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, May 9, 2016
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 39, Number 4
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Routine Business |
|
Introductions by Members |
12837 |
Statements |
12837 |
Trade with European Union |
|
Hon. N. Letnick |
|
Introductions by Members |
12838 |
Tributes |
12839 |
B.C. teams at National Aboriginal Hockey Championships |
|
G. Hogg |
|
Introduction and First Reading of Bills |
12839 |
Bill M226 — Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2016 |
|
H. Bains |
|
Bill M227 — Residential Tenancy (Protection from Renoviction) Amendment Act, 2016 |
|
M. Mark |
|
Statements (Standing Order 25B) |
12840 |
Streamkeepers societies in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky area |
|
J. Sturdy |
|
Contributions and role of nurses |
|
J. Darcy |
|
Mountaineering and mental health work of Brent Seal |
|
J. Thornthwaite |
|
Arts in schools and South Slope Elementary School production |
|
R. Chouhan |
|
Contributions and role of nurses |
|
J. Yap |
|
Ovarian cancer |
|
A. Weaver |
|
Oral Questions |
12842 |
Government response to youth death cases and placement of youth in care |
|
J. Horgan |
|
Hon. S. Cadieux |
|
D. Donaldson |
|
Youth death cases and implementation of report recommendations |
|
C. James |
|
Hon. S. Cadieux |
|
Water quality in Spallumcheen area |
|
G. Heyman |
|
Hon. M. Polak |
|
Health care worker layoffs at seniors care facility in Nanaimo |
|
J. Darcy |
|
Hon. T. Lake |
|
Income assistance accessibility and telephone service |
|
M. Mungall |
|
Hon. Michelle Stilwell |
|
Petitions |
12847 |
J. Darcy |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Committee of Supply |
12847 |
Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued) |
|
Hon. T. Lake |
|
B. Ralston |
|
J. Rice |
|
S. Hammell |
|
S. Robinson |
|
J. Darcy |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Committee of Supply |
12867 |
Estimates: Ministry of Natural Gas Development (continued) |
|
M. Mark |
|
Hon. R. Coleman |
|
K. Corrigan |
|
S. Robinson |
|
D. Eby |
|
B. Ralston |
|
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2016
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
J. Yap: I have three constituents in the gallery today — Anthony Remedios; his wife, Christine Remedios; and their daughter, Isabella Remedios, who are not only constituents but practically neighbours of mine, living just a couple of blocks away from where I am. They are visiting the Legislature today. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.
J. Darcy: I have two sets of introductions today.
First of all, we are surrounded by nurses today, because it is Nursing Week in British Columbia and across Canada. Organizations representing the B.C. Coalition of Nursing Associations, representing five different groups of nurses — including the Association of Registered Nurses of B.C., the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of B.C., the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association, the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of B.C. and the Nursing Education Council of British Columbia — and representing 55,000 nurses across British Columbia speaking with one voice. Would this House please join me in making them very welcome.
We have some other very, very special guests in the Legislature today. They are workers who work at Wexford Creek care facility in Nanaimo. We have heard in this House about the fact that due to contracting out, they will be losing their jobs.
We have with us Wendy Chadwick, Samantha Lindsay and Brittany Marsden, who all care for our frail seniors at Wexford Creek park. Joining them are Becky Jacobson, a staff representative with the Hospital Employees Union; Mike Old, the coordinator of policy and planning; and the president of the Hospital Employees Union, Victor Elkins. Would the House join me in making all of these members very, very welcome today in the House.
Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned, it’s Nursing Week in Canada. Particularly here in B.C., we’re celebrating the approximately 50,000 practising nurses. This morning, I had the opportunity to meet with a number of nursing leaders. This is the B.C. Coalition of Nursing Associations, which is the first-ever organization of its kind in Canada, bringing together leadership from all four B.C. nursing professional associations and our nurse educators in one collaborative forum for discussion, action and advocacy.
The member organizations include the Association of Registered Nurses of B.C., the Association of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C., the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association, the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of B.C. and the Nursing Education Council of B.C.
This morning, I was joined by Zak Matieschyn, Tania Dick, Joy Peacock, Andrea Burton, Jacqollyne Keath, MaryAnn Machado, Tess Kroeker, Anita Dickson, Brenda Childs, Jack Teck, Kathleen Fyvie, Natasha Prodan-Bhalla, Bernice Budz, Suzanne Campbell and Janine Lennox. They are here with, I believe, about 58 other nurses in the gallery today. They’ll be meeting with members of the Legislature in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. Would the House please make our nurses very, very welcome.
J. Horgan: It’s coming on to 11 years since I was first given the honour to come and sit in this place. Someone who has been volunteering in my office every Friday, except for when he goes back home to the Boundary country, is a guy named Larry Fofonoff. As I sit here and look up, there’s Larry Fofonoff. It’s not Friday, so he’s not in my constituency office. He’s here in the Legislature to watch the proceedings.
What brings Larry here is not his love of politics, not his passion for debate, but, in fact, to see my colleague from Surrey-Newton table a piece of private member’s legislation that will provide more certainty and comfort for the people who live with Larry at the Hidden Valley manufactured home park and manufactured home parks right across British Columbia. Would the House make Larry very, very welcome.
Hon. S. Bond: I’m very pleased to be able to introduce a constituent today from Prince George–Valemount. He is probably the most important constituent I have, considering I have been married to him for well over three decades. His policy advice means a great deal to me. More importantly, his support allows me to do the job that I do.
As everyone in this House would know, we spend a lot of time apart, all of us in this work. I was delighted he tore himself away from our two grandsons to be able to come and spend a day or so with us here. Please make my husband, Bill, welcome today.
V. Huntington: It’s not often I have an opportunity to welcome my constituency assistants to the House. Would the members make Bernadette Kudzin and Yvonne Parenteau welcome.
Statements
TRADE WITH EUROPEAN UNION
Hon. N. Letnick: May 9 is celebrated as Europe Day. This year, we mark 40 years since the European Union opened its delegation in Canada in 1976, when Canada
[ Page 12838 ]
and the European Economic Community entered into a groundbreaking economic partnership agreement. In honour of this milestone, we are flying the European Union flag in front of the Legislature.
As an integrated bloc, the European Union represents Canada’s second-largest trading partner in goods and services. With the conclusion of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, our partnership will bring ever-greater prosperity to all our citizens.
Europe is one of Canada’s closest allies globally. We share a rich history of cultural, economic and social connections with many European nations. Would the House please join me in celebrating our vibrant relationship with the European Union.
Introductions by Members
M. Mark: I’d like to introduce Roberta Robson, who is here to witness me bring forward a private member’s bill in this House this afternoon to bring greater protections forward for renters. Will the House please join me in welcoming this tremendous advocate.
P. Pimm: This afternoon I have in the House with me two guests. Jake Roorda is the CEO of Todd Energy. Jake looks after all of Todd Energy’s operations in the Fort St. John area. With him, Lynn Klein is also here today. Lynn is a Victoria resident and good friend. Would the House please help me make both of these fine people welcome.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two constituents, Katherine Farris and Kit Pearson. Both Katherine and Kit are local ambassadors for Ovarian Cancer Canada. In addition, they’re joined by my most amazing constituent assistants, Judy Fainstein and Teresa Hartrick, who are participating in the independent caucus constituency meeting at lunch today with the member for Delta South’s constituency assistant.
Finally, another group of individuals came today. They were the lucky winners of an auction at Oak Bay Preschool. The auction allowed them to get a tour of the Legislature by Richard Zussman, CBC host. I ended up meeting them and giving them the tour instead. Their names are Nelson Jewey, Roland Beauregard, Bob Beauregard and Mike Stacey.
Would the House please make all of these guests feel very welcome.
G. Kyllo: I’d like to introduce Dr. Stuart Edmonds, the vice-president of research, health promotion and survivorship of Prostate Cancer Canada. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Canadian men. One in eight will be diagnosed over their lifetime.
I had the pleasure of taking part in the prostate cancer Step Up Challenge this past February with one of my daughters, where we climbed a number of the tallest skyscrapers in downtown Vancouver. This event was also held in Calgary and Toronto and raised more than $600,000 for prostate cancer research and supportive care. Since 2001, Prostate Cancer Canada has invested over $20 million in research and survivorship initiatives in B.C.
Would the House please join me in welcoming Stuart to the House.
C. Trevena: I know that we’re celebrating Nurses Week here in the Legislature, and I would like to recognize a very special nurse who is here — Tania Dick, who comes from Kingcome Inlet. She is here. She’s a nurse practitioner. She’s a very, very strong and articulate advocate for aboriginal health. She is very excited to be here for at least the second year running — I know she was here last year — talking about nursing and how important it is for all of us. I hope the House would make Tania and all her nursing colleagues very welcome.
Hon. S. Anton: Also here as part of Nursing Week, I’d like to introduce three other people. It is an honour, first of all, to recognize and celebrate the nurses in our communities, whom we all depend on and appreciate, and these nurses, of course, around the province for their dedication to health care and the integrity and compassion with which they serve our citizens and families.
Today I’d like to introduce three additional women who are working to ensure that patients and families receive safe, competent care from nurses. They are leading the way to ensure that B.C. has a strong, responsive and forward-looking regulatory body for the nursing profession.
They are Kyong-ae Kim, the executive director for the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C.; Michelle Molineaux, who is a College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C. board member; and Cynthia Johansen, the registrar and CEO of the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. They are part of the steering committee currently leading the effort to combine their regulatory colleges into a new one.
I will add a special add-on for Michelle Molineaux, who is my constituent, here from Vancouver-Fraserview. It’s always a pleasure to see people from Vancouver-Fraserview. Michelle is the co-founder and CEO of KoolProjects Media, and she is also the mother of Harrison, who is nearly ten years old and loves politics more than any other child of that age that I have ever met. It’s always a great pleasure to see Michelle and Harrison around in Vancouver-Fraserview.
Would the House please make these three members of boards and of these colleges welcome here today.
M. Mungall: I appreciate all of the introductions for Nursing Week, but in my house, nursing week is every
[ Page 12839 ]
week. That’s because one of the nurses who is up in the gallery this afternoon is my husband, Zak Matieschyn. May the House please make him extra-special welcome.
Interjection.
M. Mungall: And yes, as the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads pointed out, he is mighty handsome.
L. Throness: It’s my pleasure to introduce my beloved brother and sister-in-law, Leon and Carol Throness, today. They’re not only my closest relatives, but I also have the pleasure of having them as very close friends. They’re not always the same thing. As pastor of Chilliwack Alliance Church, Leon is also my pastor, and I must say he is an outstanding speaker and a gifted leader. Finally, it’s Carol’s birthday tomorrow.
Would the House please welcome them and wish Carol a happy birthday.
Hon. T. Lake: I feel obliged to stand up and apologize that I didn’t pronounce Zak’s last name correctly, as the member opposite did, and for failing to note that he is exceptionally handsome.
J. Shin: I think they’re just making their way in. I have the pleasure of introducing to the House the traditional Korean pottery and porcelain master Jung Hong Kim and his partner, Sang Soon Kim, along with some of their most dedicated students of the craft: Myung Sook Choi, Jin Yu Hwan, Kyung Sook Ha, Kyung Hee Han and Ji Sook Hwang.
Korean ceramics saw its most celebrated time during the three centuries of the Silla dynasty in the sixth century. Baekja wares is the highly refined white clay, and cheongja wares is the bit with iron powder that adds to its blue colouring, which is well recognized and celebrated around the world.
Master Kim has practised this art for over four decades now and, with his wife, brings their expertise and trade to countless enthusiasts and hundreds of students all across British Columbia as well as the west coast of North America. I’m very happy to have this time to be able to thank them for their passion in arts and culture as well as their community service.
Would the members please join me in making them feel very welcome.
Tributes
B.C. TEAMS AT NATIONAL ABORIGINAL
HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS
G. Hogg: Canada’s best aboriginal midget-aged female and male hockey players have just returned from the 2016 National Aboriginal Hockey Championships in Mississauga, Ontario. Team B.C.’s male team won gold, and the female team placed fourth. This is the fourth year in a row that the male team has medalled, and it is one of the best results by the female team in the 15-year history of the championship. Team B.C.’s performance is a wonderful example of the success of the Aboriginal Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity Partners Council’s work to advance the development of aboriginal sport across B.C.
Would this House please join me in congratulating them and Team B.C. on their wonderful successes.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M226 — MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016
H. Bains presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2016.
H. Bains: I move that a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.
Motion approved.
H. Bains: It gives me great pleasure today to be introducing a piece of legislation that amends the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to protect manufactured home owners from being evicted with no support when the site of their home is slated for redevelopment.
This group of people face unique obstacles and barriers when they receive an eviction notice due to the permanent nature of their dwelling and the high cost associated with relocating the manufactured home. Manufactured home parks exhibit nice, friendly communities where they look out for each other — neighbours helping neighbours.
During times when owning a home in B.C. is becoming almost a thing of the past, protecting manufactured homes becomes even more essential. By passing this bill, this House can help to protect the shrinking affordable housing stock. Manufactured home parks all across B.C. accommodate thousands of homeowners, most of them seniors and on fixed incomes. They need certainty and security that they will be able to live and enjoy the remaining years of their lives without the threat of eviction hanging over their heads. This bill goes a long ways to provide them with the certainty and security that they deserve.
By amending sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, this legislation provides protection for tenants in manufactured home parks in three primary ways: (1) requiring that a park owner provide 12 months’ notice of eviction when redeveloping land under any form of tenancy agreement; (2) requiring that a park
[ Page 12840 ]
owner, at the time of eviction, pay a tenant’s relocation expenses up to $30,000; (3) requiring that a park owner pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their manufactured homes because of the local building standards an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation.
I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M226, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy 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 M227 — residential tenancy
(PROTECTION FROM RENOVICTION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016
M. Mark presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy (Protection from Renoviction) Amendment Act, 2016.
M. Mark: I move that a bill entitled Protection from Renoviction Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the orders, be introduced now for first reading.
Motion approved.
M. Mark: It gives me great pleasure today to be introducing a piece of legislation that amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide more protection for tenants. It increases the amount of notice that a landlord must give a tenant in the event of renovations that require the tenant to vacate their residence and of conversion to strata title. It increases the compensation payable to tenants in these circumstances.
It also allows the tenant the right of first refusal, giving them the option of continuing residence following renovations or conversion and prohibits the landlord from raising the rent any more than would otherwise be lawful.
Finally, it allows the tenant increased time to pay overdue rent or dispute the eviction notice and increased time before eviction due to the non-payment of rent.
This act is an acknowledgment of the imbalance of power that exists between landlords and tenants, particularly with regards to many avenues available for landlords to eject tenants with very little notice and compensation. With this act, British Columbia recognizes and protects the rights and interests of tenants in a way that is fair and reasonable to landlords.
I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M227, Residential Tenancy (Protection from Renoviction) 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.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
STREAMKEEPERS SOCIETIES IN
WEST VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA
J. Sturdy: Streamkeeper volunteers in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky develop, promote and maintain best practices for protecting and sustaining fish populations in the creeks and tributaries across the region. Under the nationally recognized leadership of John Barker, winner of the 2015 Earth Day Canada Individual Hometown Heroes Award, the 200 members of the West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society focus their efforts on protecting and sustaining Pacific wild salmon stocks.
Members engage in many streamkeeping projects and work programs in the 22 creeks and tributaries in the district of West Vancouver. They manage a fish hatchery at Nelson Creek which produces 180,000 coho and chum fry each year for stocking in local streams. They work with elementary schools and include students in storm drain marking and habitat awareness. Secondary school students assist with spawner surveys in the fall and present their findings at municipal council meetings.
The Squamish Streamkeepers Society is also committed to Pacific wild salmon, but understanding and enhancing herring in Howe Sound is another important priority. Creosote pilings in wharves and docks are used by herring to spawn, but the creosote causes the roe to die. In partnership with Squamish Terminals, DFO and the municipality, the streamkeepers have maintained a program to protect herring eggs from creosote by wrapping the pilings. Their latest initiative is a new spawning float-line that is seeing huge success. In no small part because of the passion and actions of the Squamish Streamkeepers, these last several years have seen dramatic returns of Howe Sound herring runs.
The importance of the work of streamkeeper groups in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky cannot be understated. They bring attention to and focus energies on understanding and mitigating anthropogenic impacts on the marine environment, creating partnerships that focus on continuing ecosystem improvements and advocating and participating in citizen science, all to ensure that herring, dolphins, salmon and whales thrive as part of the future of Howe Sound.
CONTRIBUTIONS AND ROLE OF NURSES
J. Darcy: Today is Nursing Week, and I would like to acknowledge every single one of B.C.’s 55,000 nurses. Nurses work in urban and rural-remote and indigenous communities in every corner of B.C. Today we celebrate all nurses — registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, licensed practical nurses, nurse practitioners and
[ Page 12841 ]
nurse educators, all of whom are here today. All of them play a critical role in all aspects of health care — in primary care, in the community, seniors care, public health, acute care, mental health and addictions, palliative care, and the list goes on.
Every single one of us has a story to tell about how nurses have made a difference in our lives and in the lives of our loved ones. Health care in B.C. would grind to a halt without nurses.
Nurses don’t just play an integral role in delivering health care; they also have so much to offer in improving health care. They can and should play a central role in the multidisciplinary teams that involve a wide range of health care providers that are so crucial to the future of public health care.
We could be utilizing nurse practitioners to a far greater extent to meet the primary care needs of all sectors of the population. Specialized teams that include RNs and LPNs are critical to innovations that can shorten surgical wait times. Registered psychiatric nurses could play a much greater role in caring for people living with mental health and addictions. Licensed practical nurses working to their full scope of practice can contribute so much in all aspects of health care. And all nurses can help us to refocus health care on prevention, not just on treating illness.
Today let’s thank the nurses who care for us every day with such compassion and skill. But let’s go beyond lip service, and let’s truly value their voices and their role in improving health care for all British Columbians.
MOUNTAINEERING AND MENTAL
HEALTH WORK OF BRENT SEAL
J. Thornthwaite: I would like to talk about a program close to my heart, the Edge high-performance wellness training program founded by trainer and adventurer Brent Seal, who, in his own words, is a dude that talks way too much about mental health and climbs mountains whenever possible.
In 2007, Brent was attending university when things took a turn and he found himself hospitalized in a psych ward. Brent would experience delusions and start believing stories he created, leading to an attempted suicide. Brent was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was devastated and was no longer able to drive, go to school or hang out with his friends.
Despite his mental state, Brent held onto a dream of one day climbing Mount Everest and discovered that no person with schizophrenia had ever climbed it. This encouraged Brent to start climbing some of the world’s highest mountains and to compete in ultramarathons, while encouraging others who are struggling to turn their challenges into opportunities.
In February 2015, the Edge program was launched in six schools and two mental health programs across B.C., offering a six-week program of in-person and on-line training that provides students with tools to cope with high stress and hectic workloads, and high-performance wellness strategies to reduce stress and boost self-confidence.
The program provides a fun experience teaching students about mental health and ways to support themselves, friends and family. It has been a great success, allowing Brent to educate and empower more than 200 youth so far. It will be offered again in the fall of 2016.
Brent graduated as valedictorian from SFU’s Beedie School of Business and has spoken across the country at many high-profile events, including TEDx, where he has talked about his journey and how he went from feeling like he couldn’t do anything to being able to summit some of the highest mountains in the world.
Later this month, Brent will travel to Alaska to attempt to become the first person living with schizophrenia to climb Denali, North America’s highest mountain.
I ask the House to join me in thanking him for all he has done and in wishing him luck as he takes on his next challenge.
ARTS IN SCHOOLS AND SOUTH SLOPE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRODUCTION
R. Chouhan: Sir Ken Robinson says that creativity is now as important in education as literacy and that we should treat it with the same status. Nowhere were these words more apparent than at the South Slope Elementary School in Burnaby during the week of April 19.
Starting in January, Ms. Fiero, a talented music teacher for over 30 years, held auditions for the main roles to be cast in the musical production of The Lion King. Parents, grandparents, teachers, friends and relatives of teachers all put in a tremendous amount of extra hours to put on a production featuring over 250 costumed students from kindergarten to grade 7.
South Slope has an extremely diverse population, with over 31 low-incidence students, all of whom were involved in the play. The main cast also included three hard-of-hearing students, two autistic students, one student with severe social-emotional issues and a student with high anxiety, who shone while on stage.
The journey of producing a production of this calibre involved each and every staff member pulling together, collaborating, problem-solving and creating a polished product that will produce positive memories for the students. The importance of the arts in our schools is integral to the learning that goes on in classes during the regular school day.
One final quote from Sir Ken: “The arts are often seen as something that can be cut from the curriculum without adverse effects, and we have to justify the time we spend teaching the arts. Yet the arts speak to areas of children’s beings that are otherwise untouched.” Congratulations, everyone, for such a wonderful job.
[ Page 12842 ]
CONTRIBUTIONS AND ROLE OF NURSES
J. Yap: Seventeen months ago I received heart bypass surgery and spent two weeks in hospital. It was not easy. During my hospital stay, I was very thankful and blessed to have a team of professional health practitioners look after me. I especially would like to express my deepest gratitude to the team of nurses.
Providing day-to-day patient care continuously for 12 hours requires a lot of energy, compassion, patience and endurance. Some of the tasks are challenging and unpleasant, but nurses complete them in a professional manner. They not only provide care and help monitor patients’ conditions but also give emotional support to patients and their families. Nurses must be prepared to deal with any emergency situation at a moment’s notice and require great resilience, as well as observational, communications and people skills. Thank you to the team of nurses who took care of me during my stay in the hospital.
Nurses are a key pillar in our health care system. We need to support them to do this vital and challenging work. In March of this year, our government, in partnership with the B.C. Nurses Union, created more than 1,600 additional regular nursing positions to better support nurses on the front lines. We have also worked with the Health Employers Association of B.C. and the union to address overtime and workload issues and have been progressing well on that front.
Nurses in B.C. have been doing an excellent job taking care of British Columbians. I know that many of them are here today with us in the House in recognition of National Nursing Week, May 9 to May 15. Let us give them and all nurses a big round of applause.
OVARIAN CANCER
A. Weaver: Yesterday, May 8, was World Ovarian Cancer Day, and organizations around the globe shared what we need to know now about this disease. Ovarian Cancer Canada is the only national charity dedicated to overcoming this disease. Their members were meeting with elected representatives across the country in the lead-up to yesterday’s event. I was privileged to meet with Tracy Kolwich, director, Western region, for Ovarian Cancer Canada, and two local ambassadors for the organization, Katherine Farris and Kit Pearson.
Katherine, an ovarian cancer survivor, and Kit are volunteer advocates who, together with Ovarian Cancer Canada, are working tirelessly to raise public awareness of the need for (1) increasing funding for research; (2) ready access to new treatments as they become available; (3) improved access to genetic testing; and (4) genetic fairness to protect against discrimination based on genetic information.
In Canada today, approximately 17,000 women are living with ovarian cancer. It is the fifth most common cancer for women and the most fatal women’s cancer in Canada. Each year approximately 2,600 women are newly diagnosed, and every year ovarian cancer claims the lives of 1,750 Canadians.
Ovarian cancer is difficult to detect and can easily be overlooked because its symptoms can signal a variety of conditions, including abdominal discomfort. Because this disease is often caught in late stages, 70 percent of women diagnosed die within five years of diagnosis. There’s no reliable screening for ovarian cancer, and there is no vaccine to prevent it.
Ovarian Cancer Canada undertakes a number of important initiatives, including providing support for women and families living with the disease; raising awareness and implementing education programs about ovarian cancer; providing and advocating for research funding, including through a new partnership with the Terry Fox Research Institute.
Please let me acknowledge the important work being conducted by Ovarian Cancer Canada. Please let me also applaud the ongoing efforts of two of my constituents, Katherine Farris and Kit Pearson, who continue to work tirelessly as ovarian cancer advocates.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO YOUTH DEATH
CASES AND PLACEMENT OF YOUTH IN CARE
J. Horgan: Time and time again, we’ve risen on this side of the House and asked the government questions about their approaches to children in care, the youngest, most vulnerable people in our society. And time and time again, the minister has said we should do better.
Whether it was the case of Alex Gervais, the case of Carly Fraser, J.P. or, of course, the case of Paige, it was always the same refrain from the minister. But we now have a report from the Children and Youth Representative entitled Approach With Caution, in which the representative lays out for the government and the public the concern she has: about a year after the Paige report, no progress has been made.
Although we don’t have complete information on the individual in question, the representative and, I understand, the ministry, as well, felt there was sufficient information to be released as a cautionary tale. I want to raise that with the minister today.
This young woman lived in a group home until the group home was closed. Then she was moved into a single-occupancy room in the Downtown Eastside until that didn’t work. Then, finally, she was placed in incarceration and jailed.
My question to the minister is: does she really believe that there are not better ways to address challenges for young people in British Columbia than putting them in jail?
[ Page 12843 ]
Hon. S. Cadieux: I agree with the representative that this is certainly a unique report, and I understand the representative’s intent here. But we must be cautious as we discuss this in the House, as the subject of the report is a child in care.
