data, and we are adding new performance measures all the time. It is our endeavour to be as transparent as we possibly can with what happens in the ministry, how, where the trends are, what we’re tracking and why.

We add measures as we deem it necessary, or we have added measures because of issues raised by the representative where we had agreed that we needed to track things differently or better. We continue to do that.

When that next report is out in the next few weeks, if the member would like a briefing on that, we would be happy to provide it.

D. Donaldson: Well, it was 117 pages last year, so why is it taking longer to put out this year than last year? What’s the difference that’s caused the delay? We’re now in April, and we had it in March last year. When is the next report coming out?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, for the member, there’s a six-month time lag between the date that the information contained in the report is collected and then compiled and released in terms of the performance management report. The report that the member references, with the date on it of March 2015, was actually released in September 2015, six months or so after the collection of the data. The next report, which is due in the next few weeks, will be data up until September 2015.

D. Donaldson: I have a question regarding the work of the special adviser on aboriginal child welfare, Grand Chief Ed John. It relates to a specific area and a specific meeting he had. Last year I questioned the minister on federal dollars that were flowing to every western prov-
[ Page 12340 ]
ince but B.C. under the enhanced prevention focused approach. This was for prevention services for aboriginal children and youth on reserve. We’re the only western province that hasn’t received federal money under this program, and it’s been millions of dollars.

[1520]

I didn’t get any answers from the minister as to if or when or why we weren’t receiving those dollars.

Since then, Chair, you’ll know that we’ve had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report around their first recommendation calling upon federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of aboriginal children in care. We’ve also had the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling, in the case that Cindy Blackstock brought, that the federal government discriminates against First Nations children on reserves by failing to provide the same level of child welfare services that exist elsewhere.

My question in relation to special adviser Grand Chief Ed John is…. He, in one of the reporting documents that he submitted to the minister about his activities, had a telephone call with the federal minister, Bennett, on November 16, 2015, where it was reported that he advocated for additional prevention dollars for First Nation communities in the province of B.C. What were the results of those discussions, and will they be made public?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Prior to estimates, we did ask the member when it was he might wish to canvass questions related to Grand Chief Ed John, and he had indicated it would be during the time prior to the break. So the primary resource to Grand Chief Ed John is not here with us today. That said, I will say that I don’t feel empowered to speak on behalf of Grand Chief Ed John about a conversation that he had with a federal minister.

[1525]

On other issues where he may have also chosen to take advantage of that opportunity to speak about the work that he is doing with us and advocate for First Nations children in B.C…. I would fully expect that he would do that, and I am grateful that he did choose to do that.

But the result of the conversation between Grand Chief Ed John and Minister Bennett would be, to question him specifically on that…. He may choose to speak to it in his report. He may not. I am not privy to that knowledge at this time.

What I can say is that I, too, have had a preliminary conversation with Minister Bennett. We had a long discussion, and it was, I thought, very positive.

I know the member will also be aware of the federal budget announcements that have been made. Staff in our ministry are working with their counterparts at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada weekly. I would say that we are positive and hopeful, certainly, that this is the start of a different, a new conversation, a positive conversation about First Nations children in the province. We are looking forward to the changes in how we work with our federal partners in changing the world for First Nations children in British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: I’m not asking the minister to speak on behalf of Grand Chief Ed John. The fact is Grand Chief Ed John was appointed by the minister as her special adviser. I would expect that she’s getting the monthly reports that were part of the contract with Grand Chief Ed John.

I’m looking at a project status report from January 14, 2016, put out by her ministry, where it says that on November 16, the Grand Chief met with Minister Bennett to update, and discussions on prevention funding for B.C. — a phone meeting.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

So I’m asking the minister not to speak on his behalf but to ask what Grand Chief Ed John, her special adviser, reported to her on the results of those discussions, so we can actually see if B.C.’s going to get some of the money other provinces have been getting up till now.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I acknowledge that, certainly, Grand Chief Ed John did report to me that he had a conversation with Minister Bennett about the need for B.C.’s children to have access to advanced prevention funding. I appreciate that he had those conversations and that we have, certainly, the same goal in that regard.

I also know that Grand Chief Ed John has spoken to the member on a number of occasions. I’m sure that he has felt free to share what he felt was appropriate with the member, in those meetings, about his work with the ministry and with me.

Beyond that, to the extent to which British Columbia is going to benefit from federal dollars, I’ve already addressed that I’ve had an initial meeting, that our staff is in weekly discussions with the federal ministry and that we are positive moving forward.

[1530]

D. Donaldson: The minister informed me that the Grand Chief’s final report has been given an extension. June, I believe, is what she said when we were talking in another part of this Legislature, during question period.

In the project status report, January 14, 2016, the Grand Chief reported to the minister that “engagement activities and results will inform recommendations and advice.” The target date was March 31, 2016, as the minister announced back in the fall, and the status is “on track.” Can the minister inform what happened between January 14 and just a couple of weeks ago to put things off track and when the final report will actually be in place?

[D. Plecas in the chair.]
[ Page 12341 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Grand Chief wishes to have the opportunity to meet with a great number of groups that have requested to meet with him and that he hasn’t had time to meet with yet.

He has met with 72 First Nations, nine delegated agencies and 12 other organizations or interest groups that have asked to meet with him or that he has asked to meet with of his own accord. At the last meeting that I had with him at the beginning of April, he asked for a three-week break and then to have the time to go ahead and meet with the rest of the organizations and nations that had requested to meet with him and have time to include those consultations thoroughly in his report.