Now, the Paige report identified for the public something that our staff and service providers certainly know all too well — that there continues to be a group of young people in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, and in other parts of the province, that we consider to be high risk. This report certainly provides nothing new, no new information, in that regard.
The ministry does know what steps need to be taken, what steps will be taken. And I’ll have more to say on enhanced services for high-risk youth in the coming days. But it would be incorrect to allow the record uncorrected in the fact that nothing has changed or nothing has been done.
We have, as a result of what we’ve learned from Paige’s death and from other youth that we work with, brought in a rapid response team model in the Downtown Eastside to better coordinate the services that are delivered. We reminded all of the service providers in Vancouver and area of their duty to report.
We’ve examined across jurisdictions how others deliver services to youth in this age group and how our services stack up against that. As a result, as well, we now automatically review any death of a 19-year-old who was, in the past 12 months, in the ministry’s care.
Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
J. Horgan: Again, I don’t know what record the minister is correcting. The representative said: “One year after Paige, the representative would have contemplated a complete revamp of the provincial approach to youth mental health, addictions and homelessness. Sadly, that has not materialized.” That strikes me as no progress.
The representative went on further. It’s a lengthy quote but, I think, appropriate for today. She said: “This young person was well known to the police and had periods of incarceration in youth justice facilities. This incarceration was not an effort on the part of police or the ministry to ‘punish’ the young person for their behaviours but was a well-intentioned effort to remove them from situations of imminent risk” — using only the most clumsy of mechanisms.
Now, I can understand, and I know the minister will full well express some empathy for the staff that are put in these precarious situations where they have to make a decision.
But surely to goodness, after the years and years of raising these questions, the multiple years that that minister has been on the file, it is absolutely not appropriate, after Paige, to be able to stand in this place and say: “There are no group homes. There are no supportive services. The last resort is jail.” That’s not acceptable.
When will you actually deliver for these kids rather than just rhetoric in this Legislature?
Hon. S. Cadieux: For the member, let’s just provide a little bit of fact. The reality is that for any child or youth that comes into the care of the ministry, the best circumstance is a family setting with caregivers that are capable of providing for that child’s needs. But where there is an instance of a youth or child whose behaviours or individual needs or circumstances require more intensive or specialized supports than foster parents can provide, that support may be provided through a group home or other type of facility. In fact, just so the member is aware — because he suggests there aren’t any — there are currently 908 children and youth staying in 108 of those types of facilities.
I think what the member is trying to get at is the reality that despite the fact that there is a broad range of services available, in terms of child and youth mental health services across the province — residential treatment, community-based services, services of psychologists and psychiatrists, child and youth mental health counselling programs and so much more…. Despite that, the reality is that all of those services are voluntary.
It is widely agreed that voluntary services such as detox, residential treatment and mental health counselling are all most effective in addressing addictions and mental health issues when they are voluntarily accessed. Going beyond those limitations through the justice system, the Mental Health Act…. Those voluntary services would require specialized legislation authorizing the involuntary detainment of youth. If the member is suggesting that we move toward incarcerating youth who are refusing to access services, he should just say so.
Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
J. Horgan: I’m not suggesting that. The children’s representative is suggesting that’s exactly what’s happening now. It’s the court of last resort for the ministry, for social workers. When they don’t have appropriate tools to address addiction and mental health, the last option is the justice system.
The representative, again…. This is the independent officer speaking here, and she said the following: “The youth justice system was used as a substitute for social services, something that is prohibited by the Youth Criminal Justice Act….”
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members.
[ Page 12844 ]
J. Horgan: I don’t know if I can get through this, hon. Speaker, unless the Minister of Health has something to add.
Interjection.
Madame Speaker: Minister. Minister.
Please continue.
J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The representative went on to say: “Something that is prohibited by the Youth Criminal Justice Act but is, nonetheless, sometimes still used in practice to prevent life-threatening situations when no services are available.” The end result of that is that after years of reviews and years of reorganizations, we’re still at the same place we were when this government started 16 years ago. Children are at risk, and the services are not there for them.
My question to the minister is: isn’t it past time that we don’t appoint another Bob Plecas, that we don’t appoint another review and that we listen to what the representative has been saying since the day she arrived here and provide appropriate services for kids at risk?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, I believe that it’s important that we provide services to kids at risk, to vulnerable families. Hopefully, we’re able to intervene at an early enough point that those children never come into care and never require those very intensive services, but that is not always the case.
The child- and youth-serving system, in terms of child protection and foster care, is well resourced. We have amazing social workers. We have amazing people on the front lines delivering those services. It is a system that is always evolving to the changing needs of the children and youth and families that we serve.
On the child and youth mental health side, the same is true. There are resources that are improving around the province all of the time to adapt to the change in the demands on the system, the change in the complexity of the children and youth presenting and their unique and individualized needs.
There will always be more to do. This side of the House is absolutely committed to continuing to see those improvements occur.
D. Donaldson: The most troubling aspect of the representative’s report is that we’ve heard it before. Despite countless promises by the minister to improve the child protection system, we are still faced with cases that are like Paige’s and like Alex’s.
The representative went on to say this about the young woman’s situation. “Attempts to provide foster placements were likewise short-lived and largely unsuccessful, with the young person being placed in a hotel when first brought into care because no resources were available.” She was placed in a hotel alone, just like Alex and just like Paige. Worse, she was sent to jail.
Can the minister tell the House how many times her ministry has housed youth in jail as a care option?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, I certainly understand where the representative was going with this report. As I’ve said, there is nothing in this report that is new or different. We have to…. I urge…
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Cadieux: …the members opposite to respect that there is a youth, who is in care, who is the subject of this report. As the youth’s parents, the director of child welfare, along with the Public Guardian and Trustee, must ensure that that youth’s voice is heard and that best interests are addressed. As such, I think it is important that the members of this Legislature also respect that details of this report should be touched on very carefully.
That said, as I said, we have a robust system of services, a robust system of supports, and we will continue to make improvements to them.
Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.
D. Donaldson: How robust is the system when you’re using jail as a form of care for children in this province? All we’re asking the minister is: how many times has she used jail as a care facility for children in this province? She can’t answer.
Let’s look at the minister’s credibility. After Alex Gervais died, she said no children in care were housed in hotels. It was against policy. Then she had to say: “Well, maybe there were a few.” Then her own report showed that over 100 children were housed in hotels. So then she said: “Well, the new policy is to say no hotel stays.” But apparently, jail is okay.
Why on earth is this minister still sending vulnerable youth to live alone in hotels? Or is this government’s solution to send them to jail instead?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, as we’ve canvassed in this House before and as I’ve said on multiple occasions outside of this House, a hotel is never the right choice for a child or youth in care.
There are, unfortunately, some unique circumstances that occur. When a child or a youth is brought into care in the middle of the night on a weekend, in a province the size of ours, we have to find the most appropriate and safe place for that youth at that time.
[ Page 12845 ]
Again, there are resources around the province, comprehensive resources a around the province, to also care for children and youth with mental health and substance-use needs. All of those services are voluntary. We have to accept and understand that some youth are extremely resistant to those services. It is our job to continue to offer those services to them, to make them aware of what we can do to support them, so that when they are ready, they will access those services and supports.
At this time, we do not have the authority, unless that child or youth is in conflict with the law, to use the justice system as a way to provide treatment. At this point in time in British Columbia, we do not have legislation that allows for the involuntary incarceration of youth for mental health supports. If the member feels that is worth pursuing, he should say so, but we are constantly reviewing whether or not that would be a useful tool in British Columbia and whether or not we would choose to enact that.
YOUTH DEATH CASES AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
C. James: I cannot believe I heard the minister actually say that there are comprehensive services for children and youth with mental health in this province. There have been reports after reports after reports that have pointed out that there are not comprehensive services. We are going to continue to speak out to respect those youth in British Columbia.
The representative makes it very clear that this young woman is facing many of the same challenges that Paige faced. She makes it clear that the B.C. Liberals have not done enough to make life better for youth like that. She says: “A year after Paige’s Story was released, the representative is discouraged that the work done to profile this cohort of vulnerable young people has not yet translated into action.”
I’ve heard this minister talk about changes being made. I’ve heard those words over and over and over and over again from this government. Those words are hollow to the youth who are not getting the care that they need and they deserve.
To the minister, why has she not implemented, fully, the Paige report?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, again, I guess they weren’t listening, because there has been a lot of work since the Paige report. In fact, we went beyond the recommendations of the Paige report in implementing the rapid response model in the Downtown Eastside so that we could better coordinate services, so that we could make sure that if there were improvements to be made, those recommendations on what was needed could come up.
This is not news — the fact that there are vulnerable children and youth living in the Downtown Eastside, the fact that it in fact acts as a magnet for some children and youth with high needs and high-risk behaviours. It is not news to us nor to all of the service providers and front-line workers in the ministry.
It is a reality in our society. It is something that they work with every day, working with those youth, trying to connect them to services, to have them step forward and say: “Yes, I want to accept that help.”
It is about being there. It is about repeating and repeating and repeating the offers of support, earning the trust of those youth. Our workers are doing that every day. As a result of the Paige report, we did a comprehensive review of over 120 kids in the Downtown Eastside, looking specifically both to ensure their safety and at what, if anything, could be done differently.
I said earlier in my answers that we know what steps need to be taken. We know where the gaps are. I will have more to say on enhanced services in the next couple of days.
Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.
C. James: Well, it should be news, and it should be discussed every single day when we are failing children in care in this province.
Let’s remember. This is the government that got rid of the independent office for children and youth. This is the government that cut services and cut supports for vulnerable children. So excuse us if we don’t always believe this government when they talk about supporting children and youth.
We have heard action be promised before. What have we seen? We’ve seen nothing done to support vulnerable youth to make sure that they don’t age out without supports and without homes. We haven’t seen a discussion begin around secure care. We see a rapid response team that’s in place with no resources, no new resources, to actually help youth.
Once again, how many youth are going to fall through the cracks before this minister and this government will actually act for them?
Hon. S. Cadieux: So that the member understands the work on the Downtown Eastside, the rapid response team, in its very first few months of operation, had the opportunity to better connect with youth and ensure that 38 youth were able to access services that they either didn’t know existed or weren’t previously accessing. Some returned home to family in other parts of the province. Some accessed mental health supports, medical treatments, got their first government-issued identification.
The work on the Downtown Eastside with youth is complex, it is difficult, and it takes time. The supports
[ Page 12846 ]
that are available are intense. There are government service providers, government offices and supports through MCFD, service providers that offer outreach workers. There are housing options. There are mental health supports. There are health and wellness supports. There are plenty of supports and services, and as I said, we will be able to announce shortly some additional supports in that area.
WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA
G. Heyman: Several days ago the Environment Minister repeated her claim that there’s no urgency to protect Hullcar aquifer drinking water with a moratorium because, she said, there’s been no manure spraying since last year. Yet area residents report the opposite. They say the largest dairy farmer in the area is spraying effluent heavily and repeatedly this spring.
The Environment Minister challenged the professional opinion of three Western Water Associates’ hydrogeologists. She quoted ministry staff, including biologist Carrie Morita. Yet in a ministry memo concerning Hullcar aquifer contamination, Ms. Morita herself made a recommendation that says, “A more definitive study would likely require the expertise of a hydrogeologist with experience in agricultural areas” — a hydrogeologist like the three who accused the ministry of insufficient concern for public health.
When will the minister make public health and the environment her foremost concern, stop ignoring evidence and experts and impose the moratorium that will end further contamination of Hullcar residents’ drinking water?
Hon. M. Polak: I want to be very clear that we believe that when people’s drinking water is being impacted, that is an urgent matter. It’s one of the reasons that we have around 18 of our staff in the ministry working directly on this file. The member may be interested to know that those staff certainly review any information provided to them, including the information provided from the hydrogeologists that sent in their letter.
Far from ignoring the expertise that those individuals may have, what is important for us to do in the ministry is to pay attention to the years and years of experience represented by the professionals on our staff who are diligently working to try to find solutions for an aquifer that’s in trouble and needs to be improved.
HEALTH CARE WORKER LAYOFFS AT
SENIORS CARE FACILITY IN NANAIMO
J. Darcy: Very soon frail seniors at a care facility in Nanaimo, many of whom suffer from dementia, will have their care severely disrupted; 155 staff at Wexford Creek care home, three of whom are here today, are being fired. Why? Because the care at the facility — the services — are being contracted out because there is insufficient funding from Island Health, insufficient funding from this government.
We know that continuity of care is absolutely critical for frail seniors, that they form incredibly close bonds with the staff who care for them. And we know that these repeated rounds of layoffs are harming our frail and vulnerable seniors.
My question to the Minister of Health is this. Will he intervene today to ensure that care for these frail seniors is not disrupted by throwing these dedicated care staff out on the street?
Hon. T. Lake: The ability to contract out was confirmed and agreed to by both unions and health employers as a mechanism to ensure our system remains sustainable, but the quality of care and safety of residents is a priority for our ministry and for health authorities.
The reality is that the service agreement between Good Samaritan and Island Health was the result of an open and competitive process, and Island Health has advised me that it funds the society at an equivalent level to what other health authorities pay Good Samaritan for the same services in other health authorities.
We have changed the residential care services manual to ensure that should this type of change occur, the health authority ensures that the quality of care for the clients is maintained, and we work very closely with clients and their families to ensure that that happens.
INCOME ASSISTANCE ACCESSIBILITY
AND TELEPHONE SERVICE
M. Mungall: For over a year now, the Minister of Social Development has insisted that the 1-800 number that people with disabilities call to get help with their supports has wait times of only ten minutes. Now, I don’t know why she says that, because her ministry’s own documents show, through a recently obtained FOI, that wait times are well over an hour. This January people with disabilities were on hold an average one hour and 47 minutes. Two years ago it was half an hour. While this minister claims that she’s on top of this, wait times have actually tripled.
My question is: why has the minister been saying that wait times are going down when, in fact, they are going up?
Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m acknowledging that the telephone system is actually there and put in place to help give our clients more flexibility in how they access the services that we have within the ministry.
I will note that I have made significant changes within the phone system to help with those wait times. In fact,
[ Page 12847 ]
we have hired 35 new employees at the staff centre. We have also changed the shift so that there is a shift that runs between four o’clock and six o’clock, after the phone lines have not received any more phone calls, so that we can get down the actual wait times in the callback features so that when the staff come back to work the next day, they are not working on the backlog of calls.
That being said, I would request that the member opposite perhaps look into the most recent, up-to-date wait times that we have, because we have seen significant decreases. In fact, I’ve had many results where the average wait time is only ten minutes.
Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.
M. Mungall: We’ve heard this ten-minute line before in this House. I’ll say the minister has made significant changes. We’re at an hour and 47 minutes now. That’s where we’re at.
Just imagine. You pick up the phone to get urgent help. One hour and 47 minutes later somebody actually answers you, and that’s if you were able to stay on the line, and that’s if you had enough money on your pay-as-you-go phone Talk Time card.
But if you had $25,000, you wouldn’t have to wait at all, because you’d be able to buy a seat right next to the Premier. For people with disabilities living in poverty, they get a bus pass clawback and they get increased wait times when they need to get on the phone, while the rich get a seat at the Premier’s dinner table, they get tax cuts…
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members.
M. Mungall: …and they get access.
My question to the minister: does someone need $25,000 just to get this government to pick up the phone?
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: Members. Members.
Minister.
Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you, Madame Speaker.
The member opposite continues to spin things so that the story can benefit her in any way she wants. We have a callback feature. People don’t have to wait on hold. They can actually enter their number and wait at home and have a callback received. Our clients…
Interjection.
Madame Speaker: Member. Member.
Hon. Michelle Stilwell: …can also always come, face to face, to a ministry office to be treated by a staff member….
Interjections.
Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.
Please continue.
Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, we’ve hired up to 55 new staff members to help assist with the phone wait times.
I would be happy to assist the members opposite to give them the actual numbers that we have been receiving in the last several weeks — noticing that obviously there are cheque-issue days and other times of the month when we see increased calls. But on average, these days we’re seeing low wait times, anywhere from an average of ten minutes to 12 minutes.
[End of question period.]
J. Darcy: I seek leave to introduce a petition.
Madame Speaker: Please proceed.
Petitions
J. Darcy: I’d like to present a petition that calls on the B.C. Minister of Health and Vancouver Island Health Authority to intervene and stop the proposed contracting out of staff at Wexford Creek care home in Nanaimo and put the facility under direct administration, in the interests of preserving community continuity of care for residents.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: In both Section A and Section B, Committee of Supply — in Section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and for Housing; and in this chamber, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Health.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Lee in the chair.
The committee met at 2:49 p.m.
On Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,820,706,000 (continued).
[1450]
[ Page 12848 ]
Hon. T. Lake: With me I have my deputy minister, Stephen Brown. I have the ADM for population and health, Arlene Paton, and behind me, Jen Erickson, who’s executive director in that division as well.
I look forward to the estimates this afternoon.
B. Ralston: I have a question I’m asking on behalf of Shirley Hill, who is a constituent in Surrey-Whalley, on behalf of her deceased husband, Jack Hill. I’m going to read briefly from a letter she wrote me and then pose a question.
“On February 21, 2013, Jack died of a perforated bowel a month after surgery at Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster to remove an adrenal tumour. Prior to surgery, Jack spent 31 days and nights sleeping in the halls at RCH. During his 31 days of roomlessness in the corridors, he had to unplug and drag his IV and find available public washrooms in the semi-darkness of the hospital corridors. Jack needed sleeping pills to be able to sleep under the stress.
“He fell twice in the hall. He was checked for concussion after the second fall. The bleeding and scabbing on his mouth were still present when he died.
“He had none of the privacy needed for doctor consultations or to make decisions or process the grief that came with his diagnosis.”
Jack told Shirley that if he survived his experience at the Royal Columbian Hospital — which, regrettably, he did not — he’d work to change the treatment for seniors. Jack was, in fact, a proud advocate for Canada’s public medicare system. He was cremated wearing his Seniors on Guard for Medicare badge.
The patient care quality office of the Fraser Health Authority did an investigation and wrote a report. Shirley Hill tells me that that report is completely inadequate and answers none of her questions that she posed to the investigators.
Will the minister agree to a further investigation of the circumstances surrounding Jack Hill’s death at Royal Columbian Hospital?
Hon. T. Lake: As the member knows, I’m always happy to meet with MLAs on constituency issues. In this case, this is the first that I’m hearing of this, so I’d encourage the member to certainly follow up with me in our office, and we can assist his constituent and him rather than using the estimates process.
I can say this. The Royal Columbian Hospital is undergoing phase 1 of a multiphase redevelopment, the first phase being almost $260 million. This is one of the busiest hospitals in the province. It’s undergoing a very large renovation over the next seven to nine years.
However, having said that, it also provides outstanding care. I’ve been to Royal Columbian Hospital. I know the people there do an outstanding job.
Now, having said that, it is not…. Health care is a complex matter. When there are concerns that are raised by patients or their families…. This is the government that instituted patient care quality offices, where those concerns can be heard. We also have the ability to do reviews, under section 51 of the Evidence Act, to ensure that all of the appropriate information is gathered in a safe environment so that we can learn from any situation in which an error may have occurred. I’m not saying that it did in this particular case, but those are the options open.
If a family is not satisfied with the answer they get from the patient care quality office, they can take that concern further to the patient care quality review board, which are provincial boards which will review each and every one of these cases where the constituent or the patient or the family is not satisfied with the answer and the explanation provided by the patient care quality office.
J. Rice: My first question will be, to the minister…. Well, my questions are in regards to rural and northern health. Specifically, for the minister’s staff, the areas that I’m hoping to cover today are around patient travel, including the travel assistance program, the patient travel network, telehealth, rural surgery and maternity and particularly around child health as well.
My first question will be in regards to the minister’s service plan and objective 2.5: “Sustainable and effective health services in rural and remote areas of the province, including First Nations communities.”
In regards to the goal “to implement a renewed approach to providing quality health services across rural and remote areas,” the three strategies, if the minister could comment on the three strategies. “Develop local community plans for rural and remote communities to create environments that foster healthy behaviours to improve the health of the population.” The second strategy: “Improve access to services through the establishment of regional and provincial networks of specialized care teams.” And the third strategy: “Improve timely recruitment and deployment of health professionals to rural and remote communities.”
My question would be: could the minister comment on those three strategies and where he’s at with that?
Hon. T. Lake: One of the areas that the ministry looked at when we began our work in 2013 was to look at a number of priorities for the health care system, one of which was centred around rural practice and rural health care. We held a symposium at UBCM and sought input from local governments and presented the draft paper that we were creating and got some very positive feedback on that paper.
Of course, the Ministry of Health service plan reflects some of the major themes that came from that strategic paper, developing local community plans that help create environments that foster healthy behaviours. That’s a population-based approach that is very much on the prevention side of things.
[ Page 12849 ]
HealthyFamilies B.C., for instance, has HealthyFamilies B.C. Communities. It is an organization that brings together local governments; health authorities; First Nations and aboriginal communities; divisions of family practice, which are the physicians in the area; as well as non-governmental organizations in environments that help people plan to make healthier choices. There are a number of tools and training programs through its partners, like the B.C. Healthy Communities Society’s PlanH program and the Community Health Profiles, which has been developed by the community health services authority.
We’ve got about 97 incorporated municipalities, which is about 60 percent, that have partnership agreements with their regional health authorities to improve the health and well-being of the communities. About 50 percent are implementing healthy-living strategic plans in partnership with their respective health authorities. So that is a way of combining with local governments.
It can be around food security. It can be around planning to create healthier environments, make them more walkable — all of the different initiatives that can lead to a healthier population. Smoking policies that are enacted by local government would be another example.
We also have Healthy Schools B.C., which is, again, another initiative of the HealthyFamilies B.C. framework. It strengthens health-education partnerships and builds capacity of both sectors to implement healthy school initiatives using sort of a population-based approach. That includes things like the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutrition program, which provides B.C.-grown fruits and vegetables to students in 1,464 registered schools, and also the farm to schools program, which is funded through the Provincial Health Services Authority. That increases access to fresh, local fruit and vegetables in 126 different schools and also connects them to agriculture so that they understand the importance of that.
Those are the ways that we develop community connections with local communities, local school boards, to try to take a population-based approach to increasing the health of the population.
In terms of improving access to services, in our rural priority strategic paper that we looked at, we looked at all of the 64 health service delivery areas in the province of British Columbia and basically said: “If you’re in this size of a community, here’s what you can expect.” It created pathways for patients and service providers to understand what and how they could connect up through the continuum of care.
If you’re living in a community like Vanderhoof, for instance, you will not have all of the levels of specialized care that you would have in a more urban centre that is relatively close, and that’s Prince George. So trying to connect those communities that…. Obviously, in Vanderhoof, you’re not going to have the level of surgeons and you’re not going to have the level of specialists that you would have in Prince George — so forming connections between the physicians in the smaller community, in this case Vanderhoof, with specialists in Prince George to make sure that the patient’s journey is as smooth as possible.
The other big part of connecting access to more specialized care is through the use of telehealth. Telehealth is an ability, particularly for follow-up care with specialists, to have facilities in the smaller community where a nurse may be sitting with the patient and you’ve got telehealth equipment that connects you directly with the specialist at the other end. When I was in Prince George, at UNBC, at the hospital there, I saw exactly how this was set up. The practitioners there were very complimentary about the way that service worked.
Interior Health Authority has also developed telehealth to an extraordinary level. They told me that the number of miles that they have saved for patients having to travel from more rural areas into more urban areas to seek specialist care would equal something like 64 trips around the earth. That tells you the level of time and, of course, inconvenience that has been saved by providing the opportunity for telehealth connecting more urban centres with more rural centres.
Another good example was demonstrated in Kelowna, where a neurologist, through the technology, was able to communicate with another neurologist in a hospital in the Kootenays. The practitioner in the Kootenays did not have the authorization to order a stroke-busting drug. These are drugs that are injected shortly after a suspected blockage in an artery to the brain is diagnosed. You want to make sure you’ve got the right diagnosis before you administer that drug.
Through the telehealth, the neurologist in Kelowna was able to talk directly to the patient, to look at the CT scan and to say: “Yes, this is one of those cases where you need to administer the drug.” Again, that’s an example of connecting specialist services into rural areas.
The last area was about recruiting and retaining health professionals in more rural areas. Now, that is, as the member knows, because we’ve had this discussion many times over the years in question period, a challenge. It’s a challenge for all areas of North America. But there are a number of programs that we utilize in order to attract people in health professions into those smaller communities.
First of all, we have a distributed medical health education program. We don’t just train physicians in Vancouver. They’re trained on the Island. They’re trained in the Interior. They’re trained in the north. We are seeing that physicians that go through that training often will practise in those areas. They’re not just all staying in the Lower Mainland. They’re actually practising in Northern Health. They’re practising in Interior Health.
Currently we have 12 family practice residents doing their two-year family practice residency program at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. That was not there
[ Page 12850 ]
up until about two years ago. These family practitioners get to see how great communities like Kamloops are, and they do part of their rotation in the smaller communities in the area, so they understand what it’s like to practise in rural areas and often will choose to do that for the rest of their career.
Through the Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues, which is a combination of the ministry and the Doctors of B.C., with money that has been injected through our physician master agreement — over $100 million, by the way…. These are rural programs that attract professionals in, including the rural retention program, the rural continuing medical education program, the rural emergency enhancement fund, the rural incentive fund, the recruitment contingency fund, the isolation allowance fund, the northern and isolation travel assistance outreach program, the rural GP locum program, the rural GP anaesthesia locum program, the rural specialist locum program, rural education plan, supervisors for provisionally licensed physicians and, of course, the Rural Coordination Centre of B.C., which is a forum to support rural physicians in their ongoing professional development.
We also have loan forgiveness programs for other health professionals if they will practise in rural areas as well.
Finally, we are seeing the results of the work that has been very successful in our practice-ready assessment program. This is a program that is designed to take physicians that have been practising overseas, who may come here from another country, and they will work in a three-month rotation with physicians in one smaller community in British Columbia and then move to another smaller community for a period of, I believe, two to three years as a return of service for the practice-ready assessment program.
We’ve seen PRA physicians locate in Ashcroft recently and in Logan Lake and a number of other areas of the province that were experiencing chronic physician shortages.
J. Rice: I’m going to ask a question in regards to mental health and substance-use funding within the Northern Health Authority. The projections and the actuals have seen a downward trend of about 8.8 percent from the original estimated amount. The same trend was repeated in this fiscal again, where $54 million was originally projected in the 2012 service plan, but the actual amount spent decreased to $49.7 million, representing a total decrease of 8 percent from the original estimated amount in 2012.
My question would be, to the minister, twofold. Can he explain the justification for the decrease? And basically, why are we underfunding mental health services in northern British Columbia?
Hon. T. Lake: I don’t have the specific numbers as to budgeted versus actuals. I can tell the member that in 2012-13, Northern Health spent $50.574 million on mental health and substance use. That dropped slightly in ’13-14 to $48.794 and then increased again to $49.677 million in 2014-15.
I can say that when you look…. One of the likely explanations is a recruitment lag. We talked about the challenges of recruiting health professionals to rural areas, and the north, of course, has more rural areas than any other health authority. It may be that positions are posted, the budget is there for those positions, but they can’t fill them, so the actuals aren’t as high as the budgeted amounts. And then we saw a rise from ’13-14 to ’14-15. So there may be a recruitment lag there.
I think what’s important, if you look at 2015-16, is the budgets per capita. If we look at the different health authorities and what their budgets for mental health and substance use are per capita, Vancouver Coastal is the highest, at $254 per capita for mental health and substance use. Northern Health is at $195 per person. That puts it in the middle of the pack. Island Health is a little bit above that, but Interior Health and Fraser Health are below that.
Northern Health is certainly spending a relatively high amount per person. Again, because of the distances involved in northern health delivery, it’s not unusual for them to have to spend more per person than the equivalent type of health authority in a more concentrated area.
J. Rice: I’m going to move on to the Patient Transfer Network. Could the minister explain how the B.C. Patient Transfer Network works and how the organization is structured?
Hon. T. Lake: B.C. emergency health services has taken over responsibility for the Patient Transfer Network.
Unfortunately, those officials were here last week dealing with questions around B.C. emergency health services, so they’re not here to help answer questions.
I don’t have the complete history of when the transfer occurred. If there are specific questions the member has, I can certainly commit to providing those in writing.
J. Rice: I was unable to be here for part of last week. I do apologize for that. I would appreciate the questions and answers in writing.
My next question in regards to that is: how many vehicles, helicopters and planes does the B.C. Ambulance Service have available to use for patient transport? I’m not sure if these will be taken in writing or if the minister is able to answer any of these, but I welcome that. How does the BCPTN go about facilitating patient transfer with the B.C. Ambulance Service? Specifically, how does
[ Page 12851 ]
it make a determination about whether to use a vehicle or a helicopter or a plane?
I had a question specific to a particular area of our province. I wanted to know what method the B.C. Patient Transfer Network typically uses to transport patients from the Discovery Coast in the Bella Coola and Bella Bella area and why it uses that method.
One last question in regards to that was specifically around how…. I don’t know how to say it any simpler. What do they use to check the weather? I’ll just describe that. Basically, it’s been brought to my attention a few times that in Bella Coola, specifically…. There are sunny skies, blue skies. The scheduled flight is regularly landing and taking off, but the PTN is unable to be deployed because they’ve determined that the weather is too risky. So I had some questions around what they are using, specifically, to check the weather.
I’ve heard stories of physicians on the phone basically begging for a pickup of a patient, one who had a heart attack, but they wouldn’t deploy because their weather-detecting systems detected inclement weather. The physician was there looking up at the sky. It was blue, and a scheduled flight had just landed.
Those are my questions around the Patient Transfer Network. I’m not sure. Does the minister want to answer some of them now?
Hon. T. Lake: We’ll have to have B.C. emergency health services provide written responses through me to the member. I can only speculate that there are different standards for helicopters versus fixed-wing. Of course, there’s not just the weather at the site of the patient pickup. Obviously, the site of the patient arrival comes into play when these situations arise.
We will find answers to those questions and provide them to the member.
J. Rice: I’m going to ask some more questions around travel and transport — the inequity in rural and remote health, or one of the major ones, in my opinion.
In 2014, I asked the minister to adjust the TAP program, the travel assistance program, to alleviate the financial burden for families flying out of remote communities for medical attention. At the time, he said: “We are always reviewing the travel assistance program.”
Can the minister provide me an update on where the TAP review is at? Is the ministry planning on making any adjustments? Will people in communities such as Haida Gwaii and Bella Coola be provided more financial assistance to travel for medical attention?
Hon. T. Lake: The patient travel assistance program is to help access, particularly, specialist services where those are not available in the patient’s local community. While it’s not feasible to cover all medical-related travel costs or all travel needs, they do help provide support to patients that do need to travel for health care. We talked about telehealth and how that’s really cut down on the need to travel as much. Regardless, there are still times when patients do need to travel, particularly to see a specialist, particularly for first-time assessments, whereas you can use telehealth for follow-ups.
The travel assistance program. There are a number of aspects to this. There is a corporate partnership between the Ministry of Health and some private transportation carriers, and it’s coordinated by the Ministry of Health and those partners that agree to waive or discount the regular fees. Participation is voluntary on the part of the private transportation carrier. They are an important part of this program.
Now, the largest partner is B.C. Ferries. I believe we spent about $11.8 million in funding for the travel assistance program, and about 98.5 percent of that was in payment to B.C. Ferries. It’s no surprise, then, that most of the people accessing that part of the travel assistance program come from Vancouver Coastal, Vancouver Island and some parts of Northern Health as well, where they’re using ferries to get to the community where the specialist is located.
We also rely on other partners, air transportation partners, including Central Mountain Air, Harbour Air, Helijet, Hawkair, Orca Airways, Pacific Coastal Airlines and West Coast Air. They will provide a discount available as well.
In more interior communities, what we’ve used is the Health Connections service, which is a partnership between health authorities and B.C. Transit. Collectively, since 2004-2005, Northern Health, Vancouver Coastal Health, Interior Health and Island Health have received $6 million annually to support Health Connections, which are reasonable transportation options. I’m sure the member has seen the large coach that is employed by Northern Health. It comes down to the Lower Mainland to take people to the higher level of care that they need to access there.
The B.C. family residence program is to provide assistance with the costs of accommodation and travel. That’s a subsidy that’s administered through Variety, The Children’s Charity. It’s available to families whose child requires medical care at B.C. Children’s Hospital or Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children.
There are a number of other organizations — the Canadian Cancer Society, Shriners — that also come to the aid of families needing travel assistance.
We have done a review of the travel assistance program, and there are some options that are potentially available. All of them, of course, require increased resources if we were going to build on the travel assistance program, which we tend to overspend in terms of its budget. We look to other parts of the ministry to help
[ Page 12852 ]
with the travel assistance program because we invariably spend about 10 percent more than we allocate for that program in each year.
It does come down to: if we want to increase it, where do we go in the ministry to find that money? Or where do we go in terms of other government services that would free up money to increase the travel assistance program? No decisions have been made around that. This will all be part of our plans going forward, in consultation with our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance and cabinet colleagues, as we look at the priorities across the continuum of services of government.
J. Rice: When was the TAP review conducted?
Hon. T. Lake: The review was conducted in March of this year.
J. Rice: The minister spoke about the TAP program facilitating transportation to specialist programs. Under the TAP program, are psychiatric or mental health supports considered a specialist program that would qualify for a TAP subsidy?
Hon. T. Lake: Yes, psychiatrist appointments would qualify an individual for the TAP program.
J. Rice: A lot of rural communities don’t have access to an actual psychiatrist, so are other types of mental health clinicians or mental health appointments covered under the TAP program?
Hon. T. Lake: Psychiatry is within the top ten of the types of appointments in which patients utilize the travel assistance program, comprising 2.46 percent of all patients.
In terms of other mental health and substance-use supports, if it’s not a…. This program is meant to access specialties so, generally, would not be covered. You know, there are exceptions made from time to time but generally would not be covered. We try to bridge that gap by providing supports either in community or through the use of telemental health, which is, more and more, proving to be very effective at helping people manage some of the mental health challenges that they face — and of course, increased training for general practitioners.
There has been a lot more training for GPs, family practitioners, nurse practitioners in the area of mental health. Of course, the Child and Youth Mental Health Collaborative is another way of connecting people, through various means, to increase their ability to assist patients that have mental health challenges.
J. Rice: On the topic of telehealth, my question is in regards to the rural and remote communities that are seeing increased use of the telehealth services. What supports are in place for facilitating the use of telehealth? I mean specifically around the IT: who’s setting up the systems, and who’s facilitating the appointments? If you could answer that.
Hon. T. Lake: The IT facilities are the responsibility of each of the regional health authorities. When we’re looking at First Nations communities, Health Canada has partnered with Health Infoway for some of the infrastructure that’s necessary for IT.
I know, in my travels around the province, that everywhere I go, almost every hospital and every community health centre have a capacity to undertake telehealth. In fact, there were 125 communities with 260 enabled locations providing over 70 different clinical services in 2015. That is significant, I would say, that we are certainly well connected, far more than we were five years ago.
We also have created telehealth fees in the Medical Services Commission fee schedule so that physicians can bill for telehealth conferences. Of course, it’s one thing having the equipment there, but it’s another to have the incentives that would allow physicians to utilize that equipment.
One other thing I wanted to mention is HealthLink B.C. It is actually the largest telehealth service in British Columbia. It might be considered fairly low tech versus some of the other types of telehealth equipment that’s being used, but HealthLink B.C. handles 1,200 texts and calls daily from patients and families, and it connects them to nurses, dietitians and pharmacists.
There’s no other HealthLink in the country that bundles all of those services of nurses, dietitians and pharmacists under one umbrella. It sometimes gets forgotten because it’s a little bit lower level in terms of the technology involved, but in terms of the impact it has, HealthLink B.C. is extremely important.
J. Rice: The minister is aware…. Well, we’ve had many discussions around elevated lead levels in drinking water in Prince Rupert and other B.C. schools. We know that even slightly elevated levels pose a risk to developing babies, the unborn, and for young children. The younger the child, the higher the risk with even low levels of exposure to lead, leading to lower IQ scores and behavioural disorders — attention deficit disorder, some other social problems.
My question to the minister is: are all B.C. schools testing for lead in their drinking water?
Hon. T. Lake: As the member well knows, the Minister of Education wrote to all health authorities. I don’t want to speak on behalf of the Minister of Education, but I know that that letter was sent. He provided me a copy of that letter. He would be best to answer the question of whether all school divisions are, in fact, testing the water in their schools.
[ Page 12853 ]
The issue of lead in water has been around for quite a while, because before 1989, plumbing fixtures in the building code were able to have at least a small amount of lead in the solder that was used to join the plumbing infrastructure. Of course, older buildings would have had actual lead pipes in them years and years ago.
In the ’90s, this became an issue. The building code was changed in 1989, so there was a lot of talk about it in the ’90s. I think what happened is people probably forgot a lot about the fact that there is still some lead in the solder of the plumbing of older buildings, and people became complacent.
When this was brought to the attention of the health authority and Northern Health, it became, obviously, an issue that we wanted to make school districts, generally, and the public, generally, aware of. If there are buildings that are older than 1989 that serve the public particularly, but even private homes, it’s not a bad idea to test that water. It’s not a bad idea to flush the water, particularly in the mornings, until it runs cold. Often the problem is that the lead, overnight or over a weekend, will settle in the system if it’s not being flushed through.
School districts throughout the province are engaged in testing water and putting in mitigation plans to make sure that lead not a problem. The provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, tells me there’s no evidence that British Columbians are routinely exposed to levels of lead that put their health at risk. In fact, testing over the years has shown that generally British Columbians are not at risk for increased levels of lead, and in fact, levels have been going down steadily over the years.
J. Rice: The minister speaks about the fact that this is not a new issue, that we’ve known about this issue for some time. He talks about the fact that plumbing and plumbing fixtures prior to 1989 had a high likelihood of lead being used in the materials. But he said that people have likely forgotten and been complacent.
I think that’s exactly what’s happened in communities in the northwest, where we live in a temperate coastal rainforest with a low-pH, high-acidic water, meaning that our water is aggressive. That, combined with the fact that we have the oldest housing stock in British Columbia…. The double whammy of those two factors has actually put people at risk and, particularly, vulnerable people such as babies and children.
I introduced a bill recently that would actually deal with the fact that people have forgotten and been complacent. My question would be, to the minister: would he consider mandatory testing and reporting of all B.C. schools for lead in their drinking water?
Hon. T. Lake: Well, I’ve outlined what we have done. The Ministries of Health and Education are working together. On February 24, a letter was sent to all schools reminding them that older buildings should be testing their water. We see that happening around the province. Mitigation plans are put into effect, and testing has shown, at the population level, that British Columbians are not at risk for exposure to lead in drinking water.
But it is a good reminder to not just school districts. It’s a good reminder to all public buildings, all businesses, all private homes that if they were built before 1989, it’s possible that some residual lead occurs when water settles, particularly when the community water source is of a low pH and allows the lead to come out and be incorporated into the water.
There is no plan to have mandatory testing, at least from the Health Ministry’s point of view. We’re satisfied that we see good cooperation between health authorities and school districts to monitor and to mitigate issues around lead.
J. Rice: The minister says that it’s a good reminder that we should be testing and possibly flushing homes and public buildings and other private entities. My question is…. Particularly considering the risk to babies and young children, I want to know what measures public health has taken to inform and to educate pregnant mothers and preschool-age children’s parents that elevated lead levels are experienced in the northwest of British Columbia.
Hon. T. Lake: Northern Health conducts prenatal programs through their public health initiatives, and they have made a point of making sure that prospective parents are thinking about this issue, informing them of their options in terms of obtaining any testing kits. Obviously, this is their own private property, so they have the responsibility to do that testing. The health authority will assist them with any interpretation or planning of mitigation, should that be a problem.
I do want to say, too, that the drinking water officer in each health authority always has the ability, under the Drinking Water Protection Act, if they feel that the right steps are not being taken, to put in orders in terms of school districts. That has not been needed to date. I think that speaks to the cooperation between health authorities and school districts over this issue.
J. Rice: I could go on, on this topic, but in the interests of time, I would like to speak to the child health report that was recently released by Northern Health, the Chief Medical Health Officer’s Health Status Report on Child Health. I have numerous questions on this, but I might have to submit them in writing.
The Northern Health chief medical officer recently released a troubling report about child health in northern British Columbia. It found, among other things, that children in the north are not as healthy as other children
[ Page 12854 ]
in the province. Northern B.C. has higher rates of infant mortality, and northern children have higher rates of poor oral health than children in other communities.
Can the Minister of Health outline any specific programs that have been put in place or will be put in place to address the poor health outcomes of children in northern British Columbia?
Hon. T. Lake: The child health report from Northern Health certainly points to what we have known for some time, and that is that there are determinants of health in areas of the province and areas of Canada where the health outcomes are below those of the rest of the population.
We know that First Nations communities generally have lower health outcomes than non–First Nations communities, and certainly, this report would reflect the higher First Nations population in the north. We know that income and education are two important social determinants of health, and that becomes a factor when we’re looking at child health as well.
In terms of specific programs, we have been focusing and working in partnership with our aboriginal partners on safe sleep programs to ensure that the sleeping arrangements do not put young babies at risk. That’s something that needs to be done in terms of honouring the culture of First Nations and making sure that we work closely in terms of helping moms provide the kinds of supports they want to, to their babies, but at the same time looking at the physiological needs that will keep babies safe when they’re doing that.
Oral health is a big problem in areas where there’s a poor level of income and education. Dental hygiene, of course, is something that is very important in the early years.
Communities, over probably the last 15 years, unfortunately have bought into some really bad information in terms of adding fluoride to water. I know that in my own community of Kamloops we’ve seen a deterioration in childhood oral health because of decisions to remove fluoride from water.
We are looking at targeted fluoride varnishing programs, which will provide the benefit of fluoride without having it in the water. But we’re always encouraging communities to look at the science and look at the overwhelming evidence that fluoride, incorporated into the drinking water, improves oral health, particularly for young children.
There are of course a lot of other initiatives through the office for the early years. We have Baby’s Best Chance. We have public health officials that work with communities and provide education for young moms and for families. But it is an ongoing challenge, for sure.
Northern Health has now hired a lead for child health — I think that’s an important step — someone that has responsibility. They’re beginning a consultation about child health, I believe starting next week, to hear from communities, to look at the supports that are working in communities and supports that may still be required. The report has been well read and well absorbed by Northern Health and by the chief medical health officer, Dr. Sandra Allison. There are a number of initiatives that will be coming out of them.
J. Rice: Thank you for the overview on that. My question is in regards to the infant mortality rate. It’s astonishingly high. It’s 20 percent higher than the provincial average. I’m wondering what Northern Health–specific programs have been brought in to address that and how much is being invested in those programs.
Hon. T. Lake: Some of the programs would be administered by the First Nations Health Authority, so I can’t speak specifically to initiatives that they have on their own.
I did speak to the Honouring Our Babies program, which is a provision of training, through safe sleep cards as a training tool, to help new moms learn the potential dangers of certain behaviours around babies from one month to one year. That’s a partnership between First Nations Health Authority and the Provincial Health Services Authority. It’s about things like sleeping arrangements. It’s things like tobacco smoke around babies. It’s things like breastfeeding. So those programs are in place.
Also, Northern Health Authority does have a nurse-family partnership, attaching public health nurses to families to do intense education with young moms. I don’t have the number of dollars that they spend on that program. I can make further inquiries with Northern Health and provide those details as a follow-up to the member.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
J. Rice: The report outlines that mental health concerns such as depression and anxiety are prevalent in northern B.C. women during pregnancy, but we know that many northern communities have few, if any, mental health services. What is being done to improve the government’s response to the mental health concerns of northern B.C. women?
Hon. T. Lake: I answered this question earlier — it was framed in a very similar way — when we talked about the travel assistance program.
It is difficult to provide the same level of services in a rural area as it is in a metropolitan area. That is not a surprise to anybody. It’s hard to provide the same level of policing services in a rural area as you would have in a metropolitan area. So we try to accommodate the ability to access service in different ways.
We have provided and, through the Doctors of B.C., continue to provide education programs around mental
[ Page 12855 ]
health for family practitioners, for nurse practitioners. We provide telehealth and telemental health to provide those supports in areas where we simply don’t have the same level of expertise that we would have in a more metropolitan area.
J. Rice: One of the concerns raised by the report is the lack of “transportation infrastructure that allows citizens to move freely between communities without undue financial or physical compromise.” We know that this is a significant barrier for many northern women who are pregnant. Their local maternity services have often been removed by this government, and they have to spend significant time outside their communities before giving birth.
While they have access to transportation through Northern Health Connections, depending on their location, their families don’t. They spend, often, a very significant amount of their time, their pregnancy, alone. This doesn’t help…. Well, I mean, telehealth can address this issue, so I guess my question is: what is being done to address the inequities that are caused by local maternity services being removed from rural northern communities?
Hon. T. Lake: Again, to provide services to all areas of the province at the same level is difficult.
What is particularly challenging is to ensure that you have backup when you need it. You can imagine that pregnancy and childbirth is something where you need to have a plan in place in case something goes wrong.
We are addressing rural maternity services in a number of different ways. For instance, Haida Gwaii. The community there came together and, as a community, agreed that they wanted to have a level of child delivery services available. They were able to overcome a lot of the barriers by working together. Midwife services are available for low-risk cases, and the local health care team has made that commitment to on-island births. In fact, they’ve increased the number of births on island to 33 percent.
If something goes wrong, you need a full surgical team. If you’ve got a high-risk pregnancy, you need a full surgical team to perform C-sections, to provide pediatric intensive care if necessary. That is a barrier, when you’re looking at rural areas, if you have a higher-risk pregnancy. Often families have to make the decision that, if it’s a higher-risk pregnancy, they need to travel to another location.
In Northern Health, only 5 percent of women travelled more than two hours for their delivery. So it’s 5 percent, but it’s still…. If you’re one of those moms, one of those families, obviously that is concerning, and it comes at a level of commitment and cost that wouldn’t be there if you were having a low-risk birth or if you were in a larger metropolitan community.
But we are making some advances in midwifery. For instance, midwives deliver about 13 percent of the province’s babies each year. That’s well in excess of the average 2 percent for Canadian deliveries. Last year, there was an 8 percent increase in the number of midwives delivering care, so that is an alternative for rural areas. In fact, the rural midwifery locum program and the midwifery rural practice and support grant that was established in 2012 support midwives to practise in more rural areas.
I mentioned Haida Gwaii. We also have the aboriginal doula program, which is for aboriginal moms to have some supports. The birth doula and postpartum doula services receive funding from this partnership between the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and the First Nations Health Authority, with funding of over $2 million from the Ministry of Health.
There are challenges, as I said. Communities have to come together, including the medical professionals in that community, to make a shared decision on the level of risk that they’re willing to undertake in order to have births in community — always knowing, of course, that for high-risk births it may necessitate travel to a larger centre.
J. Rice: I appreciate the minister’s comments on rural maternity care, so I’ll go into more questions on that topic.
I do think Haida Gwaii is quite the exception. It could possibly be a model for other parts of rural British Columbia. I do think that for a population of 5,000 people to not only have one but now have two employed midwives, that would be deemed quite a success. However, there are a lot of other rural communities in British Columbia that aren’t so lucky to have a midwife, let alone two midwives.
The integrated primary and community care model proposed in the rural health services policy paper envisions clinicians with expanded skill sets helping to increase access to care in rural B.C. This includes family physicians with enhanced surgical skills and advanced obstetrical training. As the minister has just spoken about the C-section backup, sustaining and reinvigorating rural maternity care is linked to access to C-section backup.
My question to the minister is: what work is being done by the government through the General Practice Services Committee to increase the complement of GPs with enhanced surgical skills and advanced obstetrical training?
Hon. T. Lake: I’ve got a host of bits and pieces here that I hope will provide a comprehensive response. One of the initiatives, as we mentioned, coming out of the rural paper, was to work with Doctors of B.C.; the Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues; the Rural Coordination Centre of B.C.; the UBC faculty of medicine and CPD, the continuing professional development department, to better elaborate and support, through training, generalist
[ Page 12856 ]
models of physician practice in rural communities — so to try to reach out and provide more skills.
One of the things that the Rural Coordination Centre of B.C. does is promote closer-to-home continuing professional development. As one can imagine, if you are a physician in a smaller community, access to professional development can be challenging. So for the Rural Coordination Centre, one of their goals is to increase support, including the CARE course and the wilderness medicine course, but also, funding through the Rural Coordination Centre, the UBC Rural CPD travelling courses.
Those include the shock course — managing shock, of course, sometimes related to trauma but other reasons; point-of-care ultrasound; obstetrics; and hands-on ultrasound skills enhancement. They support the annual rural continuing professional development events, such as the Rural Emergency Continuum of Care Conference for rural and regional practitioners.
Some of the initiatives for rural maternity care services and advancing midwifery include enhancing surgical skills for GPs. As of May of 2014, there were an estimated 39 GPs with enhanced surgical skills across rural British Columbia, supported by 86 GP anaesthetists. That is an effort to try to get more GPs to take training.
There’s only one training program for the enhanced surgical skills, at the University of Saskatchewan. Again, it is not easy, because a physician has to take time out and travel to Saskatchewan to do the training to have those enhanced surgical skills. But we also, in the meantime, provide general practitioner locum programs to spell people off so that they can go and do that kind of training.
There are also incentive programs. The member mentioned the General Practice Services Committee, which is a partnership between the Ministry of Health and Doctors of B.C. to encourage physicians to offer maternity services. These incentive programs include the maternity care network payment. That covers the cost of group or network activities for the care of obstetrical patients. Last year 600 doctors participated, costing $4.7 million.
There’s also the general practitioner obstetrical program. This will provide a 50 percent incentive fee on four delivery items. Last year 677 doctors participated, providing maternity care to over 11,000 women in their communities at a cost of just under $3 million.
Finally, the maternity care for B.C. program, which supports physicians to refresh and regain their obstetrical skills and supports additional obstetrical training for graduating family practice residents. Last year nine doctors were approved for funding, with a total program spending of about $21,000. So quite a few programs to incent both enhanced obstetrical skills, enhanced surgical skills, so that those services can be provided closer to home.