[1535]

I think it’s important to recognize that the Grand Chief, through January to April, did a great deal of travelling throughout British Columbia and across the country. The special adviser role that he has agreed to take on and is doing with me is only one of the many things that the Grand Chief has on his plate. As such, he needed some time away, as well, to attend to some other duties and other things.

I think that’s completely realistic. I think it is honourable that he wishes to, in fact, honour all of the requests to meet with him and has asked for additional time to do that. I am happy to grant him that time and look forward to his report.

D. Donaldson: My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is going to ask a staffing question, and then my other colleague from Esquimalt will be pursuing the service line, early years and the office of domestic violence after that.

M. Mark: Given my background as the associate deputy representative with the Representative for Children and Youth in charge of advocacy, aboriginal relations, community relations and youth engagement, plus my long, long, long list of cultural background…. I’m Nisga’a, Gitxsan, Cree and Ojibway, French and Scottish and also had a family impacted by child welfare.

My question is specific to staffing and whether there is a specific line item to recruit and hire aboriginal staff at the senior management and executive levels, including the ADM level. If yes, how much is set aside, and what has the success rate been so far with respect to recruitment and retention? I’d just add — a specific line item in the budget related to aboriginal recruitment and staffing at the executive, management and ADM level.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer to that is no, there is not a specific line item.

M. Mark: May I have supplemental information from the minister to get the information that I’m requesting — whether or not there will be any budget line items devoted to aboriginal staff at the executive level?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For the member’s information, there won’t be a specific line item, so that wouldn’t be the proper request for information. But if the member would like a briefing specific to what we’re doing around aboriginal recruitment and hiring, we’d be happy to provide that.

M. Mark: On a supplemental, is there a line item for someone at the ADM level in this budget that is of aboriginal descent? The question is geared towards overrepresentation of aboriginal children in the child welfare system and whether or not someone at the executive level is hired within the ministry.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Hopefully, this will get at some of it for you, Member. There are two issues that I think the member is raising, and they are quite different. First of all, there is a line item in the budget for staffing, but that is not specific to aboriginal or non-aboriginal staff.

[1540]

We do have a strategy around hiring aboriginal people into our staff and encourage recruitment, and that is why I offered a briefing to the member on what that looks like.

The other issue that the member is raising around ADMs specifically — I think the member would benefit to understand that we actually don’t have ADMs in our budget. We don’t hire them directly.

However, that said, we have discussed, both internally and with our delegated aboriginal agencies and the Representative for Children and Youth’s office, the possibility of an ADM opportunity. We are working on a job description specific to that, which would then get posted.

It is not a line item, however, in the ministry. That is why I answered the question the way I did when it was first posed. Again, I’m happy to provide more detail to the member in a briefing after estimates.

M. Karagianis: I would like to structure my questions to talk about…. I’ve got some domestic violence questions, just a few at the top, and then move into child care and early learning and early childhood education, if we can. I’m not sure what staff you require for that.

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: Good. We’ll give you a moment for that.

We have discussed in previous estimates the issues around domestic violence units and the office of domestic violence and the role that it plays within government and, obviously, with the domestic violence units.

I do have some very specific questions. Some of these are really updates from last year, from our last discussion. I would like to ask if I could have an update, please, on how many domestic violence units are now in place versus what we discussed last year, where they’re located
[ Page 12342 ]
and what kind of money is being devoted in this budget to domestic violence from within your ministry.

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Last year I believe we told you, Member, that there were seven DVUs in operation. There are two new ones that have been announced since that in northwest Vancouver, one combined, and in Prince George. Those have been announced. They are not yet operational, but they’re well underway. On top of that, last year there were 26 fully operational ICATs, and there are 14 new ICATs that have been developed since that. They are in Bella Coola, Burns Lake, Clearwater, Cranbrook, Duncan, Haida Gwaii, Kimberley, Kitimat, the Nass Valley, New Hazelton, Powell River, Prince Rupert, Revelstoke and the Sunshine Coast.

To the member’s second question, which was on the budget devoted to the provincial office of domestic violence in the ministry. Again, this year it is $878,000 in this ministry. I will note for the member once again, as we did last year, that the DVUs are actually funded through the Ministry of Solicitor General, so any topic related to budget for those should be directed that way.

M. Karagianis: Yes, I do know how the DVUs are funded. Those numbers are slightly different. I think that last year we talked about 23 ICATs in place. You’ve said less than that.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Twenty-six last year, 14 new.

M. Karagianis: Yeah. Last year — I’ve got it in here that it was 23, so three somehow developed in between the time I asked the question, since then.

Let me just ask, then…. In the DVUs — as I am aware and as the minister knows — there very often, where possible, is a social worker or some ministry personnel attached to those. I’ve got reports here, recent reports, from Surrey RCMP that have talked about having a child protection social worker with them. I think there is a report here that I’ve got from Kelowna also saying the same thing. When these individuals, who are members of the Ministry of Children and Families, work with the DVUs, how are those budgets allocated? As the minister has pointed out, DVUs are all under the Justice Ministry. How, then, are those staff…? Are they seconded for the time they’re there, or exactly how did they impact the budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budget for establishing DVUs, again, can be directed through the PSSG. However, where there is MCFD staff involved with a DVU or an ICAT, those are just MCFD social workers doing their job, and they are allocated based on caseload. So if the caseload warrants a full person, then it’s a full person. If a caseload warrants part time, it’s part time. It is just a social worker through MCFD, a child protection worker — the same as any other staff — and it’s paid for through our staffing budget.