I do believe the member said that Haida Gwaii is a great example. I do believe it is a great example, and there are communities there — Burns Lake, for instance, at the new Lakes District Hospital…. I know there’s been talk in the community about looking at what Haida Gwaii has done as a medical community and perhaps replicating it there.
It seems to me that that brand-new hospital and community health centre there would lend itself to that. I’m encouraged that people are thinking about that, because I know the residents of the Lakes District would love to have that service closer to home.
J. Rice: I think I might have caught this answer. I’m sorry if I’m repeating the question, but how many participants in the maternity care for BC initiative practise in rural communities? Did you answer that?
Hon. T. Lake: For the maternity care network payment, there were over 600 doctors, and under the general practitioner obstetrical program, 677 doctors. Maternity care for BC, which is supporting physicians to refresh their obstetrical skills and providing additional obstetrical training for graduating family practice residents — there were nine doctors in that program last year.
J. Rice: Okay, I’ll move on to a different question. The rural health care policy paper admits that there is a need to define the role of the rural physician to identify the distinctive skills rural GPs require to serve smaller remote communities. This definition can help improve recruitment and retention, because it would inform better training that would build confidence and competency and put in place the supports for a rural physician’s ability to fulfil a distinct role in the health care system.
What steps are being taken to fully define the multifaceted role of the rural physician in the integrated primary community care model proposed under the government’s white paper?
Hon. T. Lake: The issue of developing rural generalists for family practice in rural B.C. is something…. I know there are a lot of champions — Dr. Alan Ruddiman, Dr. Granger Avery, to name a couple that I have met with in the not too recent past. We are developing policy with the Faculty of Medicine at UBC, looking at what a curriculum would look like to specifically educate and train rural generalists so that they would have that right mix of medicine, surgery and other skill sets that are required in smaller communities if you’re going to provide services closer to home.
An important part of that is making sure that you have other services available to support those physicians. That means the ability to transfer patients out quickly, should the need arise. It’s looking at using telehealth to support those physicians. I’ve mentioned the experience I had
[ Page 12857 ]
at Kelowna General Hospital with the neurologist communicating with a practitioner in the Kootenays.
We are looking at the establishment of a chair of rural health at UBC to give focus to this initiative. That chair holder will be responsible for providing academic leadership at UBC for rural health care, developing robust research and education programs that focus on the current needs of rural practice, looking at the standard of care we have today — not the same as it used to be 30 years ago. That work is ongoing with the UBC Faculty of Medicine — I think quite an exciting initiative.
I would say that when you have a dedicated champion that’s embedded in the Faculty of Medicine, that’s when you will start to see real changes occur and an excitement build that will attract practitioners to those rural areas. It’s an initiative that we really haven’t sort of talked about publicly yet because we’re doing a lot of policy development around this. But this will be formulated and coalesce into this chair of rural health at UBC.
With that, I would move that we take a short break, if possible.
The Chair: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
S. Hammell: I just have a few questions and have been given a few minutes with you, so I’ll start off. I’m going to be referring to the Alex Malamalatabua case. I’ll just read it. You’ll pick up.
“Parents have to be fierce advocates often and make difficult decisions as part of their efforts to get their children the mental health care they need. In the case of Alex Malamalatabua, his mother made the difficult decision of assigning a voluntary care agreement in hopes of getting her son the mental health services he desperately needed. Then her son tragically died while at a B.C. hospital’s adolescent psychiatric unit.
“The coroner’s investigation into the death uncovered more concerns about the care he was receiving as an in-patient. For example, the coroner discerned that he was cheeking his medication, and the coroner reported that given the concentration that was found in Alex’s blood, compared to the dosage he was prescribed, it was estimated he’d saved up his medications for approximately six weeks prior to his death. It was unknown where the medication was stored or stashed, as Alex’s room had been searched regularly.
“At the conclusion of the report, Coroner Lambert recommended that the Representative for Children and Youth conduct a review. Yet the representative has encountered resistance from the Ministry of Health, as it will not provide her access to the internal review that the PHSA conducted in Alex’s case, due to the B.C. Evidence Act.”
So, Minister, if you can’t provide the representative the information she seeks for this review, will you answer the following question? Has Children’s Hospital made the necessary changes to ensure that what happened with Alex does not happen to another adolescent in-patient?
Hon. T. Lake: This was indeed a tragic event. Any time something like this occurs, we want to learn. This was indeed a tragedy.
When something like this happens, we always want to learn what we can from it, which is one reason we have section 51 of the Evidence Act, which allows a safe environment for care providers, health professionals — whether they’re nurses, pharmacists, physicians or others — to be able to tell the story of what happened with no fear of reprisal whatsoever.
We’ve learned, over the years…. This is not uncommon, to have this provision in legislatures across the country. It’s been there for some time here in B.C., going back decades. Preserving that ability to have a safe environment to tell a story and learn from that is critically important.
The child and youth representative wanted PHSA and Children’s Hospital to do something that they could not do, according to the law, and there’s a reason that it is the way it is. Having said that, we know that there was a full investigation by PHSA and a section 51 investigation.
I should note, too, that the coroner’s report did not make any recommendation for B.C. Children’s Hospital directly. In fact, I believe it said, as the coroner found, that the circumstances of the patient were seemingly stable, and his care plan was progressing to the point where he could return to a non-hospital setting. However, a suitable environment proved difficult to find.
Coming out of this, PHSA has provided a summary of actions that they’re taking as a result of the lessons learned. Those do include reviewing and updating, where needed, policies and procedures on medication administration.
The member mentioned that there was a conclusion drawn that in order to have the levels of medication in this patient’s bloodstream, he may have been cheeking the medication. I’m not sure that we could say for certain that was the case. I’m not privy to the investigation, because it’s covered by section 51, so I don’t get to see all those details.
Having said that, PHSA is reviewing and updating, where needed, policies and procedures on medication administration to make sure that that does not happen in the future, if in fact it happened in this case. Also, return-from-pass checks. When a pass is provided to a patient like this one, that returning and verification of passes is reviewed.
There’s an ongoing dialogue with MCFD on how to effectively meet the needs of young people with highly complex mental health concerns during hospital admission — also looking at the ongoing needs of highly complex youth transitioning to community from hospital.
It is not unusual to have a highly complex patient that’s dealing with mental health issues in hospital, and then finding the right supports in community can be a challenge. It is not an easy transition. We just announced the opening of the HOpe Centre at Lions Gate for concurrent
[ Page 12858 ]
disorders, for young people with comorbidities of mental health and substance use. Again, that’s a hospitalized environment. Then, reaching out into community to provide those community supports is an ongoing challenge — an ongoing dialogue with MCFD on how to provide those for children in care.
PHSA is reviewing policies and procedures related to the provision of passes for all in-patients. Also, any information that has been learned through this process will be shared with other health authorities, particularly related to site safety in regards to construction sites that are in close proximity to hospitals. I am advised, from PHSA, that 50 percent of the recommendations from the review have already been implemented.
S. Hammell: Minister, I’ll take a switch. Thank you for your comments. They were very thorough, and I appreciate that.
I want to just slip to a small discussion around schizophrenia as a particular form of mental illness. I’ve received a letter from someone who I think is fairly well informed. I think you may have received the letter also. It is from Mary-Jo Melnyk. She describes a number of things that I think are well worth reviewing with you. She’s particularly focused on the recovery of people who have schizophrenia. She documents….
It largely comes from a study by Torrey in 2013. She also has one by Liberman and Kopelowicz from earlier — I think 2011. Of a population of 100 people who are experiencing schizophrenia, around 65 to 68 percent of people can and do recover, and that’s the best. There’s still about 32 percent, or about a third, who do not recover and continue to need a high level of support.
In Surviving Schizophrenia, Torrey states that in the schizophrenic population, after 30 years, 25 percent completely recover, 35 percent are much improved and relatively independent, 15 percent are improved but require extensive support, 10 percent are hospitalized and unimproved, and 15 percent are dead, most from suicides.
If you think about this, at least 10 percent of schizophrenics will require a licensed mental health care bed. They are at that end of the spectrum. They haven’t committed suicide. They’re still with us, and they require that kind of care. If we don’t provide that care, they don’t disappear, that 10 percent. They sort of haunt us. I’m using her terminology. It’s absolutely a very well-written letter. They haunt us through addiction, through homelessness, crime and the institutionalized.
In fact, that group of people, that population, is quite detailed in terms of the description. So 6 percent are homeless or live in shelters; 6 percent live in jails or prisons — I’m just talking about one particular mental health issue; 5 to 6 percent live in hospitals; 10 percent live in nursing homes; 20 percent in supervised housing and so on. Some live with family, and some are independent.
My question I’m getting to — excuse the long discussion here — is…. We don’t have the licensed care beds for this population, let alone other populations that need that kind of care. I understand, from the discussion with the critic from New Westminster, that we are looking at adding 280 beds in the next year, and they may be various forms. Does the minister think that, given the actual facts of on the ground, we have enough resources headed for registered or licensed care beds for the mentally ill?
Hon. T. Lake: This is a very challenging area, but I must say I always find the discussion with my critic on this topic enlightening. I appreciate the concern that she has for a very vulnerable population. I would answer the question in a couple of ways.
First of all, I want to point to the early intervention efforts that we have. The early psychosis intervention is a specialized approach that provides services to young people when they are first identified, at the first appearance of psychotic symptoms. I don’t want to pretend that I’m an expert in this, but I am told that the signs of schizophrenia and other mental health challenges often occur in the late teens and early adult years. The identification and intervention early on, obviously, is the very best response if we can identify and get people into those programs.
If we do get early intervention, studies indicate that it reduces the suffering and danger caused by acute psychosis. It results in better short- and long-term symptomatic and functional outcomes, less hospitalization and less use of antipsychotic medications. Obviously, it’s cost-effective and also would provide greater satisfaction for clients and families. Currently there are six full programs, six developing programs and six early-psychosis-intervention-informed programs, where one clinician or a small number of clinicians are attempting to provide services to early psychosis clients.
These are often in rural or remote areas, because they don’t have the same critical mass of health care professionals. They’re trained through the provincial early-psychosis-intervention training program and the EPI community of practice. We did an evaluation in September of this year. It shows that most programs are systematically addressing the important areas covered by the guidelines. That’s getting early.
Now, an important thing, and we’ve had this discussion of it in question period earlier today, is that the family and the patient need to agree to treatment. This is a particular challenge with some forms of mental illness: the person that is affected doesn’t always (a) acknowledge that they have a challenge or (b) accept the help that is offered. I just wanted to say that that is always a challenge when we’re dealing with individuals in this context.
In terms of the number of beds that we have for mental health in the province of B.C., we have a number
[ Page 12859 ]
throughout each health authority. In IHA, there are 99 acute mental health and substance-use beds and 162 tertiary mental health and substance-use beds.
That would be, for instance, the Hillside Psychiatric Centre in Kamloops. I was there recently to celebrate the ten-year anniversary. This is a facility that was part of the reorganization and deinstitutionalization of Riverview so that patients were returned to communities. For patients with the highest needs, purpose-built facilities like Hillside Centre were created for those patients.
Fraser Health Authority has 206 acute beds, 267 tertiary beds; Vancouver Coastal, 215 acute beds and 213 tertiary beds. Island Health has 158 acute beds, 178 tertiary beds. Northern Health, being the smallest health authority, has 65 acute beds, 69 tertiary beds. The Provincial Health Services Authority has 344 tertiary beds. So in total, we have 743 acute beds and 1,233 tertiary beds.
There are plans that in this current year there will be 351 additional beds added. The member is well aware that the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health is being reconstructed in a purpose-built, and with the addition of some space at the Riverview lands alongside the increased programming for transition back into community, with the program that is also, I believe, at Hillside, on the Riverview property as well.
Is that enough beds? It’s a very good question. There’s a lot of debate around the number of beds that are required to support the population. Many of these clients are supported in community through the use of assertive community treatment teams, which is a team of psychiatrists, general practitioners, nurses, counsellors, pharmacists. They’re attached to a cohort of patients.
In many cases, they live well in community with those kinds of supports. But there comes — it may be acute; it may be longer term — when they do need institutionalized care.
I would point to the Joseph and Rosalie Segal centre that is currently being constructed at Vancouver General Hospital. I point to Royal Columbian Hospital, where we are building a brand-new mental health facility that will have the first of its kind for Alzheimer’s and seniors psychiatric issues. I mentioned the Riverview redevelopment project as well. A lot of work is going into these very complex, very challenging cases, both in community and in the form of institutionalized care as well.
S. Hammell: Minister, I don’t for one minute assume that you believe that everyone who needs a bed has a bed. Just going back over the numbers, I don’t think that we reflect anything major that is much different from 6 percent — we’re talking just schizophrenic — of patients live in shelters, 6 percent are in jails, and 5 percent are in hospitals.
I’m just looking at the Fraser Health region. Just looking at that one mental disorder, we would need…. If schizophrenia was 1 percent of the population, that’s 1,700 people, and if 1 percent needed a bed…. Sorry. The population of Fraser Health is 1.7 million. The minimum number of licensed beds needed, according to Torrey, is 850. The maximum would be 1,700. And the licensed beds in Fraser Health…. I’m sorry. I didn’t pick up the number when you were saying so, but my numbers have 647. The minimum shortage sits somewhere between 300 and 1,100 beds just for this one mental health issue.
The Fraser Health Authority is one of the fastest-growing health authorities. Our region does not meet the provincial average in terms of spending on mental health. The average, from what I’ve been able to glean, is about 7 percent overall. I think we had this discussion last year. I use the number 9. I think that was the commission’s recommendation of the amount that should go towards public…. The Mental Health Commission of Canada — that was the amount they thought should go towards mental health. I think that the number I was given last year was quite significant in terms of trying to reach that goal.
However, the Fraser Health Authority spends about 5 percent of its budget on mental health, and it is the fastest-growing region. There does not appear to be a concrete plan that is going to address the mental health issues in the region, let alone around the province.
I just never understood it. In documentation, it has said that the taxpayer spends about $55,000 a year on people who are homeless. And I know, given what I’ve read and the reports, also, from members from the other side, that we spend at least, at the provincial level, $75,000 a year on the homeless. Yet a licensed care bed costs about $36,000. I’ve never quite understood the math, so I don’t understand why we would not be moving resources into some of the cheapest forms of housing and support for people with mental illness.
Even if we leave them homeless…. That is inevitable in some cases, I’m sure, given what the minister said around the fact that you can’t force people into a house. But I cannot believe that we do not have people who need and want to go into supported housing.
So my question to the minister is: given that it is one of the cheapest ways of housing people who are mentally ill, why are we reluctant? Why are we not aggressively looking at this solution?
Hon. T. Lake: A couple of things. First of all, Fraser Health has the greatest number of tertiary care beds after the PHSA, and they are increasing their budget for mental health and substance use by about 4 percent, which is a higher rate of growth than other areas of its budget.
I would like to remind the member that there are hundreds of people with mental health and substance-use issues that are being housed by the province of British Columbia through social housing, which is supported through the assertive community treatment
[ Page 12860 ]
teams, through outreach and sometimes intensive case management.
Apart from the beds that I mentioned here — both the acute and the tertiary — if you look at supportive housing and the supports that are in place, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that are being supported. I have visited people in their supported housing with the members of the ACT team and visited with them and talked to them about the care they’re getting.
While the member might say that we’re ignoring a better way, a more efficient way, of looking after people, I think she is overlooking the supported housing that we do provide with those mental health and substance-use supports in place for them in community.
You cannot force people to take care. You simply cannot. There are people — and I talk to people in my home community — that are living on the street that do not want to live any other way. They may have mental health challenges; they may not. That may be a choice they make. I learned that early in my political career, when I wanted to find what seemed like a simple solution to this very complex societal problem. I soon learned that you can’t force people to do something if they don’t want to accept the help. You have to be there with supports when they’re ready for that help.
But if there was, as the member is suggesting, just a simple way to spend $35,000 per person a year to solve this problem, someone would have solved it by now. You can go to Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and you will find very, very similar challenges.
In the United States, you will find very, very similar challenges. I would argue that in the United States, many more of those patients are in the prison system. I think that in Canada, there are some that end up in the criminal justice system, no doubt, but not to the extent that we see in the United States.
We have this discussion every year. It’s not a way for me to say there’s nothing we can do. We have increased our supports. We have ACT teams all over the province now. We’ve gone from about five to 35. We’ve got Car 40–type programs, Car 87–type programs all over the province. I mentioned the capital plan, where we are increasing the number of spaces available for institutionalized care, either short term or longer term.
We have a cabinet working group on mental health that is working hard on all these issues. I would caution the member that it is not simply a matter of offering $37,000 worth of services and people will necessarily accept that and agree to have that kind of support. It simply is not that simple.
S. Hammell: I do acknowledge that it is a complex problem. I mean, we do see how complex it is, given that we have numbers of people on the streets and in the penal system.
I’d just like to do a quick switch. I have been supported by my colleague here in allowing a few questions. I’d like to switch to opioids. We all are very aware of how dangerous it is out there in terms of the illegal drug trade. We all acknowledge that there’s been a huge spike in deaths and overdoses. The government has done some great work around making sure that we have some naloxone there for people if they need it.
In the document Together, We Can Do This, they also focused on two other areas that I think are quite critical. One is the use of PharmaNet and how it can be brought into play with this problem. I gather we have about 30 percent of physicians who are using it, and we need to increase those numbers. As well, we need to develop some long-term strategies around the actual prescriptions of legalized painkillers — the legal opioids, as they’re prescribed.
I understand the provincial health officer’s move. I’m now asking the minister exactly what is going on in terms of ensuring that you use your same prescription method as you have for other drugs that need duplicate. What are we doing around PharmaCare to ensure that physicians can see if someone else has in fact prescribed opioids to this person, and what are we doing around the education of physicians on appropriate prescribing of opioids?
Hon. T. Lake: The issue of opioid overdoses is one that has reached the level of criticality that initiated our medical health officer, Dr. Kendall, to declare a state of public health emergency. The member recognized the actions that have been taken to try to reduce the number of overdoses. But the question is: how do we prevent people from abusing opioids in the first instance?
Now, not all those that are in the grip of opioid abuse started off with prescription opioids. There are a number of people that take illicit drugs, and they may never have been prescribed opioids. They choose to engage in illicit drug consumption. Many of them are normal people, everyday people, and you would never know that. For about 15 to 20 percent of people that engage in drug consumption, we know that real addiction problems can occur.
We are doing a number of different things. The member mentioned PharmaNet. PharmaNet is a great tool to see what kind of medications are being prescribed, by whom and where. About 25 to 30 percent of physicians are currently using the PharmaNet program. We are in discussions with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to look at a discussion with doctors around the mandatory use of PharmaNet, which would, essentially, help to eliminate the phenomenon known as doctor shopping, where someone will get multiple prescriptions for an opioid. Despite having the duplicate prescription program, it still becomes possible for people to get around that system.
[ Page 12861 ]
Now, Dr. Evan Wood and his team. Dr. Evan Wood is one of North America’s leading researchers in drug policy and drug treatment and addictions research. We’ve supported his efforts through the network of excellence for substance use and associated harms, but he also takes part in what’s called the B.C. node of the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse.
Dr. Wood and that group released a report in November of the past year, and I was able to read it and meet with Dr. Wood to discuss it. It had recommendations for policy and clinical practice, including the use of PharmaNet, that could help reduce problematic prescribing practices, things like the co-use of things like opioids and benzodiazepines, the valium-like drugs, and perhaps needing to have the same level of care of access to diazepam and other benzodiazepines as opioids. That is something that we are currently discussing. I know that Vancouver Coastal, as a health authority, has adopted many of the recommendations of the report, and other health authorities are looking at it as well.
The College of Pharmacists is another important partner for us. We have provided $20,000 to the College of Pharmacists to prepare educational materials and train B.C. pharmacists how to dispense the drug that can save lives, naloxone. At last count, I think we have 20 first-responder agencies throughout the province that are taking the training to be able to administer naloxone on scene when opioid overdose is suspected.
We need to get at it from a number of different angles. Prescribing practices is one, and we’re looking very closely and working with the college and with health authorities on that. The harm reduction, in terms of getting take-home naloxone kits… Education, tracking of data out there, as much as possible….
Then, of course, there is the criminal side of things, which I can’t speak to, but of course, we know a lot of this material is coming in through ordering on the Internet from drug labs in China. For that, of course, we need to talk to our federal counterparts and work with our counterparts — the Minister of Public Safety and the Solicitor General.
S. Robinson: I have a number of questions related to seniors issues, but before I get into that, I do have one from a constituent of mine that’s a more general medical question. I recognize that the minister may not have the staff available to answer this particular question, but if he could just listen to the question and get back to me if he needs to, that would certainly be acceptable. I did want to get it into the record.
This question concerns funding for a specialized surgery called deep brain stimulation. The surgery results in a remarkable improvement in overall health and quality of life for patients with Parkinson’s disease and essential tremors. A constituent of mine who suffers from essential tremors has waited over two years to see a specialist and is now told he must wait at least another 17 months to get the surgery he desperately needs.
There is, apparently, only one surgeon in the entire province, a Dr. Honey, who can perform this surgery. My constituent is on the waiting list, which is quite significant and is growing every day. Recently my constituent was informed that a meeting was held recently to advise the Minister of Health of this unacceptable situation. Apparently, there was a request for additional funding so more surgeons could be hired to perform the surgery.
The question I have, on behalf of my constituent, is: will increased funding be provided any time soon in order to reduce this several years’ long wait-list for this essential surgery?
Hon. T. Lake: I did meet with the good people at the Parkinson’s association. Sorry, I can’t remember if it’s a society or association. I’m going to get in trouble for that, because a good friend of mine is part of the organization.
I just met with him recently on a number of issues. The deep brain stimulation discussion did not come up. I will have to get that back and provide it in writing to you.
S. Robinson: I appreciate that. I expected as much. I look forward to receiving the minister’s information about this particular kind of surgery.
Moving along, I just have some questions related more to seniors. One of them has to do with doctors’ fees. I’m sure the minister is well aware that filling out forms for government requests, like DriveABLE…. There are certainly some stories of seniors who have paid nothing to get these forms filled out and other seniors who have to pay sometimes up to $300 for what many consider, perhaps, a simple medical form.
Does the minister have any plans to address the financial challenges that seniors on fixed incomes might have when it comes to receiving the medical clearance for their driver’s licence?
Hon. T. Lake: The Medical Services Plan pays for medically required physicians only in accordance with the Canada Health Act. Services outside of that are at the discretion of the physician. There is a recommended fee that the Doctors of B.C. provide to their members, but it is up to the physician to make a decision whether or not to charge that fee or charge more than that fee or charge no fee at all.
I know there is a wide range out there. I’ve talked to the president of the Doctors of B.C. about this. He acknowledges that there is a wide range of approaches. He also told me that it’s important to understand that this is not a simple filling out of a form.
First of all, you need to look at the physical and cognitive abilities of the patient to determine whether or not
[ Page 12862 ]
they pose a danger to themselves or others on the road, and that includes administration of a standardized mini-mental exam. They don’t take it lightly. I think physicians truly understand the relationship that an individual has to the driver’s licence as a means of independence.
I just talked to my dad on the weekend, who is 84. He just gave up his driver’s licence. He hadn’t driven for quite a while and handed it in to get the new, comprehensive BCID.
I know it’s a concern for seniors. It is a cost. But it is something that does not fall within the medically necessary description of the Medical Services Plan. If someone feels they are being charged an abnormally high fee, they certainly can complain to the Doctors of B.C. and in fact, I suspect, can make that complaint to the College of Physicians, although probably the Doctors of B.C. would be the organization that would have most influence over that, as they set the recommended fee guide.
[R. Lee in the chair.]
I know our seniors advocate is looking at the issues that face seniors in B.C. I’m struggling to remember if this was addressed in one of her reports or if she alluded to the fact that she may look at it in the future. I think that may be the case. We’ll look forward to the work of the seniors advocate on this.
As with every other thing that we look at adding in terms of being covered by the public purse, it means there’s something else that we cannot cover or need to find the resources somewhere else. We recognize that for some seniors, this is a barrier. But I do want to acknowledge that this is not a simple filling out of a form. It is truly a skill that involves both a physical and mental assessment of a patient.
S. Robinson: While I do appreciate that, yes, it is more than simply filling out a form, it certainly becomes a barrier for a certain segment. In fact, the seniors advocate noted that 25 percent of seniors live on a very limited income. If a motor vehicle is their only line of independence, particularly in our rural communities, then it certainly could become a health concern and in fact cost us more if they can’t afford to renew their licence and then become isolated or people aren’t able to check up on them. I think that we need to be more mindful that it’s not just about dependence or independence; it actually is part of keeping them well.
I’d like to change tracks and ask some questions about Better at Home. I know that this is a relatively new program. If the minister could just perhaps describe how much…. I know that United Way is managing this program. If the minister can tell us how much United Way absorbs of the funding in order to oversee the program. There are certainly some administrative costs, so I’m very interested in finding out exactly what goes into direct service.
If the minister can share some of those details with us, I’d be very appreciative.
Hon. T. Lake: The Better at Home program. The concept is to provide services for seniors in their home that they are challenged to carry out. It may be minor maintenance. It may be lawn maintenance.
The city of Calgary, actually, has pioneered this. They have done, I think, an excellent job on a municipal government level of providing those services. We met with them in Kamloops, because the Centre for Seniors Information was embarking on this program before Better at Home was even started.
The benefits are…. It helps keep seniors in their home longer. The seniors report indicated 80 percent of seniors actually own their own homes, if I remember that correctly, which is a very good statistic, but then you want to keep them in their homes. Obviously, if it becomes difficult for them to do all these sorts of maintenance issues, then they will need to move into either assisted living or sometimes residential care.
The United Way of the Lower Mainland carries out this program for us, manages it around the province. So far, we’ve invested $26 million, and we are investing more as we go to keep the program going. It helps 67 individual program sites around B.C., including six rural and remote pilot project sites. Many individual program sites serve multiple communities, so some smaller communities around cities may be served by the program in the city.
We are embarking on a couple of things. I had a meeting with the United Way of the Lower Mainland just recently, as the seniors advocate had expressed a concern in terms of the administrative costs of the program versus the actual services that were being delivered. We are doing a couple of things. The seniors advocate is conducting a review with a focus on housekeeping. That review is coming up on the OSA report on home and community care, which is coming soon.
We are also partnering with the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research on a long-term outcome study of Better at Home. The idea is that it increases quality of life and preserves people in their home rather than ending up in acute or residential care. That long-term review by Michael Smith is expected in August of 2017. That will look at the outcomes.
The value-for-money review. The seniors advocate is going to do a look at that in relation to housekeeping. We in the ministry, after my discussions with the United Way, are doing some of that work as well. We’re trying to make sure that we’re comparing apples to apples. There are a number of layers involved, and we want to make sure that blanket statements are avoided while we look
[ Page 12863 ]
further into the administrative costs and find out how much actual service delivery is being achieved for the amount of money that’s being put in.
We’re looking at outcomes, and the advocate is looking at value for money in terms of housekeeping. The ministry is doing some work now as a prelude to an overall value-for-money review.
S. Robinson: Well, I thought I asked some very specific questions. I got a whole program overview, which is fine, but I have the program overview. I don’t necessarily need that when I ask very specific questions.
What I’m interested in is: what’s the permitted overhead for the United Way when receiving this money? If the minister has a response, that would be very helpful.
Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, we are in the middle of doing some work on analysis of this at the moment. Preliminary analysis shows that 13.5 percent administration is the number that we have been able to analyze to date. We will be discussing this more with the seniors advocate and with the United Way of the Lower Mainland — 13.5 percent over the first $7.5 million of funding, I believe, if I’m reading this correctly.
S. Robinson: I really appreciated the answer to the question. That’s very, very helpful.
I understand, in the model, United Way then disseminates resources to other service delivery community programs. They’re most likely not-for-profits. What’s their allocated overhead as part of the cost of managing the program?
Hon. T. Lake: Well, the money is given to the United Way of the Lower Mainland, and they manage the delivery through various partners, some of whom would be non-profits. We do not put in our funding a maximum percentage that administration is limited to.
I’ll just correct that. The agencies are allowed to charge up to 10 percent of the amount received as a line item for administrative expenses. The balance is spent on the program costs.
Again, I think it’s important that we compare apples to apples, which is what we are in the middle of doing as we examine this with the United Way. They have been very cooperative with us. We want to make sure that the seniors advocate, the ministry and the United Way are all working with the same information. So that’s what we’re in the middle of doing.
S. Robinson: So it’s 13½ percent off the top for United Way. There are costs to administering these funds. Then administering the actual service delivery to the local service providers is a further 10 percent. That’s very helpful information. I thank the minister for that.
I’m just going to move along, only because I’m aware of the time. I have some limited time, so I want to make sure I get to some other questions.
I’m going to be referring to the update on status of recommendations from the Ombudsperson’s report. The first recommendation was that “the Ministry of Health report publicly on an annual basis in a way that is clear and accessible.”
There are a number of points here. I’m just going to read them into the record. If the minister can just let me know what the progress is to date, that would be helpful. “The funding allocated to home and community services by each health authority, the funds expended on home and community care services in each health authority, the planned results for home and community care services in each health authority, the actual results delivered by home and community care services, an explanation of any differences between the planned results and the actual results.”
My understanding is that the ministry accepted the recommendation, but as of April 2015, there’d been no specific action taken towards this. I would be interested to hear what has transpired over this last year.
Hon. T. Lake: The Ombudsperson’s report and our response. We have just submitted a response, so I’m reading it in real time, almost. The health authorities, of course, are responsible for delivering programs and take direction based on the priorities of the Ministry of Health that are identified in conjunction with the health authorities.
We meet with them regularly and look for detailed working plans that will tell the ministry how they’re going to implement those priority directions. One of the issues in the past has been the tracking of information, so we’re working hard with health authorities to improve the type of data we collect, particularly around accuracy and timeliness.
The Ministry of Health and the health authorities have resolved issues with implementation of the home and community care minimum reporting requirements, with all health authorities submitting the required data, which has enabled improved reporting to strengthen monitoring of services. As of last year, 2014-15, health authorities have been required to submit complete and timely home care reporting system and continuing-care reporting system data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.
Also, through the office of the seniors advocate, they’ve recently created a new position — director, systemic review monitoring — to track progress against recommendations stemming from OSA, office of the seniors advocate, reports.
A big part of the difficulty in reporting results versus actuals has been the collection and analysis of data, because it wasn’t standardized across health authorities.
[ Page 12864 ]
With this implementation now, we will have standardized reporting, which will give us a much better ability to compare what health authorities are doing, tracking against what the priorities of the Ministry of Health are.
S. Robinson: The second bullet, which is the funds expended on home and community care services in each health authority. I would imagine that that would be simpler, given that you’re not actually tracking specific outcome data. You’re just tracking money. Is that, as well, going to be reported?
Hon. T. Lake: Each health authority reports that on their website.
S. Robinson: Recommendation 9, the recommendation from the Ombudsperson, from back in 2012, was that the Ministry of Health work with the health authorities and other stakeholders to develop a program to ensure that all seniors and their families are informed of the availability of home and community care services and that all seniors and their families are informed that they can meet with health authority staff to determine what supports are available to them.
Now, I do understand that there’s been an upgraded B.C. seniors guide. It’s flying off the shelves out of my office. There’s a really high demand, which is, I think, really good. I think it’s a good program. But we all know that there are still many people who are unaware of the resources.
I want to know if the Ministry of Health has considered other ways, other than pushing out this book into as many seniors centres as possible. Oftentimes with seniors, they’re isolated, so we have, certainly, isolated seniors who need this information the most, who will have the least access. So what other strategies is the Ministry of Health using?
Hon. T. Lake: I’m glad the member mentioned the seniors guide. It is extremely popular. I know all MLA offices will utilize that, and we often will take it to seniors centres to make sure that it does get distributed.
The new edition of that has gone out, and also, in April of 2015, the SeniorsBC website was updated and the “Home and community care” website was updated to inform seniors and their families about home and community care services. Utilizing that avenue, many, many seniors — again, I hate to use my dad; he’s going to think he’s the poster child for seniors in the province — use their computer extensively. Having a readable website with all of those available services is extremely important, so both the SeniorsBC website and “Home and community care” website have been updated.
Of course, the seniors advocate…. Again, a big part of what the office of the seniors advocate does is help to inform people of the services available to seniors.
S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate all that work in trying to get that information out. But the seniors advocate has also noted that a fair number of seniors still don’t know a lot about entitlements and opportunities that would make their lives a little bit easier. I want to know if the Ministry of Health has considered using some of the other resources that are available.
Whether it’s the tax system, when we know what people’s ages are and when they should at least know what information’s available…. I’m thinking about when people get their property tax assessment and they submit…. I don’t know if the systems could communicate. People like to declare that they’re a senior if it’s going to get them a deal. We know that there are certainly opportunities there to connect, using different systems, so that they have access and know that there is a resource available for them. I want to know if the Ministry of Health has considered using that as a tool.
Hon. T. Lake: There have been some discussions of that. As some members in this House have noted, there is government advertising that goes on to inform people of the services that are available to them. Some people in this House don’t agree with that approach of informing people what government services are available, but we think it’s a good idea.
We don’t, apart from that sort of mass messaging…. The targeted messaging the member talks about is something that has actually been discussed. We haven’t landed — or agreed, I guess — on the best approach to that or what that would cost. It’s something that has been discussed, so I won’t rule it out for the future, but we currently don’t have that kind of targeted “Welcome to the golden years on your birthday” along with the other mail that you might receive.
I did want to mention…. I don’t want to miss the opportunity to talk about community paramedicine. This will enable many seniors in rural areas and small communities that do suffer from social isolation to have a point of contact with the health care system. Paramedics going into seniors homes will be able to provide this kind of information — again, one of the advantages, I think, and one of the positive outcomes that we will see as we roll out the community paramedicine program.
S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear that there’s been some consideration of targeting information to seniors. That’s good to know. I hope that there is a way to land on something that would be useful.
In the same Ombudsperson’s report, their recommendation 15 is that the Ministry of Health take the steps necessary to ensure that patient care quality offices can respond to a broader range of complaints, including complaints from resident and family councils.
Certainly, over the years, there has been some action, but there’s not some clear commitment to actually do this.
[ Page 12865 ]
I would like to hear from the minister what the plan is going forward.
Hon. T. Lake: We have confirmed that resident and family councils can make a care quality complaint on the behalf of an individual to whom health care or service relating to health care has been delivered or who had expected care that was not delivered. But general concerns that do not pertain to an individual’s care fall outside the scope and intent of the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. When there is an issue of care, or perceived care that was not delivered, that falls within the purview of the patient care quality review, so resident and family councils can make complaints.
I would note that in our Community Care and Assisted Living Act amendments, we made it possible for medical health offices, for instance, to be able to report concerns to other relevant areas of the health authority, in the situation in seniors residential settings as well.
We are trying to…. We feel that we have met the intent of this recommendation.
S. Robinson: The next recommendation in this report was that the Ministry of Health provide specific direction to patient quality care offices on the steps they should follow in processing care quality complaints. They note that this wasn’t identified, necessarily, as a priority item, certainly for the ministry.
If you can let us know if it’s a priority now or if this is something that is just not going to be addressed.
Hon. T. Lake: I consider it addressed. Family councils can take an issue of care to the patient care quality review office.
S. Robinson: That’s fair enough. Just going through this report, there is certainly…. I think 148. I’m not going to go through all 148. I don’t quite have enough time, so I’m going to be picking and choosing as I make my way through this.
I wanted to hear from the minister about 35. This one is the Minister of Health “work with the health authorities to develop a consistent provincewide process for determining adequate time allotments for home support activities.” As of April 2015, the report notes that no specific action has been taken towards implementation.
Hon. T. Lake: I want to go back, if I may, because I think I misunderstood the member’s last question around patient care quality review boards. I just want to make sure I get that correct.
It was recommendation 16: “The Ministry of Health provide specific direction to the patient care quality offices on the steps they should follow in processing care quality complaints.” I apologize to the member.
That recommendation will be addressed in an updated version of the patient care quality review board ministerial directive. Consultation and planning phases of this project are complete. There has been extensive consultation with health authorities on this. So there will be more work that is being done on that.
Now, on the last one, which was 35. This is: “The Ministry of Health work with the health authorities to develop a consistent provincewide process for determining adequate time allotments for home support activities.” The office of the seniors advocate is doing some work on this, and it is in year 3 of our ministry workplan. While we haven’t addressed that yet…. We’re waiting for the work from the seniors advocate, and then that is part of our workplan for this year.
S. Robinson: I’m just trying to understand the relationship, then, with the seniors advocate. I know it’s not an independent office, that the seniors advocate reports to the minister. Was this work directed to the seniors advocate? Or was this that the office decided to take this on, the ministry’s going to wait to see the results, and then from there, based on those results, make a plan, moving forward?
Hon. T. Lake: Anyone who knows our seniors advocate would not call her anything but independent. Do I tell her what to do? No, I sure don’t. She gives me a lot of advice. That’s for sure.
No, it was on our year 3 workplan, but she has initiated her own work. It just makes sense for us to not put the cart before the horse, see the information that she develops through her office. We’ll use that to inform the work that we’re doing.
I just want to reiterate that the office of the seniors advocate…. I don’t create a workplan for her office. The office, the seniors advocate, determines what needs to be done and does it and reports to me in the way that she reports to the rest of the public. I don’t get to sort of tell her: “This report is no good” or “That report is no good” or “Take that one back.” She delivers them, and I see them almost at the same time that everyone else does. Many of the recommendations that the office comes up with are ones that the ministry does implement and certainly takes very seriously.
S. Robinson: Moving along to recommendation 36, the next one. I don’t know if this is going to be part of what the seniors advocate does. “The Ministry of Health set a time frame within which eligible seniors are to receive subsidized home support services after assessment.” Where is the ministry on this?
Hon. T. Lake: Again, some of this will be informed by the seniors advocate’s work, but that is in year 4 of our workplan, so it would come next year.
[ Page 12866 ]
S. Robinson: It’s nice to know that some of this work is going to be happening. I look forward to understanding exactly what the time frame will be for these seniors.
In recommendation 38: “The Ministry of Health report annually to the public on the average and maximum times that eligible seniors wait to receive subsidized home support services after assessment.”
My understanding is that when this came out in 2012, it was in the seniors action plan. The ministry committed to providing more on-line information. In 2013, that didn’t happen. In 2014, health authorities were now reporting data to the ministry, but at the time, specific measures for public and internal reporting had yet to be determined. As of last year, there wasn’t any action on this. If the minister can just let us know where we’re at.
Hon. T. Lake: Well, it’s related to the earlier question around data collection. We’ve identified that there has been a lack of consistency in the type of data and the way data is reported from health authorities. It will vary from one health authority to another, so it makes it difficult to compare one with the other and difficult for the public to get a sense of what they can expect.
I mentioned that we’re working with health authorities to continue to improve the type of data collected, particularly accuracy and timeliness. I mentioned the home and community care minimum reporting requirements. That now has been resolved — with the implementation of that. Health authorities are now required to submit and complete timely home care reporting system and continuing-care reporting system data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information so that not only will we be able to compare across health authorities but also standardize with information that’s provided across Canada.
S. Robinson: I do appreciate that, working with these different health authorities, there might be different ways of measuring. It’s unfortunate. I would have thought that they would have been standardized right across the board, that that would have been a requirement. I’m pleased to hear that there is a requirement, that there is some recognition that it makes it very difficult to manage the most important, the biggest budget in the province when you can’t really compare what’s going on between these different organizations.
Perhaps I can ask a more specific question about wait times. I’m interested particularly in Fraser Health, mostly because that’s who I represent. It’s also the largest. Perhaps the minister can share with us the wait times for home support in Fraser Health.
Hon. T. Lake: Just generally, on the issue of variances among health authorities, one of the strengths of a regional health authority system is that each health authority has a different population that they serve. One is quite different than the other. We encourage, actually, different approaches to meeting those needs.
You would think there should be a standardized way of doing everything across the province. But in fact, when you do that, you are saying that everyone across the province is the same, and you don’t recognize the regional differences that can occur. Northern Health is quite different than Vancouver Coastal, for instance. You can get innovation in one health authority that is non-standard, if you like, and then that may be adopted by other health authorities. That’s another strength — the ability to innovate and not sort of just do things the way everyone else does.
The weakness is what the member is referring to. That’s the ability to compare one versus the other and know if one level of service is greater in one health authority versus another. There are pros and cons, certainly, to the regional health authority system overall. I would say that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.
Average wait time in days for home health services over the last number of years. In Fraser Health, currently the average wait time is 68.9 days for adult day services, 11.4 days for community rehabilitation services, 3.4 days for home nursing services, 1.7 days for home support services, 24.1 days for case management services and 9.7 days for clinical social work services.
S. Robinson: I’m going to move along to 42. I don’t think I did 42. “The Ministry of Health exercise its power under section 4(4) of the Continuing Care Act to establish clear, specific and enforceable quality of care standards for home support services, including the type and level of care to be provided, minimum qualifications and training for staff, complaints process and procedures for reportable incidents.”
Where is the ministry on this one?
Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure if the member is doing this on purpose or not — probably not — picking all the ones that are on years 3 and 4 of our work plan. This is, again, one that falls under year 3.
S. Robinson: Just when I’m here, I’m thinking that. Really, what’s happening here? [Laughter.] It’s going to be a busy year, I suspect, for the minister and his staff.
Let’s try this one. Let’s go to 96. “The Ministry of Health ensure that harmonizing the residential care regulatory framework does not result in any reduction of benefits and services for residents in any residential care facility.” Perhaps this is work that got undertaken in the last couple of years, or is it really going to be a really crazy year, next year, for the minister and staff?
Hon. T. Lake: This relates to the fact that some of our residential care facilities are under the Hospital
[ Page 12867 ]
Act, where others are under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Because they are different acts, sometimes there will be benefits. For instance, over-the-counter medication is provided free of charge under the Hospital Act. Yet in a similar kind of residential care facility that falls under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, those over-the-counter medications would not be paid for.
As a result of the passage to the amendments to the CCALA that we passed this session, and the consultation work that will be done over the next year, this issue will be addressed. It will be challenging, however, and my staff have cautioned me that this is going to be a challenge to meet that and bring everyone under the same regulatory regime.
S. Robinson: I appreciate the time and the effort that staff have made to answer my questions. I have about 60 more, but I don’t have enough time.
I’m just going to end with this one. That’s recommendation 113 — that the Ministry of Health report publicly every year on the length of time and the extra costs that result from keeping seniors who require residential care in acute care hospital beds.
It would be really helpful, I think, for the public to understand what the costs are for keeping seniors in the acute care system when we don’t have sufficient residential care beds and what the minister is doing to keep us informed.
Hon. T. Lake: A model for public performance reporting is under development for the overall strategy, and of course, the office of the seniors advocate does monitor and analyze seniors services and issues. She may take part in that work.
The member, of course, is alluding to the fact that there may be people sitting in what we call alternate level of care beds in an acute setting rather than in a more appropriate setting in community. We’ve seen Fraser Health make some real changes in this area with the closing of 80 ALC beds and the opening of 400 beds in community. That is a real savings and better care for seniors.
I think Fraser Health is demonstrating the way forward in that, and we will be developing metrics to look at that across the province.
J. Darcy: I’d like to take the opportunity to thank the minister and his staff. I know it has been a gruelling five days, but we have certainly appreciated the opportunity to canvass a wide, wide array of issues affecting health care.
I thank the minister and thank his staff very much. I know that they put in an awful lot of work to be ready for this and to be on call, wherever it is we may take our questions. Thank you so much.
Hon. T. Lake: I just want to say thank you to the members opposite for their very informed questions. Obviously, they went to a lot of work to analyze these issues that are very important to the people of British Columbia. It’s one strength of our parliamentary system that they get to pick apart the budget — and sometimes stray into the policy areas as well.
I want to thank my staff, who have done such a tremendous job. There are a few behind me here, but there are many more in the office behind me, many more in my ministry office and many more in offices around the province. They have been putting a lot of work into providing this information, and I am so thankful that we are nearing its end.
Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,820,706,000 — approved.
Hon. T. Lake: I move that the committee rise, report estimates for the Ministry of Health complete and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. T. Lake 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 6:22 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Plecas in the chair.
[ Page 12868 ]
The committee met at 2:47 p.m.
On Vote 37: ministry operations, $24,218,000 (continued).
M. Mark: This is my first estimates debate in my role as the deputy spokesperson for Housing. I’m looking forward to having a great exchange with the minister about matters of the heart and issues that are important to my constituents and those throughout the province.
I’d like to thank the minister and his staff in advance for canvassing my questions and all the information that you’ll be bringing forward.
I’ll start with an easy one, just because it’s right in the heart of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Can I ask the minister to please tell me the total value of the sale for Stamps Place?
Hon. R. Coleman: It’s $66.7 million.
M. Mark: With respect to Stamps Place, I understand through Hansard records that the ongoing maintenance is negotiated between the non-profit and B.C. Housing.
Now that the New Chelsea has taken over, as of April 1 of this year, can the minister please elaborate on the final figure that was negotiated for maintenance?
Hon. R. Coleman: The actual budget is done on an annual basis, based on rent-geared-to-income. Basically, what that means is, depending on the mix of tenant, the amount of money they’re paying in rent is 30 percent of their income. The difference is made up in the operating budget, which includes everything from property taxes to maintenance to a capital reserve for future maintenance and more expensive items that would come along.
It’s the same as with any other non-profit or any other…. It’s the same type of budgeting that goes on whether it’s owned by B.C. Housing or a non-profit. It’s within that. The actual annual subsidy is in place for everybody on rent geared to income that’s there now, and that will continue.
M. Mark: I’m going to move onto Residential Tenancy Act questions for the minister.
The decision to double Residential Tenancy Act fees was made on December 17, 2015, by an order-in-council. The fee increase took effect January 8, 2016, 13 business days later.
I have a number of questions — six in total. I’ll begin. Was a press release issued to announce the change? If so, can the minister provide a copy? Why did cabinet decide to make the increase effective on January 8 versus at the beginning of the next fiscal year?
Hon. R. Coleman: There was an info bulletin issued, not a press release, after the order-in-council that was done. Orders-in-council usually become public within two or three days of being approved by cabinet and signed off by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
We wanted to be able to move quickly on it. We basically moved right away once we had that in order to be able to hire additional arbitrators to additional staff. We were working on the calendar year versus the fiscal year in that regard. This was to allow us to move to bring in some additional arbitrators.
Just for the member’s knowledge…. I don’t know. It may be one of her follow-up questions. A little over 20 percent of the application fees are waived with regards to disputes with residential tenancy, based on need.
M. Mark: Can the minister please advise what stakeholder engagement was undertaken prior to increasing the fees?
Hon. R. Coleman: The branch meets with stakeholder groups quarterly. They were advised in advance. That’s both the tenants and landlord groups that they meet with quarterly, relative to the stakeholders in residential tenancy.
These fees haven’t changed since 1998, but the dispute resolution costs and volumes continue to increase. Basically, we had a 6.5 percent increase from 2014 over to 2015 with regard to our applications at residential tenancy. It was basically fiscal plus the ability to hire the additional staff that it was felt they needed to continue to improve the efficiencies and the outcomes at RTB.
M. Mark: Can the minister tell me how much the ministry has collected from the residential tenancy branch fees since the increase took effect on January 8?
Hon. R. Coleman: The revenue collected between January 1 and April 1 is $195,000. It’s projected to collect about $900,000 in this fiscal year.
M. Mark: You answered No. 4 of my questions. Thank you. Is there any way the minister can please provide the actual fees for fiscal years 2014-15 and 2013-2014?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, the actual for ’14-15 was $888,000. It was forecasted to be about $1.95 million in 2015-16, but we don’t have the final numbers in because the fiscal year has just passed. It’s projected to go to $1.69 million in 2016-2017.
M. Mark: Great. The minister had given a clue earlier that some of these fees are going towards arbiters and staff. Can the minister please provide a breakdown of how the residential tenancy fees have been spent since fees were doubled, and can he provide a breakdown of future spending for these funds?
Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I’ll give a more wholesome answer to this, just to walk it through so that it can all be contextualized.
The budget lift for next year is $585,000. It will be used to do a couple of things. Particularly, it will hire three new arbitrators, which will cost about $100,000 per arbitrator per year. It will fund the business transformation initiatives such as expanded on-line services and alternative dispute resolution options, which we’re pursuing, to try and have the system more efficient. There will be some money that will be in there to allow us to be ready when the dispute resolution tribunal is able to take this type of work versus having it done through our own arbitration system, which we think will quite more efficient in the future.
The current staffing levels are 50 information officers, two team lead arbitrators, 27 staff arbitrators and seven contract arbitrators. The branch received 286,163 phone calls in 2015. The average wait time for service was approximately 30 minutes. We do have a callback option for people, if they want to.
I mentioned earlier the waivers that can be issued for people who have a lower income. About 1,600 fee waivers were issued last year as well.
M. Mark: I love this exchange, Minister, because you’re just jumping right into question No. 6. You’ve answered half of what I’ve got here.
My question for the minister is: given that revenues from the residential tenancy branch fees go into the consolidated revenue fund, how can we be assured that all of the money collected from the increased fees will go into its stated purposes?
Hon. R. Coleman: Probably the easiest way to answer that is that the fees are about 20 percent of the total operating budget of the residential tenancy branch. The rest of it does come from consolidated revenue. The increase in fees will bring us about $585,000 in this fiscal, which will allow us to hire the additional arbitrators, etc. But there will still be a substantial amount of money, still probably around 80 percent, that will come from consolidated revenue.
M. Mark: I’m going jump now to service levels. You spoke to the number of calls that are coming through the RTB. The residential tenancy board 2014-2015 quarterly report shows that a total of 165,082 calls were dropped that year — 24 percent of all calls were dropped — and the average call wait times were just over 34 minutes. With all due respect, Minister, do you believe that this is an acceptable service standard?
Hon. R. Coleman: We had 286,163 phone calls in 2015. The 2014 stats are pretty old. We’ve actually improved our service and a number of things we’ve been doing since then. Our average wait for service is about 30 minutes, which is substantially better than it was two years ago. At one time, we were pushing an hour.