M. Karagianis: At this point, that is really all I had for domestic violence. I just wanted some updates, so that pretty much covers it.

I’d like to move into early childhood education, early childhood development, if we could. Again, many of my questions are really updates from past estimate discussions that we’ve had, with a couple of new issues to discuss as well.

I want to talk, first and foremost, about child care spaces. I want to talk about the Performance Management Report 2014-15 released by the ministry. It says: “A child care facility’s utilization rate is determined by dividing its total enrolments for the month by the number of times a child care space can be used in the month. Two part-time enrolments are assumed to be the equivalent of one full-time; 100 percent utilization of one child care space is assumed to be 22 full-time equivalent enrolments in a month.”

I’d just like to ask the minister to, perhaps, explain: what is being done to combat high-utilization rates so that taxpayers can not only find child care more easily but also find spaces that suit their individual needs?

[1550-1555]

Hon. S. Cadieux: With our major capital program, first, we take a look at the data available to us primarily through our CCOF data, the child care operating fund data, in terms of utilization rates by type of child care space. We then look for responses to the capital program that are both in those communities where those high needs are, where the high utilization is, and where they are proposing to create those types of spaces that are in the most high need for that area.

For example, a particular community may have a really high utilization of infant-toddler. That would be the case in most places in British Columbia, if not all. However, they may not have high utilization rates in three-to-five spaces. If two child care capital applications came in the same community, one for infant-toddler and one for three-to-five spaces, it would be likely that the preference would be given to the infant-toddler in order to try to address some of the utilization issues.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I was thinking very specifically of the infant-toddler cohort, because that has had the most dramatic pressure. Obviously, we’re kind of playing catch-up. Once the capital application comes in and the spaces get built, those infant-toddlers are very likely to have aged into the three-to-five.

I’d be really interested to know exactly how you’re tracking that and whether or not you could update us on what the utilization rates were for 2015. Your perform-
[ Page 12343 ]
ance management report is 2014-15. I wouldn’t mind hearing what the utilization rates were in 2015-16, what the changes are and how you’re getting ahead of that.

It seems to me, just from the minister’s own comments, that you’re constantly playing catch-up by waiting for the capital plan requests to determine what kind of spaces you provide in the community. But you could actually be missing, then, that cohort, unless you can build very quickly or you can utilize space very quickly on this. I’d be interested to know what the utilization rates are, how they’re changing and how you’re tracking that.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The statistics that the member references are from last year, the last year’s performance management report that came out in September. The next performance management report, which will contain data up until September of 2015, is going to be released in the next few weeks.

[1600]

I was just sharing with the critic that that is just in the review process. We have to review that with the Representative for Children and Youth before we can release it. It is in the way. But what I can tell you about it is that the numbers are not changing significantly. They’re staying pretty much the same. The trend in utilization is pretty stable. Infant-and-toddler remains the biggest challenge. In that, we do look to target infant-and-toddler spaces where we can with the major capital.

That said, it is dependent upon the applications that come in for creating those spaces. Are we getting ahead? Probably not. We’ve created 2,400 new spaces in the last two years. We’re hoping to create another approximately 1,800 spaces with the capital intake that is under consideration right now. But we, I think, continue to be challenged in most parts of the province with child care spaces, especially for infant-toddler, as the member is well aware.

M. Karagianis: That actually segues very nicely into my next question — the ongoing challenge of trying to judge exactly what the need is in the community and where the growth is going to come.

Last year in estimates, when we were talking about the number of child care spaces and trying to judge what the need was, the minister talked about finding market solutions through an on-line registry for child care spaces. I would be very interested to know what has come of that. Maybe an update on that process — whether it went to a full RFP, as I think it was at an RFI stage when we talked last time; what the status is overall; and the cost to date for that registry if it’s up and running.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, the member is right. We had an intention to build sort of a larger child care portal, so to speak. We did do an RFI. We had respondents. However, none of the six respondents could or wished to meet all of our requirements.

We sort of regrouped and looked internally, talked to stakeholders, engaged with child care providers and parents and decided that the best mechanism could probably be built internally. That is an enhanced mapping platform with the capacity to help parents locate vacant spaces.

[1605]

The new map under development, scheduled to go live in Child Care Month in May, is a mobile-friendly map that will provide parents with improved search functionality to locate facilities near their home or work — wherever or whenever they need to — with more accurate locations, better filtering of search results, more information about child care provider programs and services, including vacancy information to instantly identify facilities with available space in their child’s age group.

To the member’s question about what it is costing or has cost. While we originally budgeted about $700,000 for an enhanced website, the current enhanced map will come in with a budget of about $150,000.

M. Karagianis: That has all gone internally. I’ll be interested to see how it functions once it’s up and running.

Just a couple of questions now, really, around child care spaces. Maybe the minister could just update me on how many funded licensed child care spaces we currently have in B.C. I’d like to know the breakdown of those that are not-for-profit and those that are for-profit providers in that, if you possibly could.

[1610]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It does fluctuate a little bit, even just month to month. The total licensed child care spaces funded by the province in 2015-16, to December, were 109,550. Of that, 52.2 percent were operated by non-profits, and 47.8 percent, approximately, were private spaces.

That said, it’s also important to note that of that private group, that also includes independent, family-operated — not necessarily corporate — entities.

M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much.

Now, has the ministry, to date, got any better idea of what kind of wait-lists are out there, what kind of back pressure there is? We know that in past years, the child care advocates have predicted that we’re only serving about 20 percent of the needs of young families.

Has the ministry progressed further in trying to estimate what the actual wait-lists look like out there for families, for child care?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member will remember that at this time last year we were about to launch a child care survey. The results of that have given us some indication. The results of that survey indicate that 77 percent of the respondents did not have to be wait-listed to secure a spot in their chosen child care arrangement. In fact, where we
[ Page 12344 ]
asked what the top three challenges were that they faced when obtaining child care, 31 percent said they didn’t experience any challenges, and 41 percent said that the expense was the biggest challenge.

The second most mentioned challenge was the lack of convenient hours of operation of the child care provider, not the lack of a space available. That gave us some pretty good information on a variety of other topics. I’m not sure if the member has seen it.

As far as any other way to track wait-lists specifically, we haven’t found a way to do that. The member will understand that with all of these operators around the province, thousands and thousands of operators, it’s impossible for us to have one mechanism by which we can track all of the families who may have inquired at more than one location and may be, in effect, waiting for a space to come available at more than one location. The accuracy of tracking wait-lists is very difficult.

[1615]

With the new enhanced child care map that we’ll be launching in May, we may have another way to access some data through being able to track the web analytics in terms of where people are searching most frequently, where vacancies or no vacancies are being listed, those sorts of things. We may have some better data that we can use as a result of that. We will hope that is the case. We may also, in future, be able to add capacity to that map to better track some of these challenges in particular areas.

As an overall or on average for the province, I can’t say that we have an accurate way to look at that. We have to go back to the survey and look at what people told us in terms of what the challenges were or were not.

M. Karagianis: Well, certainly, the issue around hours of operation and costs, as the minister has said…. We do hear that in the field. I think it varies from community to community — what is accessible to people and what their individual experience is. I know right now one of my constituency assistants is waiting for space that doesn’t entail having to drive to the other side of the city to take her child to child care.

I’d be interested to know, on the data that you do have, how it broke down regionally and if there is a significant difference between the pressures, say, in the Lower Mainland, in the city, versus accessibility in other communities outside of the Lower Mainland. I don’t know whether, in smaller communities, private providers there or family providers are able to be more responsive or if there is any data on the regionality of any of this.

Hon. S. Cadieux: What we have to look at, really, is just the utilization rates and where they are highest or where they are lower. When we get over about 80 percent utilization, we know there are going to be real challenges for folks in finding child care.

That said, when we look at the utilization, we look at it by service delivery area, which still leaves room for real discrepancy between different communities in a particular area. While, for example, utilization in the North Fraser region of the Lower Mainland is at 90 percent — it’s really high — there may be a community in North Fraser that isn’t experiencing that high a level of utilization. But if two of the other communities are really struggling, then it would raise that.

I think it gives us an indication, and it certainly helps guide where we know we need to dig in and, certainly, where we would be looking to invest in child care spaces if applications came through. It isn’t necessarily a measure that is entirely accurate.

[1620]

M. Karagianis: I guess that also leads to my next question.

The 77 percent that indicated a fairly high satisfaction rate — is that a concern to the minister? I mean, that would indicate to me that…. Given the household income levels there, given that high satisfaction rate, that does not necessarily reflect everything in British Columbia. That would certainly say to me: is the survey more skewed to people who have a higher income, who have more access to child care more easily? Is there any concern that this is not necessarily a completely accurate representation of what the needs are out there — I would say, more for working families in the lower-income levels?

If, as the minister has pointed out, a lot of the planning is driven by requests for capital planning dollars, is that accurately saying where we need to target spaces to help more parents get out into the workforce, to help those parents that are at a lower-income level to enter the workforce, which is really where I think a lot of the pressure right now is on the system, anecdotally and in my communities and the communities that I’ve visited?

I’m a bit concerned, and I want to know whether the minister is also concerned about how fairly this survey represents the true need out there.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think the member rightly points out it’s one piece of information. The survey is one piece of information. While I believe the survey is valid…. I can tell the member, in answer to the question of how close the survey’s distribution of income is in terms of participants, it matches within a couple of percentage points the national household survey federally and the census data. The breakdown, I think, matches fairly well, both geographically within British Columbia and also on income levels.

That said, it is one piece of data that we look at. Utilization rates are another piece of data that we look at. When an application comes in, we also ask for that particular applicant to assess the need in their community
[ Page 12345 ]
and provide information backing up their view of that need in their community.

Then, on top of that, more broadly, the early-years strategy is aimed at looking at some of these issues and being able to get to a place where we can more cohesively plan for child care spaces and need, looking at vulnerability more broadly in terms of the EDI and targeting responses where they’re needed. We know that…. Although we’ve had EDI data for some time and we’ve had lots of good programs out there, vulnerability is not going down.

[1625]

Part of the early-years strategy is to bring together, in communities, all of the people, all of the experts, all of the providers in a community to really look at what the situation is in each community and look at having a mechanism by which we can get better data and plan more cohesively in communities. Not necessarily look at, “Well, this is what we need for the whole province,” but look more specifically at specific needs that may arise in one particular community over another at any given time.

M. Karagianis: The early-years centres. I’d like to just ask a couple of questions about those again, updating from our last discussion. According to the website, 26 early-years centres are currently operational throughout the province. Perhaps the minister can give me an update on that and if there is any data available on how many families currently access those early-years centres.