What we’ve also done, as part our business initiative and our transformation initiative, is that while people are on the phone, we actually give them prompts where they can get to on-line services and alternative dispute resolution options and things like that so that they don’t have to just do it by phone. We will see that transformation, I think, more and more so over time as we fund the new business transformation initiatives, where the fees are going to allow us to do it this year, to improve on all of that.
It’s better than it was. It’s never perfect, unless they get the phone answered right away. But 286,000 calls on a…. It’s a pretty minimal budget at this branch. It doesn’t have a big budget. So I think they do a pretty good job, actually, with regards to it.
The dropped-call piece is one of those statistics some people use. But the problem with it is that somebody actually finds it on line, they move to the on-line process, and they drop that call. It’s not necessarily that they haven’t got the information.
M. Mark: Thank you for the response, Minister. It reminds me to ask: what about the individuals that don’t have computers and that have minimal minutes on their cell phone coverage? I’m just thinking about service levels. If you can just jog my memory, how many residential tenancy branch offices are there in the province?
Hon. R. Coleman: We have three residential tenancy offices. One only is a walk-in service, and that would be in Burnaby. At the Service B.C. centres all over B.C., we have computer terminals in each one, and we have the information on residential tenancy there. We’ve been working with the staff in those to bring them up to speed to understand residential tenancy better and better over time.
If a person has limited time on their cell phone, they would just simply leave a message, and we have a callback service. So they would leave a message and their phone number, and we would call them back, rather than having to sit and wait on the line.
M. Mark: I guess my question would be related to these disputes. People are often calling the residential tenancy branch because they’ve got disputes. They might not have the computer literacy, and they don’t have the means, because they’re on limited income. I think it’s — whatever the income rates are — $375 for rent, etc.
My question to the minister is: do they have advocacy supports? Who’s going to help them with the complaints through the residential tenancy branch, through the principles of administrative fairness? Is this provid-
[ Page 12870 ]
ed through the RTB’s office to vulnerable clientele? The question specifically is around advocacy supports.
Hon. R. Coleman: For the people, for instance, in the member’s riding, there are two outreach offices in the Downtown Eastside that are funded for special advocates.
There’s also a special advocacy number that’s for advocates and for the ability to get through to staff. The special advocates have their own number, so they’re actually out there in the public. They are usually non-profit groups that provide those types of things. That gets them easier access into the system on behalf of people that are having more difficulty with literacy, mental illness, addictions — those sorts of things — with regards to it. Those advocacy groups work with us with regards to that.
K. Corrigan: I know that the issue of student housing has been raised before. I’ve read the transcripts of that with this minister, so I won’t go over ground that’s already been gone over previously, but I did have a couple of further questions about student housing.
As the minister knows, it has been estimated that as many as 16,000 new student housing spaces in B.C. would be used, that there is a demand for that much student housing. That number may not be completely accurate, but certainly, there are estimates that go as high as that.
One of the issues, as the minister well knows, is the fact that post-secondary institutions have to apply for approval to build student housing. The issue that’s related to that is the fact that debt that is taken on for student housing becomes part of government debt, despite the fact that the universities and some student unions are willing to build housing to meet that unmet demand. They’re willing to build the housing, and they say…. I’ve been told by several institutions that they would be self-supporting. The minister may or may not agree.
The question I wanted to ask, rather than about specific institutions, was about process and where the decisions are being made, because it’s not clear. I know that the minister said when the member for Victoria–Swan Lake and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey raised this issue in these estimates, the comment from the minister was, and I think I’ve got it right: “None of it fits in the B.C. Housing piece. It just hasn’t been something that’s come up to B.C. Housing as a priority, but I think there are conversations going on.”
Then when the member for Vancouver–Point Grey raised this issue, the response was: “That reminds me. I haven’t had that conversation with a minister for a while.”
I just wonder if the minister could explain to me who takes the lead in terms of making the decision about student housing. Does the analysis…?
Interjection.
K. Corrigan: I hear the minister saying in a stage whisper: “Not us.”
Does the minister feel that there’s any role, and does any of the money come through the Ministry of Housing? I don’t think it does, but who is making the decision? Who is responsible? It is the Ministry of Finance, is it Ministry of Housing, is it Ministry of Advanced Education, or is it some combination thereof?
Hon. R. Coleman: B.C. Housing does social housing, which would be housing and rent-geared-to-income. It does innovative programs in construction with non-profits. It does mental health and addictions supports, homelessness, shelters.
We do partnerships with health authorities on supports within some of the forms of housing we do, like single-room occupancy and smaller units that we have for people suffering from mental health and addictions. Housing Matters covers all of that with regards to the basic goals of B.C. Housing and this side of the ministry.
Student housing is not within that, and neither is our capital spend. So the capital spend that we do from B.C. Housing, for instance, is usually supported, because it’s in a partnership on long-term leases and mortgages with non-profits. It’s a different form of debt. So any issues around the debt-to-GDP really sits with Finance. The Minister of Advanced Education, I would assume, would have any conversations with the universities with regards to student housing.
There are two pieces to student housing from my experience. In my community, I know that if you took one or two of the universities in my area and you put student housing in place, it would actually have an impact on a number of people who have been carrying basement suites in their homes for a long time, for students that are either going to Trinity Western University or Kwantlen Polytechnic University. So there is a piece of that.
The numbers could be 16,000 — but relative to whether it’s going to offset something in the marketplace, that might change that calculation. I did say in estimates last Thursday that I would have another conversation with the Minister of Advanced Education, but I didn’t do that over the weekend. Once I get through estimates, I will sit down and have a conversation about that.
There are issues around…. Whoever is doing it, I think it would have to be universities, in conjunction with the ministry, who would have to come back with a business case. If it’s able to be self-supporting, I think it would be looked at differently. The only role that we would ever play would be using some of our advice on construction and those sorts of things for institutions, because we usually get pretty good bang for our buck when we do construction and tenders.
Some universities are very experienced with their foundations, like UBC, with the stuff that they do out
[ Page 12871 ]
there. But then, they are on endowment lands and somewhat differently affected by the entity, I understand.
To be honest with you, the priorities have been different with regards to the most at risk and the homeless and mental health and addictions side. So it’s a conversation I will have with the minister, like I said last week — I think it was to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. But it won’t take place until after I’m finished estimates, and I don’t know whether he’s done his or not yet. So it’ll depend on availability. Certainly, we’ll start the conversation.
I don’t know…. Because it’s not in this ministry, I see no initiatives coming through with regards student housing. Of course, it wouldn’t come to us if we’re not responsible or it doesn’t affect B.C. Housing and housing matters, which is our homeless and housing strategy.
K. Corrigan: Thank you to the minister for that explanation.
Just a final piece on it, then. Do the requests from the post-secondary institutions for approval for capital funding, in the case of housing, student housing…? Does it go to the Ministry of Advanced Education? Or is that something that would go to the Ministry of Finance? I’m just trying to figure where the prioritizing of the list is, who would receive it and then what the process is, if the minister is able to answer that question.
Hon. R. Coleman: I would assume that the conversation takes place from the university director to the Minister of Advanced Education, but I really don’t know for sure, because it’s really never come to me as an issue, other than…. Student housing gets mentioned usually once or twice a year, and then…. Some universities want to do it; some don’t.
Actually, each building probably requires a business plan, because some could be self-sustaining, depending on the land cost, depending on whether they’re being forgiven for DCCs by the local government, what the taxation, long-term, to the operating costs of the building and those sorts of things would be. That would also affect, obviously, the capital spend, because if the rents would support it…. It’s pretty tough to do in today’s construction environment, per square foot, but there are examples where I think they do sustain, like Gage towers at UBC. I suspect six to a pod probably does have some merit with regards to affordability. Certainly, like I said, I’ll have the conversation with the minister.
M. Mark: It’s great to be back. I’m going to return to questions regarding the residential tenancy board.
Can the minister please confirm that in quarter 1 of fiscal 2015-2016, the average scheduling time for orders of possession was nine weeks and that the average scheduling time for monetary orders was 28 weeks? Is the minister aware that this is an increase over average scheduling wait times of 5.8 weeks for orders of possession and 22.9 weeks for monetary orders in 2014-2015? Can the minister explain the increase in wait times?
Hon. R. Coleman: The dispute resolution wait times as of January 2016…. There are some that are meeting service standards. There are two that are meeting service standards and two that aren’t. Under direct requests, we’re meeting the service standard of two weeks. The early end of tenancy and obtaining an order of possession — we’re meeting it in 3.5 weeks. But those are the early-to-end tenancy issues with regards to some of the issues that are most difficult in the industry.
Not meeting service standards yet are… Order of possessions, request to cancel a notice and end tenancy, and other applications and not for early end of a tenancy are at 6.5 weeks. That doesn’t meet our service standard that we’ve set to five weeks. However, the trend is decreasing with wait times — down from over nine weeks a year ago to 6.5 weeks.
Monetary awards are at 25 weeks, as the member said. Our service standard there is 17 weeks. Those are usually to do with damage deposits, chasing those down. We expect the additional arbitrators and staff will help us to reduce down to meet those service standards as well.
M. Mark: Two more to go. Returning to the question related to advocacy supports for those trying to access the dispute resolution processes, are there any resources in Budget 2016 to help landlords and tenants struggling with the complex residential tenancy branch application process? Are there any resources in Budget 2016 to help tenants who are forced to go to small claims court as a result of landlords failing to comply with residential tenancy board decisions?
Again, I’m emphasizing the questions, because if we’ve only got three physical offices with a provincial mandate, people that don’t have access to phones, people that don’t have access to computers — whether or not there are those additional advocacy supports in place, again, based on the principles of administrative fairness.
Hon. R. Coleman: Our objective has been to get…. We’re in our third generation, basically, the on-line stuff. We’re going to improve…. We’re working on actually doing an even better plain-language application. It’s a bit cumbersome. I didn’t find it that cumbersome the last time I looked at it, but we’re still improving on the next generation.
We’re also adding a Solutions Explorer in this transformation that we’re doing, which I talked about earlier with regards to the additional funds coming into the branch. That will be an interactive Solutions Explorer for both landlords and tenants so that they can actually work
[ Page 12872 ]
out problems that they understand while they’re on line to get the answers for, whether they be a landlord or a tenant. That will allow us to continue to provide services to those people who need it that can’t afford it or don’t have the literacy.
There aren’t just three offices. This service is now available in all 62 Service B.C. offices around the province. So there is access to information and to a computer terminal with regards to that, and our staff are able to help people work their way through those processes at those particular offices as well.
This is like an evolution of a branch that has now got some funds to actually be able to do some of this transformation, and I’m looking forward to them having some success with it.
M. Mark: Having spent eight years at the representative’s office helping people navigate the system, I do understand that people do have capacity, but some people don’t. They do need someone to help navigate the system. I guess the question is whether or not there are any resources. Self-serve, quite frankly and with all due respect, doesn’t work for everyone. I have a degree. I think I have a lot of capacity, but there are times that I’ve had difficulty navigating through some of these systems.
I guess the question is whether or not there are additional resources for people to access, whether they’re tenants or landlords, to help navigate through those systems. Maybe they’re not going into the office, but can they phone someone to help them through those processes versus being told: “It’s on line. Go help yourself”?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful here, but I just want to be clear with my question.
Hon. R. Coleman: It’s not disrespectful. I don’t find your questions disrespectful, so don’t worry about it.
What we’re trying to get to is providing more self-serve services for those that can use it so that we have resources to do more for those that can’t use it. Basically, moving some of our files and pressures over to the on-line services and the transformation project will help us with that.
Like I said before, we have the two outreach offices on the Downtown Eastside, which is where most of our clients, the clients the member describes, actually would be accessing our system in B.C. But additionally, I said we have the special advocacy groups there. They have a special number and special advocates at the branch as well who can help those folks stickhandle their way through the processes.
We monitor that as we go forward, and we’ll continue to do so. I know it can be difficult for people that have literacy issues or have issues with communication and those sorts of things, language and other things, and that’s why we have the special advocacy line where they can get direct and quicker access to someone versus having to be in the normal system of contact either by phone or on line.
M. Mark: This is a request that has come through a stakeholder from the Tenants Resource and Advisory Centre. I’ll just read the direct quote. This is the last of my questions related to the tenancy branch.
This is from Andrew Sakamoto, and some of this you’ve addressed:
“Our main question is: why isn’t the residential tenancy branch adequately funded? What percentage of British Columbians are currently tenants or landlords or will become tenants or landlords in the future? The majority of people across the province will require access to justice or at least the option to have access to justice through the RTB at some point in their lives. There are major issues in terms of hearing wait times, poorly reasoned and written decisions and an inability to undertake meaningful investigations that could lead to administrative penalties.
“I understand that certain procedural and administrative changes can be made to improve in these areas — better scheduling of hearings, better writing, education for arbitrators, etc. — but what will be done going forward to ensure that RTB receives increased funding as required to meet the incredible demand it receives from B.C.’s 600,000-plus tenant households?
“We do not believe that the decision to double the dispute resolution application fee was part of the solution; nor should an additional increase be considered.”
Will the minister consider giving some remarks to this question from the Tenants Resource and Advisory Centre?
[M. Hunt in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think I partially answered that question in a few of the comments I’ve made with regard to, actually, the budget’s up or hiring more staff. But I do think the one portion of the framing of the question that I would have concern with — not the question itself; the framing of the question — refers to the 500,000 or 600,000 people that are actually tenants in British Columbia. Less than 3 percent of them ever use the services of the residential tenancy branch.
The relationships between landlords and tenants in B.C. There are only 22,000, approximately, applications annually with regards to residential tenancy disputes in B.C. A large portion of that would have to do with damage deposit disputes and another portion with regards to non-payment of rent.
I wouldn’t want to couch it that 600,000 people actually have to use landlord-tenant…. As a matter of fact, for the most part, that arrangement works as a business arrangement between landlords and tenants, and it works pretty well.
The 22,700 that are out there. That’s why we’re actively monitoring the wait times, seeing how we can improve the services, how, by raising the fees, we’re able to put additional money in the budget, which is one of the requests these folks make with regards to their question. That’s basically where we’re at.
[ Page 12873 ]
We are going through the next step here for the future. The answer to the question will be…. I think the day will come that within the next couple of years, as we do the administrative justice changes to the tribunals, residential tenancy will come into the tribunal process. The Attorney General is working right now.
We’re going to move strata into that, and we’re going to move small claims into that, and after that, our expectation probably would be residential tenancy. That would then get to where you have the tribunal that has the capacity to actually monitor its decisions long term and get what the person is driving at.
One of the arguments has always been: where’s the case law in residential tenancy? Well, each arbitrator handles a file separately, and they’re independent, so they’re not bound by other arbitrators’ decisions sometimes in looking at their past decisions or their future decisions.
We have done work over the years to improve on that. But it’s been one of those underlining…. I’ll get two or three a year where somebody sends a decision of an arbitrator to me. They’re saying…. Of course, I don’t comment on them, but I’ll read them. It’ll be like: why did that decision get done? When I ask the question back to the branch, there’s usually a pretty good reason why the decision was made the way it was. But there are those ones that become sort of the narrative.
Out of 600,000 residential tenancy arrangements in B.C., about 22,000 come through the branch. Out of that, we do about 19,000 disputes that we hear, and about 18,000 decisions are made annually by the branch. Then, like I said earlier, we waive the fee to lower-income people. But it’s really about…. We prioritize the scheduling hearings to focus on the most urgent issues, such as the possession of a rental unit and emergency repairs. Those are the two key areas as far as prioritizing. But in actual fact, the additional funds coming in will allow us to have more people to do more decisions and to be able to handle stuff quicker.
Then as we go through the next piece, I think, on the administrative justice piece that’s taking place, we’ve been ready and waiting to do that if they want us to go into that new tribunal process, because we think it really does apply to this type of relationship.
The Chair: I recognize the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.
S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the recognition.
I have a question for the minister. It’s regarding Trade Winds Terrace in Merritt. It’s seniors housing that was transferred to a non-profit operator, ASK Wellness, in 2011. I know that B.C. Housing received a letter dated February 18, 2016. I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of these residents just this last weekend.
In the initial letter from February 18, there’s a list of 16 concerns that the tenants there outline about the current operator. Most of it is related to maintenance, but there are some very disturbing and concerning occurrences happening, and I would like to hear what B.C. Housing is doing about this.
The operator, rather than adhering to the 55-plus requirements for the seniors housing, has been permitting people under the age of 55 — people who have serious drug addictions, mostly, and some mental health concerns — to move in. They are clients of ASK Wellness. The seniors who live there are very concerned for their safety.
I just want to read into the record a little paragraph they have put together that I think sort of captures it for them. “In general, we understand that there is an urgent need for government to find housing for people suffering with addictions or mental issues, but these people require a proper facility where they can be provided with proper treatment and care rather than having to fend for themselves or continue with their drug problem in an environment totally unsuitable for their well-being and possible recovery.”
They certainly have stories of drug dealers coming into the apartment complex. They have stories of people who are not getting the supports they need so can’t operate independently in this housing environment. Many of the seniors living there are very concerned for their safety.
I’d like to hear from the minister if he can tell us what he proposes to do in this instance and if he can also tell us how many other seniors residential facilities are housing people with mental health and addictions concerns who don’t meet the 55-plus requirement.
Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member’s information, we do operational reviews on these facilities, and our folks are looking into this particular one. With regards to that, though, folks with mental illness and people with disabilities have been intermixed into senior facilities in British Columbia for a long time. This is not unusual. Sometimes the addiction issues are found to be under control at the beginning. Each individual file can be very difficult for individuals.
ASK Wellness is actually very good at dealing with this particular population. They’re an experienced organization out of Kamloops. The concerns are being looked at, and we’ll continue to look at it with regards to this one. The member for Fraser-Nicola brought this up to me a while back. We’ve been following up on it and will continue to do so.
Sometimes it is situations where we have units, particularly in some of our older facilities, that are more like bachelor suites, and nobody wants to go in them. The seniors don’t want them. So we have an empty unit, and we have the ability to deal with someone who has issues that can help them, whether they be developmentally
[ Page 12874 ]
disabled, whether a mental illness or whatever the case may be. We try and do match it up to care within these particular units from the local societies or non-profits or health authorities.
It’s an individual building. I don’t have all the detail here. Just know that we’re looking into it, and we’ll continue to do that.
M. Mark: For the minister’s awareness, I’m moving into demographic questions, and I’ll be asking questions related to youth.
Can the minister please tell me how much was spent on youth housing initiatives this last fiscal, and what is set aside in this budget for youth housing?
Now, youth is interpretive. Federally, I think they define it as under 29. Under the Ministry for Children and Family, it’s under 19. Young adults through Community Living B.C. is under 24. I’m not sure what definition you use at your ministry, but the question, generally speaking, is: how much money was spent on youth or young people’s housing last fiscal, and what’s set aside in this budget for young people in this fiscal?
Hon. R. Coleman: Because it’s integrated — oftentimes it’s individual buildings — it’s hard to quantify how many youth would be in specific areas. But I can tell the member that we’ve been more and more aggressive adding things with regards to youth into our housing in the last five years or so as we’ve worked with the ministry.
For instance, two of the buildings of the 14 sites in Vancouver have designated youth hubs in them. So a number of the units within the building have been made available for youth to be able to have specialized services and access to the units by the non-profit groups that deal with youth on the street. They’re telling us those are actually having a significant positive impact for them.
One of the things we find with the youth discussion…. I just found this recently in my own community. There was a report in the paper of 161 homeless youth. When I sat down with the organization, it was really that these are the numbers of people we think are coming in and out of our services in a 12-month period. Most of them are housed.
I asked them: how many units would it take to take care of this hub area? There were some in Abbotsford, and there are some in Surrey, and there are some in Maple Ridge. They thought maybe six for that group, because they’re transitional. Sometimes they’re moving from foster care to somewhere. They might come in for services, and they would identify them as someone in need, and then immediately they’re picked up in social services and provided with a different foster care home, or whatever the case may be.
What we do now is we’ve been pretty aggressive looking at those opportunities, some forms of housing that…. Even one I recently looked at, which was sent to me from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill with regards to some microhousing, actually turned out to be an interesting form of, basically, what you would call Gage towers at UBC with regards to a kitchen hub and a social hub and six units. In this case, it’s scalable in numbers.
We’re going to do some work with them with regards to that. That might be a solution for some of the communities like Langley and others where we want to have something where we could scale the numbers and move them up and down, depending on need. Obviously, every time you do this you have to get through the public hearing and the community concern and all the rest of the stuff whenever you want to try and do something new in housing to affect people.
Certainly, there’s more of this to come. We’re looking at it as we go through. We also are coordinating the building of a new youth centre with regards to replacing the old Maples with a modern facility at Riverview that will actually be integrated for the youth to be able to have much better outcomes.
We will also have some additional social housing on that site, so we can transform them from there to other youth hubs within housing as we build it. That stuff is coming. We have a $355 capital proposal call out, which is also out to all the youth-directed agencies that may be interested in youth housing. They will also be able to come into that RFP with regards to that housing.
M. Mark: Great. You’re just walking right into my questions of youth housing.
This question is related to the to the Urban Native Youth Association. They’ve been working very hard to develop a native youth centre in East Vancouver, at the corner of my riding in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, to support native youth to reach their full potential.
My understanding is that the culturally relevant and accessible programs that will be in the native youth centre would greatly benefit from the inclusion of affordable housing so that youth can have a stable and affordable home from which to improve their lives.
This is especially important given that aboriginal youth have consistently been vastly overrepresented, as one-third of the homeless population of Vancouver. Disappointingly, many of these youth have left government care without adequate supports and are widely considered amongst B.C.’s most vulnerable populations.
Just full disclosure: I used to be the chair of the native youth centre and volunteered for eight years with the Urban Native Youth Association. They’ve been advocating for this project for 15 years. It’s one of four identified hubs that haven’t moved forward in the Lower Mainland.
Has the minister designated infrastructure dollars to the native youth centre project and its complementary affordable housing strategy, given the high numbers of homeless young people — and just to mitigate homelessness? It’s all related to your $355 million capital in-
[ Page 12875 ]
vestment — youth and mitigating homelessness for this vulnerable group.
Hon. R. Coleman: I think the member would know the acronym is UNYA — right? — Urban Native Youth Association. We are working with them now with regards to it. I mentioned, too, the $355 million call. They will be well aware of the fact they can go into that. But there’s also another $50 million directly set aside within those proposal calls for First Nations with regards to housing.
If the business case works, we would proceed with the project. We’re working with them on their proposal, their business case. As we come through that, traditionally, Housing does the housing but doesn’t do the actual community centre. I don’t know whether that would fit into the funding piece. Usually, we find a way to get some additional amenity space, we call it, for within the building that can actually double as a some sort of a community outreach, as well, when we’re doing projects like this.
They’ll be coming into the proposal call. We’ll work with them and see if we can get them a business case that gets them across the line.
M. Mark: My question now is going to focus on the Paige report issued by the Representative for Children and Youth. I’m just going to quote recommendation 2 for the record:
“That MCFD, the Ministry of Health and the city of Vancouver conduct an urgent review of the current provisions of services — including child protection, housing, health care and substance use treatment — to vulnerable children in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
“This review should be informed by an accurate picture of the circumstances of children and youth living in or frequenting the Downtown Eastside and the social service agencies currently working with children in this area, and it should be based on best research into the effects of mitigation of intergenerational trauma.”
The recommendation identified in the report is that the city of Vancouver, the Ministry of Health, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, B.C. Housing and MCFD analyze the numbers of children and youth in care in the area, their needs, do an inventory of the services provided currently in the Downtown Eastside, look at the gaps in the services provided and detail the lead service responsibility. It’s important that there’s a lead service responsible for carrying out this recommendation.
My question for the minister is: what was the response to the Representative for Children and Youth with respect to this recommendation?
Hon. R. Coleman: The lead ministry on this is the Ministry of Children and Family Development, obviously. We’ve been doing things like the hubs for youth that I just mentioned here a minute ago.
We’ve also been working with them on a homeless prevention program for youth, which has actually connected 560 homeless youth into housing in the last number of months to a year. That is a homeless prevention program, and we continue to do a scan for the ministry as to where else we might have or what we may be able to build — as we see additional sites come from the city of Vancouver, for instance.
Our scope isn’t just Vancouver, of course. We are looking at youth opportunities across the region and across the province with regards to youth housing, for those types of things with regards to it. We try and find an appropriate organization to operate a housing unit. Oftentimes with the ministry, you have particularly strong non-profits who can manage youth, that sort of thing. Then the services come in together. The integration from Coastal Health and those sorts of things come in with the Children and Families Ministry, into the youth hubs that we’re trying to achieve.
The integration, in my observation, has been a lot better in the last decade or so. Sometimes it takes more time for some health authorities to understand the issues as to where they can move dollars into this when they’re very focused on acute care. But I really do find that if we can get the integration on the health side, the meal side, the supportive side and proper forms of housing, we can actually have some successes.
Not to say you have success overnight. Oftentimes you have a vulnerable population who will trip or fall in their recovery or their lives, and somebody has to be there to understand that, with the humanity side of things.