Hon. S. Cadieux: We had 26. So 21 additional early-years centres were established as of April 1. They are in various stages now of whether they’re fully functional or whether they’re still getting all of their pieces put together, but their contracts were in place as of April 1.

That brings the total to 47, 12 of which are First Nations, or aboriginal-specific. We targeted that specifically in the second recruitment to really ensure that we were reaching out with aboriginal-specific programs.

We don’t have overall numbers of families served by those early-years centres, but what I can give you is an idea of some of the work that’s being done in those centres and some of the things that, to date, we can see accomplished.

All of the test sites from the initial launch of the early-years centres have reported an increase in referrals and advice and consultation with parents. So those are referrals to things like speech-language support, aboriginal supported child development or infant development, or other programs like StrongStart and so on. An increased number of assessments are being conducted for families coming in, using developmental screening, ages and stages questionnaire, vision or hearing or dental screenings at health fairs.

Early-years centres are reporting over 500 additional program hours of early-years services per year since the implementation of the early-years centres — so an average of 20 hours more per site per year, mostly in evening and weekend hours. It speaks to the accessibility that’s been created by bringing these programs together.

[1630]

Some new opportunities, like drop-in play groups, and some new outreach programs to communities, specifically, didn’t have access to early-years programs because they were rural. Some of these early-years centres have developed a model for mobile outreach for early years.

There’s a lot going on, a lot of creativity in bringing all of the groups together to really look at: what are the issues in each community, and how do they address those?

M. Karagianis: On the website, it says the results of the second B.C. early-years centre application intake will come in the spring of 2016. If the minister could, perhaps, elaborate on what those results were, if they have them, or, if not, perhaps more information around the deadline or if it’s…. Exactly what’s the status?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Those are the additional 21 centres that became operational as of April 1.

M. Karagianis: I will move on now to some questions around early childhood educators.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Could we just take five minutes?

M. Karagianis: I’d be happy to have a five-minute recess and then address those questions.

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: In estimates in the past couple of years, we’ve explored the issue of retention and recruitment. I know that there have been a number of things put in place to try and augment that, so I’d like to ask a couple of questions about that.

First of all, does the 2016-17 budget renew the funding commitments for the ECEBC bursaries, and if so, how much funding is planned to be provided? I note here that in the application form for the bursary program, it does say that a bursary program will be implemented and will continue until bursary funds have been expended.

I’m a bit concerned about that. I want to know what is in this current budget to continue, if anything, that bursary program.

[1640]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Since the fall of 2014, we’ve provided $2 million to ECEBC specifically for the bursary program. Up until the end of December of 2015, they had spent $775,000 on bursaries for 757 students. Of that, as the member knows, preference was given for students entering to get the infant-toddler designation or aboriginal focus. Of the applications, 118 of the students identify as aboriginal, and another 95 students enrolled with an aboriginal focus as well, as a part of that 757. So there has been some really good uptake.

The rest of the $2 million should take them through to the end of the fiscal year without any problem in terms of fulfilling the requests that come in for the bursaries.

M. Karagianis: Great. So that would appear to be a reasonably successful way to get more educators into the field.

What is the long-term plan? It would seem to me that the ministry has this planned to 2020 for the number of 13,000 spaces. Obviously, there’s going to need to be educators with all of these. Is this program going to run in tandem with that funding to 2020?

[1645]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, it has, I think, been successful, to date, as one of the strategies to promote the need for early childhood educators and quality childhood educators in the province. As such, if the demand for early childhood educators continues at the rate we’ve seen, in terms of there being a need for qualified people in the field, then I would anticipate that we would continue this or something like this to encourage that participation.

That said, in addition, we know that ongoing professional development for people in the field is also an area of interest or concern, whichever way you want to put that. In cooperation with our partners and in collaboration and discussion, we’re looking for ways to also support that through a professional development portal that we’re developing, where people in the field will be able to access accessible, affordable upgrading as well and ongoing professional development in new techniques and areas of interest to them.

We’ll continue to listen to them and to the people in the field, to ECEBC, on what’s working, what needs to continue to change or be developed. If there’s something new, we can look at that as well. So far, as this has been successful, to date, I would hope that we would continue so long as we’re seeing that kind of success.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I think one part of this equation would be wages as well, so retention and recruitment, obviously, have a number of factors. And wages in the field I would expect to be a very significant part of the story as well.

Last year we did talk about how the ministry was going to start tracking out-of-country and out-of-province ECE equivalency applications. Is there any update on the success of that? Do we have any numbers for the number of applicants or those that were awarded equivalency in order to get them into the province and get them working in the field?

[1650]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sort of as background, as of January 30, 2015, there were 14,335 certified ECEs in the province and 5,993 certified ECE assistants in B.C. We began tracking the out-of-country and out-of-province applications in July of 2014. From July until February 13 of 2015, the out-of-country applications processed was 99, and the out-of-province applications assessed was 92. We don’t have the numbers up till March here with us, but we can endeavour to get those to the member after today.

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask now a very specific group of questions around special needs ECE. I do know that there are a couple of programs that the government has designed to support children and youth with special needs, but certainly reports coming from communities across British Columbia are that access to ECE spaces for special needs children is a big challenge, an ongoing challenge. I’ve heard anecdotally about some of these programs closing down — a recent one that may have shut down or, at least, is in jeopardy.

Can the minister talk about how they’re addressing this, whether this is an ongoing challenge — something that has been flagged for the government on how they make sure that special needs spaces are available and certainly are available to communities across the province?

[1655]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For a point of clarification, is the member referring to a specific centre, or is she talking about supported child development? The way the ministry funds supported child development is with the child, not specific to the space or the centre. If the member could clarify, we might be able to give a better answer.

M. Karagianis: Yes, it is the supported childhood development that I’m talking about. It’s my understanding that Prince George has had to close some daycare spaces down because of a lack of dollars for these specific spaces for special needs children. This is a challenge, I believe, in other communities as well.

[1700]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Supported child development funds, which follow the child to their family’s chosen child care space…. The worker follows the child. We know there is a wait-list for that program. We know there are demands around the province but not specific to any particular agency, nor to any particular program that is shutting down because of that.
[ Page 12347 ]

That said, if the member has something specific she wants us to look at, we’d be happy to do that. That isn’t our understanding, though, of the current reality. And just because we’re talking about supported child development specifically, I will note for the member that we did invest, this year, $2 million in supported child development, aboriginal infant development programs with 33 agencies, which are projected to provide for about 430 additional children to receive that service.

M. Karagianis: You anticipated my question about aboriginal child development programs.

I will further check into the information that I got regarding Prince George and perhaps book a private briefing with the minister on that, because it is a grave concern for me. Parents of special needs children can’t get to work without those spaces.

I have just one more question before I will hand this back to my colleague. This is a question that comes out of my constituency but that I think applies right across British Columbia. I know that my colleague from Stikine is going to explore this further.

I’ve had several reports from parts of my community about long wait times for speech therapy, especially for early intervention therapies. We talked earlier…. I think the minister talked about vulnerabilities for children entering kindergarten and grade 1. Speech therapy, of course, is pretty fundamental to that.

In my community, service providers are reporting wait times of up to nine to ten months to get to a speech pathologist. There’s only one speech pathologist operating in the West Shore Health Unit here in my community, and one communicated disorders assistant. Because of this, kids are waiting for a very long time to receive assistance. When they do get an appointment, they receive a much shorter-term therapy than they might need.

It’s my understanding that speech-language pathologists are available to do the work, but the shortage of funding and decisions by Island Health are impacting this as well. Under the umbrella of early learning and vulnerabilities for children, I want to know if the minister can make any comments about this and about plans.

This is something we’ve been hearing about for a number of years. This is not specific to my community only. We hear it right across British Columbia. Is there some plan to reduce these wait times and find ways to help these families make sure their children are ready?

Early intervention, as we know, has miraculous results, and long wait times can impede a child for the rest of their life. I’d be interested in what the minister has to say about that.

[1705]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’m not surprised the member is hearing that. That is a reality for most of the foundational programs that we fund for kids. That’s speech-language, OT/PT through child development centres, sometimes health authorities, sometimes First Nations. There are 41 child development centres, five health authorities, three First Nations and seven school districts. In all of those cases, there are challenges with meeting the demand for those three services in those agencies. There are wait-lists.

The challenge with speech-language pathology is amplified in some areas of the province. It’s not that in those cases the children aren’t prioritized for that service and waiting today for a speech-language pathologist. The reality is that the speech-language pathologists aren’t available in that particular part of the province.

[1710]

In some parts of the province, the speech pathologists are there, but we don’t have the dollars to provide the services. What is happening is we’re working with all of the agencies that we work with to ensure, as best as possible, that they are all assessing and prioritizing the same way to ensure that kids are getting the services that they need as quickly as possible and to really be able to then assess, too, what the true demand is for each of the services.

Right now it would be hard to say for sure that a child is waiting for one service or three services, getting no services. In some cases, they’re getting one but they need two more; in some cases, they’re not getting any. We’re trying to make sure that that assessment and reporting is consistent across all of the agencies so we have better data. But we do know without a question that there are waits and excess demand over what we can provide for in this particular area.

D. Donaldson: I’m going to continue with the children and youth special needs service line later. I’m going to go back to the child safety, family support and children in care services area with respect to the hiring of front-line social workers.

Would the minister be able to inform how many new front-line social workers her government committed to in last year’s budget, and as of March 31, 2016, how many were hired?

[1715]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In November of 2014, I committed that we would increase the front-line staff complement by 200 full-time people by the end of March.

[1720]

I can confirm that as of April 2, the pay period demonstrated a net increase of 200 front-line staff. That’s child protection workers, admin staff to support those child protection workers and team leaders associated.

D. Donaldson: I just want to point out for the record that this isn’t rocket science. I asked a simple question. How many people did you commit to hire, and how many got hired? It took six minutes for the minister to answer the question.
[ Page 12348 ]

I think I’d like the answers a little more quickly. It’s a basic question, very fundamental information, the kind that should be available a lot more quickly, I would say, than six minutes to answer a basic management question.

How many of those 200 were lost to attrition in the same period?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’d be happy to give him a more thorough briefing on how this works. It is not nearly as simple as the member thinks it is to determine. However, what I can tell him is that the 200 FTEs are net new. During that time, as well, 91 people exited, but we were able to keep up the hiring to replace those people to ensure that by March 31 of this year, there were 200 additional people on the front line.