That’s where our relationship with non-profits in B.C., particularly, is significantly important. They real do…. In addition to whatever services you might institutionally provide to a project, they’re the ones who actually put the heart inside a building, making these things coordinate and trying to coordinate them and understand that this particular youth over here could have a totally different outcome than this one over here, depending on what services you get to them. So that’s the work that’s going on.
I’m really happy with the youth hubs we’ve managed to get in buildings that we’re building in Vancouver particularly, but we’re looking at that in other places. The city has a number of other sites.
We just committed a couple of days ago, or maybe it was today…. We’ve actually announced that we’re matching $30 million from the capital regional district that they want to put up for housing. Some of that will also go into the youth hub type of stuff as well, as we bring the additional capital. The nice one about that one is that the Island Health Authority has also committed to working on that with us, which means if you get the product and you get the society, you’ll get the services. That’s important so that these things have an integrated approach.
M. Mark: It’s just great to hear the word “capital” when we think of housing. That was the biggest roadblock, being a part of the Urban Native Youth Association and
[ Page 12876 ]
advocating for those capital dollars to leverage other funding sources to get the doors open. So thank you for those last remarks.
Related to the Paige report, related to the overrepresentation of kids aging out of care, does the minister coordinate with the Minister of Children and Families with respect to the number of kids aging out of care?
There’s often a saying in the front line that kids age out and hit concrete. And the best way to make sure that they’ve got all those other needs met, which the minister just mentioned — food, clothing, shelter, care, etc.… It’s important that you’ve got a plan when they age out.
My question is whether or not there is coordination between the ministries for the number of kids, specifically, when they’re aging out and they hit 19 — if they have the potential to be in a B.C. Housing unit or any of the programs funded through B.C. Housing. Keeping in mind that I am aware that we have a provincial mandate. I’m in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but there are homeless kids up in the north as well.
Hon. R. Coleman: We’re already doing that, and we’re going to continue to do it. Just as an example, I mentioned the 560 youth from the homeless prevention program. That was, actually, 560 youth aging out of care, into housing. It’s designed to do that. The important part is: those 560 aren’t just aging out of care, but they’re also aging into housing with supports, because we’re making sure we’re connecting the supports there.
We have a number of innovative things we’re doing with regards to youth — because it’s not just the youth that are aging out of care — that will prevent challenges in the future.
With CLBC, we’re working on some innovative projects with regards to youth that are developmentally disabled. Simply because their parents are seeing their children live longer, they have a concern for where they will be. Actually, different forms of how we can buy a hub of units with one unit for the caregiver…. A number of the developmentally disabled can actually function independently but just need a little bit of supervision. You can actually get a unit per person or two, if they’re able to live together with some care in a hub. We’re doing stuff like that, too, because it’s not just the kids aging out of care; it’s also the other hub.
Of course, the member knows, on the other end of the spectrum, we have an aging society which is requiring some additional innovation in product that’s going to be required over time with regards to seniors housing and assisted living.
What we try and do is we work with each ministry — whether it be Health or Children and Family or whichever one is having some of the challenges — to come up with the innovative ideas, the capital, determine the operating dollars and how a business model can work for them so that they can meet those needs in a variety of places, with regards to ministries, from B.C. Housing.
M. Mark: Is the Ministry of Children and Family providing your ministry with the numbers before the kids are aging out of care? By law, children and youth in care have to have a plan of care before they age out. Part of that plan should ensure that they have a plan. Where they are going to live would be the most pressing issue.
This comes up time and time in question period, so with all due respect, I think that’s where members of the public feel a little bit of frustration. Where are those plans of care for kids that are the state’s children? When they age out of care, do they have a roof over their head?
I appreciate the minister’s response. I just wonder, specifically, if the Ministry of Children and Families is giving those numbers and names and if there’s a plan in coordination with this ministry before they turn 19.
Hon. R. Coleman: We are more the agency of, when called upon, I guess…. Each individual care plan, obviously, as the member described with regards to the youth transitioning out of care, doesn’t necessarily mean they end up in a B.C. Housing unit or a unit that’s associated with a non-profit that has to do with us.
We work with 60 providers who identify the youth. There’s a client group coming through and aging out of care. In the regions across the province, we have 14 homeless prevention program providers who also work directly with youth transitioning out of care. As they are coming…. I know that when we started this a few years ago, more and more, it was getting to give us an idea of what might transition to us so that we can actually look at product going forward or going outward.
We’ve managed to, like I say, do the 560, and we’ll continue to do that. They could have five clients. One of them is going to need some form of specialized housing that we might be able to provide through B.C. Housing. It may be something that they may be renting in the marketplace with regards to it needing some form of subsidy.
We’re the piece of the puzzle when they have the care plan, the housing piece, but we’re not engaged in every file. Sometimes there’s already a housing piece that’s figured out somewhere else. We don’t run MCFD’s numbers for them. We are actually the service provider. Service provider is probably not the right word. Through housing, we are able to work with individualized people, individualized cases, and help them with their care plans because we have it.
As we do more and more youth housing, our intention is to have more in the inventory. So that would be the flexibility. In some cases, those won’t all be coming out of care either. They could be young people that aren’t aged out yet. The mix is always a challenge too. We try and manage each product or group of products of housing, whether it be for youth or seniors or whatever, for the client group.
We’re actually delivering that, but we’re not driving their numbers. They’re actually connecting with us for
[ Page 12877 ]
the supports that they need with regards to housing for individual care plans.
M. Mark: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I don’t want to belabour the point, so we’ll move on.
I’ve got some questions related to the aboriginal population. Just an observation or to put it on the record. It would be great if there could be that coordination — to see that the Ministry of Children and Families gives you those numbers in advance.
Interjection.
M. Mark: Yeah, that’s what…. But individually. So maybe if we could break down that barrier so that the individual names of those youth transitioning to adulthood are given well in advance to the Ministry of Children and Family. I think that would mitigate a lot of the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis that we see for young people that are aging out of care. Just my two cents.
I’m going to move on to a question related to a report that was released in 2007, Aboriginal Housing in British Columbia: Needs and Capacity Assessment. It is a long question. It was quite a comprehensive study, and there are a number of recommendations in here.
In early 2007, the province invested significant resources in producing a report that provided an overview of the status of aboriginal housing in B.C. and projected housing needs over the next ten years. We’re one year away. This was titled Aboriginal Housing in British Columbia: Needs and Capacity Assessment. The steering committee included the First Nations Leadership Council, comprised of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Summit plus aboriginal, federal and provincial representatives.
The purpose was to help inform development of a ten-year aboriginal housing strategy. The report sets out clear findings, including…. First, housing is an urgent issue for aboriginal people throughout B.C.
Two, there is not enough housing for aboriginal people in B.C., both and off reserve.
Three, a disproportionate number of aboriginal people are homeless.
Four, there is lack of capacity within aboriginal organizations and First Nations communities to develop new housing.
Five, the need for aboriginal housing will increase in the next ten years, particularly the need for more family, single and elder housing.
Six, there are a number of barriers to closing the gap in aboriginal housing: jurisdictional barriers; coordination barriers; financial barriers; administrative barriers; capacity barriers and other barriers, including cultural issues, income barriers and information gaps.
We are close to the ten-year mark. Given that this study happened nearly ten years ago, it’s critical that the province of British Columbia either do an updated study or develop a new ten-year aboriginal housing strategy.
My question for the minister related to this comprehensive report is whether or not there is any line item included in this budget to implement the recommendations from this study. And can the minister provide us with a status update on those six recommendations?
Hon. R. Coleman: I think this is actually one of the really good stories in and around housing in B.C. with regards to our relationship with First Nations, which has been pretty remarkable.
We’ve invested in a wide range of housing options for aboriginal people, including a number of things. But I should mention that over the years I’ve had conversations with successive federal governments about the quality of housing with regards to on reserve, quality of construction, management and all of those things. I’ve always had it made clear to us that this is not in our jurisdiction. So even though we would like to help with the quality control, management and those sort of things, it’s not our jurisdiction.
The federal government, in Budget 2016, has $756 million set aside for on-reserve housing. What we did is we’ve actually tried to build the capacity and management with First Nations groups.
What we did is we started out with two relationships that were pretty critical. The first one was the Aboriginal Housing Management Association. We helped build up their capacity over time. They today actually manage 4,200 units in British Columbia on behalf of B.C. Housing. They were transferred to them from us starting in November of 2012.
As new housing units become operational, they’re also being transferred to AHMA to support self-management to social housing by First Nations. Last year, the provincially funded shelter and outreach workers connected close to 1,800 aboriginal people who were homeless, or at risk of homelessness, to housing in B.C.
In addition to that, we have a significantly good relationship with M’akola Housing Society on Vancouver Island. In 2011, we transferred them some units for management — 71 at that time. Today it’s 428 units that were transferred to M’akola Housing, Kamloops Native Housing and the Mamele’awt Qweesome Housing Society.
We continue to build that capacity in relationship with First Nations. We’ve actually had very good outcomes. They, culturally, manage the sensitivity of their buildings and operations related to First Nations.
The member’s right. There is a disproportionate number of First Nations in social housing in British Columbia compared to their piece of the population. They’re about 40 percent of government-run social housing, and the population is about 4 or 5 percent.
[ Page 12878 ]
It’s a continuing, ongoing relationship. We’ve, actually, recently implemented partnership agreements with on-reserve First Nations, including the Kwikwetlem First Nation. A protocol agreement enabled constitution and future use of Riverview lands and to build eight homes on reserve. The Saulteau First Nations — we transferred 20 public housing units to the nation in Chetwynd and delivery of skills plus property management skills training for that First Nation to be able to manage those units.
The Squamish First Nation has partnered on a number of programs with us in capital planning and assessment management in partnership with Kwantlen University and the homeowner education. The Musqueam Nation are in partnership in developing an asset management framework for on-reserve. There’s some work we’re trying to help them with there. Carrier-Sekani Tribal — we leased office space to them for aboriginal youth programs and built office space for aboriginal employment programs, as well, as we’ve come through this.
We continue to have as dynamic a relationship as we can. A number of native friendship centres now have housing attached to them in various areas of the province. We’ve done projects, like in Prince George and other communities across B.C., where they’re combined with some shelter — sometimes with some shelter but also with the friendship centre and housing. There are some successes there.
We have a number of aboriginal homeless outreach programs underway as well. All of these things we do in conjunction with our First Nations partners. We have a number of them, just a number of highlights I could give the member, but the list is quite lengthy. They’re from Abbotsford to Dawson Creek to Williams Lake to Vernon, Port Alberni and places across the province.
M. Mark: I grew up in social housing, and I’m native, so statistically…. You’re correct that there’s no representation. It’s actually Lu’ma Native Housing that saved my life — graduating from university, attending Simon Fraser. So these questions are relevant.
There are thousands of people on wait-lists. I think, really, I want to get at…. I don’t know all the terminology in your binders over there. I guess the question is whether or not there are any line items set aside in this budget that are to invest in capital, to invest in the development of bricks and mortar for social housing on and off reserve.
I’d like to know whether there are units. When I’m thinking of 8,000 people on a wait-list…. They’re saying the wait-list is 85 years from now. Again, as I mentioned to the minister, if it weren’t for Lu’ma Native Housing, I would have been on the streets, pregnant with my daughter, and I would have had to drop out of university.
I think there’s a dire situation here in B.C. I’d like to know more about just that granular detail on what bricks-and-mortar units, maybe, are going to be invested by this ministry in this fiscal year and/or capital investments into aboriginal housing on and off reserve.
Hon. R. Coleman: We are actually doing a project with Lu’ma on Main Street in Vancouver now, that we’re working forward on. The Housing Matters B.C. under strategy 3 has always had aboriginal housing in it.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that you have a specific line item when 40 percent of your capacity, of the 80,000 or 90,000 units you have in B.C., are occupied by First Nations. You don’t say: “Line items….” I wouldn’t break it out and say First Nations versus non–First Nations. I’d say they’re integrated into the system, in many cases, in social housing.
There is $50 million specifically set aside for First Nations housing in the proposal call that’s come out. With regards to that, in addition to…. And that’s all off reserve, hon. Member. There’s not on reserve, because as I mentioned, we don’t do on reserve for various reasons, including that the federal government doesn’t want us to. They’ve set aside 780-some-odd-million dollars for on-reserve housing. Hopefully, that gets delivered in a way that they get some decent, self-sustaining housing on reserve.
Under housing strategy, we said we would work with the aboriginal housing sector to enhance aboriginal housing and support self-reliance of the sector. That’s why over 5,000 units are now being managed by First Nations societies rather than where they were before. Basically, it’s promoting a sector and innovating and promoting innovative, culturally appropriate and sustainable social and market housing options. We’ve done some of that.
In addition to that, we did a $100 million project a few years ago, where we took federal government and we delivered…. We’re the first and only jurisdiction that got the money out, in the time frame, into First Nations housing all across B.C., whether it be in Williams Lake or other communities across B.C.
Then, of course, our strategic partnerships, which we’ve been continuing to build on, whether it be the native friendship centres that we’ve done…. We’ve done some very innovative housing with regards to some projects in Vancouver with First Nations. There’s one where we kept the facade of the building and actually built a brand-new building behind it for First Nations. That one actually displays native art on the main floor and has some interesting stuff with that. We’ve been involved in all of those.
We very much understand not just the pressures for First Nations but for people who need supportive housing in many ways. That’s why, when this strategy was put into place, when I was asked to be the minister in 2005, I said that we were going to move away from cutting ribbons and concentrate on helping people.
We put the focus on people that are homeless, at risk of homeless, mental health and addictions — for those people who are the most vulnerable that couldn’t be housed in the marketplace.
[ Page 12879 ]
We shifted operating funds over to be able to do things like rent assistance and SAFER expansion for seniors, so they can be helped in the rental market while we concentrate our capital dollars on our most vulnerable populations. That was the new build.
We’ve done about $4.5 billion since ’05 in housing in B.C. Sorry. It’s about $3.8 billion since ’06, and it’s about $4.5 billion since ’01. In addition to that, on the capital side, we also pursued the opportunity to protect some stock.
In the member’s riding, as she probably knows, there are 24 buildings that have been purchased, renovated and upgraded with regards to the old SRO stock, some of it 100 years old. Pretty difficult projects, but it’s given us another natural life for these for 30 or 40 years. We think they’re a good investment in housing, as well, because the stock was starting to disappear. Somebody had to step up and start to save it, which we did.
I think that pretty well covers it. There’s $15 million in capital. We’re actually doing a purpose-built shelter and transition housing project within Vancouver, the native friendship centre on East Hastings, which will be focused more on First Nations. That’s also, I think, in the member’s riding.
M. Mark: It’s all in my riding. I’ve got the best riding, with all due respect — Mount Pleasant.
I guess one last question on this subject of aboriginal housing. I have many, but I’d like to move along, in the interest of time. Out of that $50 million in capital that’s been set aside, is there a target of the number of units or buildings? I mean, $50 million would have gone somewhere 50 years ago. But in 2016, knowing the market, I’m just wondering how many units the ministry anticipates will be developed out of that $50 million in capital.
Hon. R. Coleman: It’s hard to say how many necessarily. The reason for that is because we don’t intend it to end up being $50 million, first of all. Let’s assume we have $50 million and we can get matching land for free from the city of Vancouver or other cities across the province, which we’re being offered in this proposal call, that levers up that much money.
In addition to that, we’ve signed an agreement. We’re working on an agreement for matching funds with the federal government with regards to the housing. Basically, the next two years they’re going to put some matching funds on the table for housing in the provinces across the country. Then they’re going to…. That’s for years 1 and 2.
All the provincial and federal ministers will meet in June. The discussion there will be…. Their initiative is: where do we go from year 3 to year 10? It all depends. I would think that by the time we’re done with our $355 million, with forgiveness of things like DCCs, matching land, some non-profits who will actually bring capital to the table, matching federal dollars and that sort of thing, we can turn that $355 million into $1 billion quite easily. That would just mean that’s how much more impact we can have on the housing and the market.
Partnerships are really valuable. I’m very pleased with the move of the federal government to now move into more capital with regards to this. In the past, it’s been sort of hit-and-miss on when there might be funds available or what have you, but to get to a ten-year plan working with us would allow us to also do a ten-year plan with regards to capital going forward.
It would also give us the ability to give municipalities notice that in year 3, year 4, if you’ve got land and you’ve got a need, you should start thinking about zoning and getting that land ready. Even in a fast-track process, we find that in some cities it takes three years to just get the zoning and the approvals to go start construction. That’s in the so-called fast-track zoning process.
We’ve always got stuff in the hopper trying to be ready, because those are the challenges we meet. Some cities and municipalities are much quicker, so that allows us to get in the ground quicker.
But our intent is to lever all of this. I’ve already had a number of municipalities saying they’re going into the proposal column. They will have land to donate, and they’re going to forgive DCCs. In some cases, they’re actually giving preferred tax treatment for housing that has a social benefit within their community, so that’s also going to affect the long-term operating agreements as far as how much they’re going to cost to operate, which is really good news as well.
M. Mark: This set of questions relates to a report that was issued by the Carnegie Community Action Project. It’s the 2015 hotel survey and housing report, Our Homes Can’t Wait. I’m not sure if the minister has read the report or has been briefed, but for the record, the agency, the organization, the advocacy group has asked me to ask the minister just to put on record whether or not the following recommendations will be implemented.
I’ll start with number 1. Will the provincial government raise welfare, disability and minimum wage rates substantially?
Do you want me to just list them all off and then respond? What would work best?
Interjection.
M. Mark: There are eight recommendations. List them all off? Sure.
The first is whether or not this government will raise welfare, disability and minimum wage rates substantially.
Two is to reform the Residential Tenancy Act to provide rent control by the rental unit rather than the tenant. This will stop giving landlords an incentive to evict low-income people and end renovictions, which is quite
[ Page 12880 ]
timely, considering the bill that I brought forward in the House earlier today.
Three, to legislate the rights of all tenants to organize tenant unions.
Four, will this government ensure that residents of all non-profit social housing, including hotel rooms, supportive housing projects and emergency shelters, have full tenant rights under the Residential Tenancy Act?
Five, to provide funds to build 10,000 units a year of low-income, affordable social housing throughout the province, replace 1,000 SRO units with self-contained, resident-controlled social housing every year for five years in the Downtown Eastside.
Six, amend the B.C. human rights code and Residential Tenancy Act to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of social condition, including class, poverty and drug use.
Seven, ensure that immigration status is not a barrier to social housing.
Finally, will the government provide funds to Chinese societies in the Downtown Eastside that have housing units and are financially unable to upgrade their buildings to remain habitable?
Hon. R. Coleman: I’m not going to answer all of these, simply because most of them do not actually touch on my ability as a minister or the general policy of government, which I’m not going to get into today.
I did find some of their recommendations rather interesting. Obviously, we just raised the minimum wage. Back in the day, when we were redoing the Residential Tenancy Act, it was groups like this that said they wanted a 2 percent plus CPI rent control in place. You know, now a decade later, they don’t like it. But for some reason, which I find….
I think the people have the rights to do whatever they want to, if they want to organize. I don’t know why we would get into that discussion. The one I found most interesting was…. This is the same organization that berated me as a minister to buy the…. I’m trying to remember the building. The member from Mount Pleasant actually wrote me quite a pointed letter, too, back then. It was the one building, and we were actually in the market buying ten.
Then when we bought them, they berated us for buying them, because we might tear them down and develop them and put more density in there for social housing. They wanted us to keep them for the next 100 years. Now, they think we should tear down some of them and build new. So I mean it’s a bit of a yin and yang thing with this particular group. They’re very quick to spend the $4 billion to $5 billion that they think should be spent on this, when you don’t have, necessarily, the business case around all the things that they say.
As far as this report goes, they’re entitled to do the report. I basically stay concentrated on one homeless strategy in B.C. It’s called Housing Matters. I have various community groups, municipalities who do and write housing strategies. I continue to say to them very consistently, as long as it fits within Housing Matters, we will consider doing it in your community, whether it be specialized housing like the project we mentioned earlier for First Nations, whether it be transition housing.
We really expanded transition housing and its support in the last number of years for people fleeing abuse. Whatever it is, if it fits within the strategy, then we work with it. We’re not going to go outside that thing and start funding things that are outside the mandate, because then we would never have a focus on what we’re trying to accomplish and we would never get results.
I’ll just say, on the Chinese housing side, that I do know that we’ve done some work with some of the organizations in the Chinese community with regards to some projects, like the Mah Society with regards to upgrading or renovating or whatever with this project that we’re looking at. We do that with all societies, though. That’s not new. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Chinese society or any other society. If they have some stresses in capital or renovation, whatever, we will, at times, basically work it so we….
For instance, with the Mah Society, we’re spending $700,000 in financing with regards to renovations that are underway with them on a building. Those are individual buildings, cases, opportunities that we do continue to work on.
The Carnegie guys have never liked anything I’ve done, quite frankly. They didn’t even like it when we bought the SROs. We buy ten SROs, and we get criticized because we’re taking the stock, because we were going to redevelop it. Now they’re saying we should redevelop stock that they wanted us to keep. I don’t find the society actually brings me, very often, any really good ideas that are practical or pragmatic enough to be implemented, so we stay focused on the things that are important.
M. Mark: We’re on the final stretch. I’ve only got 20 more to go. I’m kidding. I have two.
Some Voices: Take five.
M. Mark: Oh, take five? Okay.
The Chair: This committee will rise and take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.
[J. Martin in the chair.]
M. Mark: Thank you, to the minister, for the time to list 20 more questions to ask you before the end of the day. No, I’m kidding. I’ve got two.
One is related to co-ops. I’ve got 20 in Mount Pleasant, 862 units. My question for the minister is: why are co-ops
[ Page 12881 ]
not included in the list of eligible housing for rent supplements? I do understand that the question was raised last week. But for the interest of Mount Pleasant and the rest of the province that has a high concentration of co-ops, why are they not included?
Hon. R. Coleman: I might give the member a bit of history about this. Basically, co-op members are considered homeowners and not renters, and therefore they’re not eligible for rent supplement programs. That may change over time as the federal agreements expire, and the individuals within projects could become eligible for rent assistance on expiry. It is one of the subjects that’s probably going to come up in June with the federal minister.
I think it’s instructive to know, though, that when the properties in the old CMHC agreements, where we had a cost-share relationship, devolved to the province, we did an analysis on the co-op housing in B.C. We looked at it from the standpoint of how much the federal government needed to give to us to take care of what we saw as a deficit of maintenance and costs. They weren’t prepared to go there, so we didn’t agree to take over management of the co-ops, the federally funded co-ops. We’ve not come to any agreement on that since then.
There are about 7,000 co-op units in British Columbia that will expire over the next five years. About 40 percent of these units are targeted for low-income households who receive federal subsidies under a section 95 co-op program which were built from 1979 to 1985. They’re under a funding arrangement with the federal government and not with us.
The operating agreements will expire. There’s going to have to be an issue dealt with, with regards to the portfolio. We have some operating agreements with a number of co-op housing providers that we’ve done some work with, but we’re also looking at options to assist the non-profits with regard to expiry of the operating agreements. So we’ll try and be there as helpful with them.
They have agreed recently, the federal government, to continue the subsidies for the agreements that expire over the next two years. That’s allowing for a consultation with them, the provinces and the federal government for the next three to ten years so we can sort this out over time. But for us to have taken on the multi-million-dollar liability to fix something that we didn’t have any relation to would have made no sense.
Now, we did tell them at that time…. I can’t remember the number, but we did in the discussions have a conversation about what we thought the number would need to be in order to preserve the stock and to continue it. They weren’t prepared to step up, so we weren’t prepared to take on an unfunded liability on behalf of B.C. taxpayers.
I guess the chickens are coming home to roost on this one in the next few years. We will work with the federal government, starting with our meeting with the minister and the provincial ministers in June, because a number of other jurisdictions have the same concern, and we’re going to work through that.
M. Mark: My final question is on a place that I used to grow up. I was mentioning earlier that I grew up in the projects. My final question is about the status of Little Mountain, and it’s just as open-ended as that. It would be good to have an update here.
Hon. R. Coleman: This has taken way longer than I’d liked to have taken. Some of it was some…. I think we’ve seen a lot more progress with some changes in the administration of the city with regards to this.
It is expected that the project will be finished its rezoning and its stuff before the end of the year and start construction. Fifty-three units have been rebuilt on the site to date. The project will have 234 rent-geared-to-income, which is 30 percent of your income, social housing built back into it. Those are fully funded and ready to go whenever they get the project done.
Ten of those will go specifically to the Musqueam First Nation for them to manage and operate for their community. There will also be some other rental within the project that we can do rent assistance with.
The good story out of Little Mountain is the government gave B.C. Housing, for lack of a better description, a $300 million plus line of credit against the sale of Little Mountain, which has built somewhere in the vicinity of about 2,500 units provincewide, the majority of them in Vancouver. So all the city-owned sites that were built were funded because of what we were going to get out of Little Mountain, because we were given the funds in advance, in anticipation of the sale.
It’s a hard sale. We have significant millions of dollars of non-refundable money on it. All accounts, on having a conversation recently with the mayor and with a couple of senior folks with the city of Vancouver, are that this one is going to get done this year.