D. Donaldson: The minister said 200 net new hires. That included a range of positions. How many of those 200 net new were front-line social workers, and how many front-line social workers exited in the same period?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The net change by worker type between October of 2014 and April of 2016 — from the time we made the commitment to the time we checked the staffing for estimates — the child protection social worker net change was up 101, resource social workers up 20, adoption social workers up five, child and youth special needs social workers up 18, CYMH clinicians up 25, team leaders up ten and administrative staff up 21.

D. Donaldson: That was net?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

[1725]

D. Donaldson: In this budget and in the budget year coming up, there was a commitment made for 100 new social workers and 30 other positions. What is the budget in this coming year for this new hire?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budget allocation for the additional hires in this year was approximately $9 million.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: I note in STOB 52 that there wasn’t an increase in employee benefits that reflected what the minister says is a $9 million increase for hires. Those were employer contributions. Why is that?

[1730]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is, in fact, a benefit increase this year of approximately $1.9 million in STOB 52. However, that was offset by two things: a transfer of information services and the costs associated with that with the staff transferring to SDSI; and, more importantly — and, I think, positive news — the government’s better claims ratings with our benefits provider meant a rate reduction on the overall benefit charges.

Between the two things, it counterbalanced the $1.9 million increase for benefits for the new staff.

D. Donaldson: Both in the Bob Plecas report and in the Representative for Children and Youth’s The Thin Front Line report, it was pointed out that a remuneration increase was overdue for social workers and front-line social workers. It was pointed out that the basic entry-level salary of a social worker in B.C. is 11 percent less compared to the average of other provinces in Canada — eighth on the hourly rate and 12th on the annual salary rate overall.

I point this out because, as Bob Plecas pointed out and as the Representative for Children and Youth pointed out, this creates issues with retention and recruitment, obviously. People aren’t in this line of work for the money, but when other places are offering more, it’s easier for those other places to recruit. Is there a remuneration increase, as outlined in those reports, in this budget we’re considering for 2016-17?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No.

D. Donaldson: When I asked just previously about the hundred new social workers and what the budget increase was for this new hire, the minister replied $9 million. Under the child safety, family support and children in care services, the base salaries go up around $7.5 million, and under the other areas where one would expect these new hires to work — the other service lines — the base salaries really don’t increase in this budget. So where does the minister get the $9 million, when child safety, family support and children care services only go up — base salaries — by $9½ million approximately?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The overall increase to the budget for salaries and benefits this year is about $12.4 million. Of that, front-line and support staff is $9.4 million. Reductions in that come from the benefit chargeback that I just mentioned — the rate reduction for our benefits; a small reduction in the minister’s office; but more importantly, almost $5 million in the consolidation of information services at SDSI, which comes off of that.

[1735]

D. Donaldson: The question about remuneration…. I think a very good case was made under Bob Plecas’s report and The Thin Front Line report about how that is a pretty critical area.

When the minister said that there’s no planned increase for this coming fiscal year, what about in the other two years out, in this budget cycle? How is she address-
[ Page 12349 ]
ing those recommendations from Bob Plecas and the Representative for Children and Youth?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In these reports, many of the recommendations are within the responsibility of MCFD to respond and pursue, but there are also other areas of government that necessarily would have to respond to some of the recommendations, not the least of which are the recommendations around salaries.

As the member knows, that work goes on between the Public Service Agency and the GEU through the collective agreement, through that process. While this ministry would necessarily provide information or advice to that process, we are not directly involved in the negotiation of those agreements.

D. Donaldson: The minister is aware that we’re discussing staffing levels of front-line social workers because of the impact it does have on service delivery. A low number of social workers means unsustainable workloads.

There are cases that have come up in the last year where the time in between visits to a youth in care, like Alex Gervais, was many days, or the fact that some children, whether it’s in Prince George or in the Paige report, are labelled service-resistant. That’s because it takes a lot of time to develop relationships and go to where the kids are at. That takes more time with social workers and puts increased stress on workloads and is a reason why we need to get back to the levels of social workers we used to have in the province.

I’m wondering. We’ve been talking and discussing social workers in the context of the ministry, but delegated aboriginal agencies are facing the same difficulties in recruitment and retention and also in having an adequate number of social workers to have a sustainable workload. Can the minister inform in this budget if there’s an increase for contracted agencies like delegated aboriginal agencies to increase their social worker number?

[1740]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For clarity, the federal government supports the staffing for the delegated aboriginal agencies First Nations on-reserve services. That is not provided through MCFD. MCFD and the province fund the staff for the urban aboriginal delegated agencies.

As we are looking at how we will apply this year’s budget internally to the ministry within our SDAs, we are also looking at and have committed to a zero-base budgeting process with the urban aboriginal agencies to look at how we equitably fund services across the province.

Where a delegated agency is providing off-reserve services, we will be looking at that same process with them.

D. Donaldson: Zero-base budgeting means no increase in budgeting?

[1745]

Hon. S. Cadieux: No. Zero-base budgeting does not mean no increases. Zero-base budgeting means that we look at the all of the services delivered — whether they be delivered through the ministry or whether they be delivered through a delegated agency — and fund them equitably. That could very well mean an increased budget to a particular SDA or delegated agency. Or it could mean a reduction, depending on the service levels.

D. Donaldson: Page 13 of the joint hotel-use report, conducted by the ministry and the Representative for Children and Youth, has a section on the delegated agency experiences with this matter. The report states: “The inability to support and maintain resources within their own agency meant that they were forced into using hotels as a last-ditch measure.” That’s delegated aboriginal agencies. An example of that is the case of Alex Gervais.

How much of a budget increase is there for delegated aboriginal agencies in this year’s budget to deal with eliminating the use of hotel stays?

[1750]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The lack of understanding, I think, for the member, of how the system works provided for some difficulty in answering the question the way it was posed. But what I will try for the member is that the budgets aren’t allocated specifically to any form or any particular area of residential care. The budget, or the funding, goes to the service delivery area or the delegated aboriginal agencies that are providing urban services to develop the resources specific to the population they’re serving, the resources they require.

As part of a zero-base budgeting exercise and an equity exercise amongst all of our service delivery areas and delegated agencies, some agency or SDA might see a slight increase because of that exercise in rationalizing and ensuring that everyone has adequate resources, or equitable resources, to provide the services, but it isn’t specific to any one type of service.

D. Donaldson: Well, the minister says I don’t seem to understand. I guess, based on that kind of answer, that’s why.

I’m asking…. In the delegated agency now, after the joint hotel report, the minister has said that hotel stays are not part of the policy anymore. I know under emergency circumstances the minister said they might occur, but we have delegated agencies who previously have had to use hotels because they haven’t had the resources to develop alternatives.

What I’m asking now is: now that we have this new reinforced policy direction, will there be increased financial resources to delegated agencies so that they can follow the policy direction of the ministry in this matter?

[1755]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I referenced previously, the federal government has made some statements about their intention to increase funding supports for child welfare services on reserve. We certainly look forward to how that rolls out and how that provides increased support to children in British Columbia.

Secondly, there is not a link, necessarily, between budget and whether or not a hotel might have been used for a short-term placement. That is why the joint hotel report actually references a number of other things, one of which is to increase the number of emergency resources so we have additional resources available for those immediate placements. But that is not necessarily new dollars. In many cases — or entirely — it may be just reallocating how we have the resources currently allocated. It’s more about coordination and knowing where those emergency placement spots are. That work is underway.

No. 3, it may be true that there may be an increase to budgets for some urban-serving delegated agencies as a result of the budgeting exercise, the equity-budgeting exercise, but it’s premature to determine that at this time.

D. Donaldson: As alluded to earlier, I’m going to go back to the children and youth with special needs topic area. The budget for this particular topic shows an approximately $18 million increase under contracts or agreements. Can the minister break down what that $18 million increase will be allotted to under that STOB?

[1800]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member, $8.7 million of that is allocated towards autism and medical benefits, and $8.2 million for special needs kids in care, which is allocated through the service delivery area residential caseload. That’s kids in care by special needs agreements — kids with complex medical needs that are in care. The complexity is driving the cost up in that area, and this is a budget lift to recognize that.

J. Wickens: I have a couple, I think, pretty straightforward questions for the minister.

The first question is around the budget for the autism funding unit. I’m looking to find out how much the operational costs are of the autism funding unit.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Please, for clarification, is the member inquiring in relation to staffing?

J. Wickens: Staffing and costs associated with mailing, the operation of the whole autism funding unit.

Hopefully, that makes sense.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As we are gathering that information, if the member wouldn’t mind, I would appreciate a five-minute recess.

The Chair: I guess we’ll take a five-minute recess, and we’ll resume at 6:09.

The committee recessed from 6:04 p.m. to 6:09 p.m.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

[1810]

Hon. S. Cadieux: What I can give you is the budget for the salaries for provincial services. We can’t break it out for autism specifically. That is $13.885 million, and that’s for autism, child care subsidy, medical benefits, provincial deaf and hard-of-hearing services — did I say child care subsidy? — CCOF. That’s all of the staff that look after all of those programs.

The Chair: Committee Members, it appears there is no vote in the House. We’re just awaiting clarity on the screen as we…. We may have time for one more question, so if you would give me one second to just seek clarity.

According to the Clerk to my left, who knows all, there is no vote in the House, so I recognize the member for North Coast.

J. Rice: In part due to a lack of services in northern and rural British Columbia, two years ago a mother very much frustrated with no support, no respite, Angie Robinson, took her own life after taking her severely autistic son’s life. Their deaths were subject to an inquest, which came forward with quite a few detailed recommendations. A lot of these recommendations were about improving the available services or access to services in northern B.C.

My question is: how much, if any, additional funding has gone into autism services in Prince Rupert since their deaths? Specifically, could the minister break down where additional funds were spent? How this meets the recommendations would be helpful.

I would just like to remind the minister that some of the recommendations were around transportation issues and not having autism-specific funding spent on transportation — so looking at providing transportation support, support for respite, ongoing training and information to be disseminated to other families experiencing autism, funding for children over six, and ensuring that autism training in rural and remote British Columbia, including training such as the ABA and other research-based therapies, would be provided to improve equity in northern B.C.

If the minister could update us on that, that would be greatly appreciated.

[1815]

The Chair: Minister, this is the last question and answer of the day.
[ Page 12351 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Okay. Thank you.

While I can’t give a specific number related to dollars on autism, because it relates specifically to the individual child or family, we can look into it to see if there’s been a change. But it depends entirely on children and families who are accessing autism supports. It isn’t money that goes into a region specific to autism.

That said, we did complete a report for the coroner after both Angie’s inquest and Robert’s inquest and the reports that came from the coroner accordingly, responding to all of the recommendations and putting in writing what our actions to date have been and what actions are planned going forward. We would be happy to share that with you. It is far too detailed for me to read into the record, but I would be happy to share it with you.

With that, I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
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