I hesitate to say that because I’ve been told that before, but I do know that the developer and the city seem to have come to the final decision stuff. I think there may be one more public meeting. I’m not sure with regards to it, but it will get done. The density — obviously, being close to SkyTrain — will be good for people who want to live in that particular project.
That’s basically the update today. We’ve had some challenges. I’ve had numerous conversations over the years with different people and the administration of the city. There was some reluctance at one point from some senior people to cooperate, I think, but not the council. I think the council has always wanted to cooperate and get something done, but it just took a little longer than it should have.
[ Page 12882 ]
D. Eby: This question is about the Budzey Building. The initial announcement of the Budzey Building was that the building would be complete in spring 2014. Then the date was changed to February 2015, and then it wasn’t open until January 2016. Can the minister explain what the cause of the delays was in this project and what the final cost was of the project?
Hon. R. Coleman: There were two things that contributed to the delay on that particular project. Some of them were site conditions that had to be worked out and that were not known at the time, I guess. There have been some issues in and around the performance by the contractor. That’s being settled through a mediated process now. All of that was somewhat unfortunate.
I’m told the budget stayed the same throughout the building. It didn’t cost us more, but I don’t have the exact costs. We’re getting an ask out for that number. We will get you the number as soon as we can.
D. Eby: I thank the minister for that. The minister may have received correspondence — I’ve received correspondence — from a number of people requesting that the Residential Tenancy Act be amended in order to follow Ontario’s 1996 amendment that prohibits landlords from imposing no-pets policies on tenants. The correspondents say there have been few issues between landlords and tenants on that following the amendment. Is the minister considering amending the Residential Tenancy Act to prohibit no-pets clauses?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, we’re not anticipating changes to the Residential Tenancy Act with regards to that. When we did the consultation back when pets were added into the ability to go into buildings, it was very clear from all of the stakeholder groups that a blanket policy…. When you have people who could have situations such as allergies with regards to certain types of pets and stuff, and given the ages and mixtures of people, that relationship belonged with the landlord and the tenant. So we did put in the ability to have a pet deposit. We did allow that relationship within a residential tenancy agreement, but we’re not anticipating changing the act.
D. Eby: One of the issues coming with rising property values in various parts of the province is the property tax for non-profits that operate housing, including co-ops. They have to pay significantly more tax on their properties. This is particularly affecting non-profits and co-ops in Metro Vancouver. Is the minister proposing any measures that will reduce the tax burden for the social housing sector in terms of the cost of property taxes, which continues to rise?
Hon. R. Coleman: So there’s a two-phase answer to this. First of all, supportive housing has been…. We’ve already worked out that it’s exempt from property taxes in many municipalities across B.C.
B.C. Assessment has now recognized that restricting a property’s use to social housing does have an impact on its market value, and that should be reflected in the assessed value. So we’ve been doing a lot of work with regards to that.
The new method reduces the assessed value of the buildings and improvements by approximately 80 percent. That’s good news for us, because whenever there was an increase in taxes in social housing, we picked it up in the operating agreements. We continued to fund the society so they wouldn’t be short on that.
The method for assessing the land portion will remain unchanged. So the land value will be there, but….
We also do some work with them to make sure they’re not assessing it on a commercial basis and that sort of thing as we go forward with it. We did that work with B.C. Assessment with input from the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, who’ve been engaged with us for about the last ten months — working this through and getting this different look at the categories.
D. Eby: I didn’t note any new operational funding for B.C. Housing, which was surprising. As the cost of housing rises and as homelessness rises, as the minister says — due to causes we might disagree about, but in any event, homelessness is on the rise — and B.C. Housing increases its responsibilities, including addressing workforce housing, it’s surprising that the operating budget is remaining largely the same.
Can the minister explain why that might be the case?
Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of things caught in these items, and they will actually change, given the relationship with the federal government that we’re about to put into some of these lines. There’s about $150 million over two years that’s going to come into the housing subsidy line with regards to relationships. Some of their money will be going into subsidies. Some of it will be going into capital. They are picking that percentage with us now.
Basically, the other thing we found — and we expected this, as we’ve been tracking through the last few years — is that this number would come down in some levels because part of that housing subsidy is interest costs. Interest costs are down, and some of our capital is being paid out. That reduces our operating. So the interest piece is lower, and that’s what has an effect on that.
D. Eby: I just wanted to say thank you very much to the staff from the minister’s ministry and also from B.C. Housing who are here, and from other places as well, for all their assistance to the minister and, by extension, me in the answers. I appreciate that very much and thank the
[ Page 12883 ]
minister for his answers. I look forward to following up with him as he provides the additional information he’s committed to. Thank you for the process.
I’m going to pass things over to my colleague from Surrey-Whalley on the natural gas file.
The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:08 p.m.
[J. Martin in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: To my left is Dave Nikolejsin. Dave is a deputy minister. I’m introducing my staff before we start, just so we know who’s here: Ranbir Parmar, who’s the CFO, natural gas development; Ines Piccinino is the assistant deputy minister, upstream development division and knows more about the upstream of natural gas than anybody I’ve ever met; Paul Jeakins, who is the commissioner and chief executive officer of the Oil and Gas Commission; Brian Hansen, who is the assistant deputy minister, lead negotiator, energy and LNG initiatives; Ken Paulson, who’s the chief operating officer of the Oil and Gas Commission; and Linda Beltrano, the executive director, Ministry of Natural Gas Development.
B. Ralston: Just for the record, then, we’re dealing with vote 37, with four categories: upstream development, liquefied natural gas, oil and strategic initiatives and executive and support services. My questions, of course, will be confined to the ambit of vote 37.
Just beginning, then, I had a couple of questions arising out of the minister’s mandate letter. One was the direction from the Premier. Just for those who don’t know, the mandate letter is a formal letter of directions from the Premier to the minister setting out key tasks for the fiscal year. This letter is dated July 30, 2015.
In No. 7, the direction is: “Work with the Ministry of Finance to make recommendations to cabinet on the creation of a new clean infrastructure credit program.”
I appreciate that presenting to cabinet would obviously raise issues of cabinet confidentiality. But could the minister, in general terms, advise what progress has been made on that? I know that the Ministry of Finance estimates will take place subsequent to these, so any answer that he gives can also be supplemented, I’m aware, by a question of the Minister of Finance. But for now, since it’s in the minister’s mandate letter, I’m wondering if he could update us?
Hon. R. Coleman: We’ve been working on a number of infrastructure and clean energy–type things with the Minister of Finance. Anything that has to do with tax law he keeps totally confidential in his final decision until such time as he actually makes it public, because it can affect markets, of course. But we have been following through on this commitment with regards to doing it. We’ve put forward a number of initiatives to government that we think will have a positive effect on the green side of the industry with regards to how that program will develop.
At the end, it will depend on the results of some issues in and around tax policy but also with regards to some infrastructure opportunities we see. We’re working together with various ministries across an integrated scheme, but at the end of the day, it will come into the cabinet committee. Then, if there was any impact on the fiscal climate, it would go to Treasury Board for any decisions by Finance.
B. Ralston: I appreciate that, perhaps out of necessity, the minister hasn’t been very precise, but infrastructure in this ministry would imply, prospectively, LNG plants, pipelines or general natural gas facilities.
Is there anything more, any other infrastructure that’s contemplated? Is it strictly infrastructure that’s in the general jurisdiction of the ministry now? Is this related to natural gas or oil and gas? Or is it related to other forms of energy generation? I would think not, given that it’s in the Natural Gas Ministry. Can the minister just explain in general terms what infrastructure these credits might be focused on?
Hon. R. Coleman: We’re looking at a number of things, basically, with regards to focus on things like methane emissions, potential projects that could be covered with things like the equipment retrofits and conversion to reduce vented gas and fugitive emissions, pneumatic devices, dehydrator vents. Leaks from equipment, valves, etc., account for about 15 percent of the total emissions in upstream natural gas. We’ve already started those initiatives with industry. It really isn’t going to require a bunch of credits, because there’s work being done in new technology on all those sides.
Probably the biggest thing that drives the next form of the discussion in and around this will be relative to the greenhouse gases, the GHGs, in the upstream area as gas plants are built and developed over time. We have some already, but they’re basically powered by natural gas today.
The federal government has made it clear that they want to work on some climate action things with regards to this, so part of it will be looking at what infrastructure could be added to use, let’s say, clean electricity versus natural gas and how you could incent that piece of the market.
We already have some power, electrical, programs up there. Across ministries, we’re doing the work to see how we could look at the electrification over time of the upstream, which would reduce GHGs dramatically — almost to zero, basically — on that piece.
[ Page 12884 ]
On the methane piece, we’re well ahead of the game. We have been for a long time. That piece we’re already getting some pretty good results on, so we’d just continue. Those are the types of things we’re talking about.
B. Ralston: Typically, what incentive usually means is some financial incentive for companies to implement these policies. Particularly given the Premier’s very strong commitments in Paris towards achieving the climate change goals and the re-working, at least, of the recommended goals from the Premier’s climate change task force, is the minister not confident that those goals can be achieved by regulation alone, and therefore, financial incentives are required?
Hon. R. Coleman: I’m not saying we would do financial incentives. I’m not ruling out infrastructure pieces that may be required. For instance, we do an infrastructure royalty program that gives us about a 4-to-1 or 5-to-1 payback when it comes to building roads and stuff with regards to offsetting against future royalties if they build infrastructure that we would normally have to build.
For an example, one of the things that we might look at is whether you’d partner with it with various companies or whatever. Let’s say you wanted to electrify, and you needed a main line of electricity, which is going to have other lines branching off it. Who pays for the main infrastructure? So how you do that and whether there are partnerships. When we do this work, this also could match up to some federal programs, whatever, with regards to matching funds for clean infrastructure.
It’s not like we’re out there looking for a way to subsidize this. Right now we’re working with the companies to see what they see as the benefit. They’ve done a number of things, like I say, on the venting and all of those things, already, without having us to incent anything.
The issue is: how would you, in more remote areas where, similar to what we had to do on Highway 37, you have an opportunity, and you might want to front-end-load some costs with regards to the main power line…?
We have a Dawson Creek area transmission line that goes out into the Montney, but it only serves a portion of the geography. There are companies now presently looking at extensions to that and additions to it. A number of them are private sector. It’s just for us to make sure we’re working with the industry to see how, in the future, if something comes up, we would be able to work out a program that may or may not be necessary. So we’re live to all of that as we work with the different companies, the Oil and Gas Commission, stakeholders, communities and those sorts of things.
B. Ralston: As the minister mentions, there’s a well-developed and well-established program on infrastructure, certainly for the gas fields. So I’m interested…. The specific description here is “clean infrastructure.” Perhaps that’s just to spice it up politically. I’m wondering: what novel departure does this possible program represent that’s different from existing infrastructure incentive programs?
Hon. R. Coleman: There’s no doubt that the infrastructure royalty program has been very successful in building some of the infrastructure needed for oil and gas — particularly gas, obviously — in British Columbia.
But if you’re going to get the bang for your buck, at some point in time the electrification piece — which would eliminate using natural gas to power gas plants and other infrastructure across an area, particularly an active area — may require that that program….
One of the things is we’re looking at is how we would rethink it — maybe because the development on the infrastructure side is good, but to electrify, which is to change how you design some plants in the future, would reduce GHGs dramatically. Is that something worthy of looking at, infrastructure versus the roads and bridges, as a lot of that work is done?
The challenge with it, of course, is that we’re working on it now to try and figure out what would work with the industry. Obviously, people are starting to put plans in place with regards to gas plants in the future. In addition to that, there’s some old infrastructure out there that’s pretty expensive to replace that there may also be opportunities around.
We haven’t made a decision on any piece of this, definitively. For the actual…. On the clean side, the first one that really pops up, by looking at it, seems to be the electrification opportunities, so we’re looking at that, pricing it, seeing what that means and that sort of thing, and how long a time it would take to accomplish that. On some of the fugitive emissions and things, the work’s already done. The companies are doing that, and they’re not having to buy into a program to do that.
As you come across each one of these issues, you bring them back to committee or back to government as you start to develop programs with regards to it. There’s been a lot of work, because you have to have a number of people involved. You have the tax side. You have the minister responsible for Hydro, as also, obviously, B.C. Hydro could be a big, key piece of this with regards to the power.
The big advantage to British Columbia is that about 98 percent of our power is green. If we could increase our electrification and reduce our GHGs, it has a significant benefit to the climate action piece, which is also in a separate committee, looking at all of these things and trying to bring them together into an interim report there.
All of this work is ongoing. No decisions have been made, and no final recommendations have been made yet because there’s a lot of work to be done, and has been being done, to get to a point where we can start to look at it.
[ Page 12885 ]
B. Ralston: The minister anticipated my next question in terms of its relation with B.C. Hydro. Obviously, there’s a debate about Site C and the load that Site C, when built, would create and the need to create markets for Site C.
Is this suggestion to electrify the gas fields…? Somewhat like discussions with Alberta, is that being driven by B.C. Hydro in an effort to find a market for Site C power, prospectively?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, it’s not to drive a market for Site C. It’s really about…. If you’re going to look at industries…. We’re looking at all industry coming out of Paris — both as a Canadian national initiative, I think probably across the country, and individually in provinces — to look at our carbon footprint and how we can improve our carbon footprint and what we would think. Ministries across government, and industries, have been asked for feedback into whether they think that they could impact their GHGs or whatever in a positive way.
The interconnect with Alberta has nothing to do with this conversation. We’re not involved in that at all from the standpoint of this ministry. That’s a conversation that’s taking place.
It’s not precluded that it would be B.C. Hydro, necessarily, that would actually do this. It could be power lines…. There’s one company, actually, that has priced a power line into the Montney area with regards to looking at it as a future opportunity. We are also in discussions with companies relative to that electrification piece.
Definitely, the Minister of Energy and Mines is acutely aware and working closely with us and closely with the utility to see if this is something that they — obviously, because of their knowledge and information — can give us advice on as we go forward to look at the viability of it, look at the opportunities around it, what the possible costs would be with regards to it and what would be the benefits.
All of that comes together in two or three places in government. The Minister of Natural Gas Development…. There’s a cabinet committee with regards to all of those things, and then, of course, the climate leadership committee, which is also looking at all of the aspects of government, comes into this and feeds into this as well.
Our job is to come back with recommendations to that committee, which we’re doing, and then those get processed. As I’ve said to the member opposite, if it’s anything to do with tax, Finance would be the final arbiter in that. I wouldn’t prejudge any of those discussions.
Really, what it is, is to come back with ideas and opportunities and trying to put some pricing around it so that we can sit down and have a look at it and see how these types of things, initiatives and opportunities that could be created to reduce the carbon footprint, could be looked at with regards to the oil and gas industry. But it’s also taking place in mining and forestry and other industries as well.
B. Ralston: The minister has…. I think I can fairly characterize it as saying that none of these ideas have crystallized yet. What is the timing in terms of…? The minister has mentioned a cabinet committee and then to cabinet. This was a direction in July. We’re coming up on May, so ten months ago this direction was given. What is the timeline for a presentation, at least, to cabinet of these prospective ideas?
Hon. R. Coleman: The work’s been pretty extensive, but we’re trying to work to a goal of announcing, getting the specifics of a program by June or July of 2016, and to be able to launch in August or September of 2016.
Most of the detailed work is done. It’s been through a first pass through some of the committees with regards to the thoughts and issues around it. Some additional work is being done as a result of the recommendations on what else to do with regards to prove out programs and opportunities by the committee.
The member opposite knows that I can’t tell you when something would hit a cabinet table, even if I did have the agenda, because that is subject to pretty significant confidentiality rules, and obviously, I can’t foreshadow something that could affect markets.
I can tell the member that the work is effectively in final draft, and it will come forward with some recommendations in the next 30 to 60 days. If all goes well, there could be a program that could be initiated by fall.
B. Ralston: Moving to mandate item No. 4, it says: “Work with the Ministry of Finance to prepare legislation to enact B.C.’s prosperity fund for introduction in the spring 2017 legislative session.” That’s also in the service plan. Obviously, the minister’s been very successful in the sense that that’s already in place and before the House in the budget. Can the minister explain why that was advanced one year?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I think it’s just because the work was able to get ready and the complexities of the legislation probably weren’t as complex as it would be anticipated. I think whenever we talk about legislation, we tend to give it a longer timeline out.
My experience is that legislation, from start to finish, can usually take up to two years. Obviously, this work got done. It was ready to go to this session, so it was advanced into this legislative session.
B. Ralston: A couple of questions arising out of the service plan.
The first one was on page 10, performance measure No. 3 — as I take it, a new measure of relative annual investment. It was B.C. as a percentage of Canada that was introduced. It’s a new metric.
Can the minister explain? There’s some explanation in the service plan, since it’s relative to other Canadian
[ Page 12886 ]
provinces as opposed to relative to North America. Can the minister explain the value of that measure?
There’s an estimate here…. Well, we’ll get to that after I hear the general explanation.
[D. Ashton in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: It’s a number fold, hon. Member. The first…. We used to put it in real dollars, but that really didn’t translate into a good understanding about how exploration development affected the GDP of the country.
As we came through a couple of years ago, we discussed that maybe we should actually start stating it as a percentage of GDP, mainly to make sure that there was an understanding, at a federal level, when we talked about things like the capital cost allowance with them and impacts this industry can have on Canada going forward and what it does today, in relative percentages.
The challenge with the number, of course, is…. When you did real dollars, you’d probably see the same thing. But we’re actually holding our own, as a piece of the GDP, in spite of the fact that the prices have gone way down, over the last two years especially, with regards to the total dollars invested and spent and coming out of it, simply because of the price of gas as it affects the world market.
It was a lot easier, I found, when having conversations with the Ministry of Finance federally about the effect on the GDP and the percentage of GDP and what this could do in the future, than it was to just talk in real dollars. They really don’t deal so much in dollars as they do in GDP effectiveness.
B. Ralston: In the service plan, there’s an estimated percentage for 2015-16 which would have ended the end of March 2016. Is there a preliminary number calculating that percentage? The target was an estimated 14 percent. Is there some sense of what that might be?
Hon. R. Coleman: We’re not able to give that number today, Member. We’re still finalizing the year-end and waiting for some numbers to come in from various sources to be able to accomplish that. We’re in that process now.
The year-end was obviously March 31. To April and May, information is compiled. It’s all put in together, with the impacts and measurements, with the final public accounts, which are usually done in July. So we don’t have all that information yet.
B. Ralston: Obviously, this was a very difficult year in oil and gas in terms of investment and exploration and development, given all the decline in price. Despite that, that would be fairly universally applied across the country. Obviously, you don’t have the final number, but is there any sense of a shift in those values at all, or is the minister just not able to say?
Hon. R. Coleman: Our indicators so far have been positive. We’re holding our own in and around that number or better. We won’t have the final numbers, as I explained to the member earlier, until…. But so far, our indicators have been relatively positive.
B. Ralston: I just want to ask a couple of questions about revenue to the ministry.
On page 16 of the budget, under “Natural resource revenue,” natural gas royalties were estimated to be $151 million, and the budget estimate for ’16-17 was $128 million — in other words, a decline.
Over on page 12, where there’s a more detailed discussion of natural resource revenue, there was a discussion of natural gas royalties, expected to decline 15.2 percent, mainly due to the impact of a lower natural gas price. Then there’s a forecast for an increase in the subsequent two years, reflecting projections for higher prices and production volumes, partly offset by increased utilization of royalty programs and credits.
From the perspective of the ministry, can the minister explain…? Clearly, I think the decline in natural gas revenue due to the decline in price is self-evident. Can the minister explain the reasons why there’s a projection for an increase in price over the subsequent two years?
Bearing in mind that…. I think some of the cautions in the budgetary process in the past have stressed that the price of natural gas is a very difficult one to predict. Indeed, its current volatility or the volatility over the last ten years would suggest that’s a very accurate statement. What factors, in generating these numbers for the Ministry of Finance, has the ministry taken into account to project those kind of price increases in the next two years?
Hon. R. Coleman: Forecasts are prepared three times a year — in January, July and October — for Treasury Board staff and the Ministry of Finance. We use and publish these revenue forecasts in the province of British Columbia’s budget in first- and second-quarter fiscal updates. Basically, natural gas has had a significant downturn, as the member has noted. I remember the days of $4 billion in revenues of natural gas back in about ’05-06, and today it’s down to where forecasted revenues are around $128 million, all related to royalties and price.
Basically, what we do is we go out to a number of private forecasts. Ministry of Finance does this — goes and gets a number of forecasts for particular years coming forward. Then we go within the 20th percentile, which is the most prudent and the lowest piece of the 20th percentile of what we think those prudent numbers are for a prudent approach to price forecasting.
Then the volumes are looked at for a forecast of increase — in this case, about 2.2 percent in 2015-16, as an increased number of wells is brought onto production.
[ Page 12887 ]
That will remain flat in 2016-2017, because other wells are not going to be brought onto production in that period of time in any significant numbers.
There’s an upstream development division that’s responsible for preparing a five-year oil and natural gas royalty revenue and land sale forecast, which basically goes into this whole budget process. But in January 2016, a new forecast was prepared for oil and gas revenues as part of the 2016-2017 budget. That’s the table that you’re looking at, I believe, hon. Member.
That takes into play a slight increase of production that’s coming on stream and forecasts that are based on basically all the forecasters who we would amalgamate into a presentation with Treasury Board staff, who would eventually sit down and attach the prudent forecasting piece of being in the 20th percentile, and then that would be input into the budget projections.
B. Ralston: I take it that this document was released with the budget in February of 2016 and would be based on analysis obviously completed prior that. I’m familiar with the Minister of Finance’s Economic Forecast Council and have some sense of the previous cautions. I think there was an independent expert who was hired specifically to provide some cautionary suggestions on analysis of the future price of natural gas. So I’m familiar with that.
Has there been any change in the predicted price for one year out and two years out since January or February? We’re now four or five months. That’s a long time in commodity markets.
Hon. R. Coleman: The next update will be in July with regards to the natural gas revenues piece, which will be part of the first quarterly report and the fiscal update. Then there’s a second update later in the year, in October. And then there would be an update again in January for the next fiscal year for forecasting for Treasury Board staff in the budget as these go forward.
It’s not unusual, actually. The last one is probably the toughest one as you come in to do the final budget process. It usually means that you’re really doing some significant rigour on what to expect in your budget forecast. In that case, it would be the 2017-18 budget and how that affects revenues to government. So that’s how it’s done.
There are all kinds of reports and updates and graphs that project where the world price for natural gas could be. They certainly are, quite frankly, all over the map these days with regards to production and supply, depending on what in particular might happen in Japan with nuclear — whether that’s going to change the demand, the need for product, whether China’s economy picks up, how aggressively they move on switching off coal. All of those things will have an impact.
I do get those types of summaries and reports and predictions from folks, but on the revenue side in the budget here, it’s really talking about the best predictors for this year and the beginning of next year for the budget and then going forward. Because of the volatility, that’s why, in this particular commodity, it’s done three times a year.
B. Ralston: One of the forward indicators of confidence in future price increases would be what the minister already referred to, which is also on page 12, the Crown land tenure revenue. As the minister knows and in following the recommendation of the Auditor General, those sales are divided out over, I believe, a nine-year period. The deferred revenue in Table 1.6 in the budget — that number reflects previous sales in past years, and it’s declining rapidly. But the current-year cash, in 2015-16, was $2 million. Then 2016-17, $2 million. And 2017-18, $2 million.
So the sales have basically tanked dramatically — or collapsed, perhaps, is a better, less colloquial word. Does that not indicate a lack of, at least in terms of future production, some sense that price may not justify a future-intensive drilling activity?
Hon. R. Coleman: It might, but it might not. The reality is that the leases we’re putting up for sale…. When we were selling more land at a higher price, it was from pretty liquid-rich leases in the Montney, which is highly rich in liquids. That gives significantly better to the gas…. You can take off the liquids, like your methanes and your butanes and your propanes, and you have additional value of product coming off, which you’re getting through the wellhead. Part of that. Part of it, the slowdown, no doubt, is the interest with regards to it when there is $1 gas.
The other piece, though, is there are a lot of mature sales out there and a lot of mature exploration that’s been done. The volumes have been identified, and some of it has actually been drilled out. One particular company has drilled out enough capacity for the next 40 years of a significant-sized LNG plant, for instance. So they know they have the gas. They’ve got it. It’s able to go into production. They’ve spent about $6 billion doing that, to get to that point.
In that area, there’s a significant amount of leases already in the hands of both major and minor and middle-range players with regards to the natural gas. Since they’ve already got a lot of land they can work with, I suspect part of it is that.
Leases in other areas of the province. A bit further north, in the Horn River, they’re very dry. It’s a dry gas. Leases, given the richness of the Montney, are not attracting the same interest today as they would. Also, when you’ve got gas down around $1 or $2, everybody is stepping back from their capital investment and pur-
[ Page 12888 ]
chases not just in gas but also in oil and other types of manufacturing worldwide. That’s just simply as a result of the world prices, which significantly changed in the last 24 months.
B. Ralston: I accept the minister’s comments, obviously. They come from knowledge of having been the minister and working with this file for some time.
Although on page 13, what the budget document says is that revenue is — I’m looking at page 13 — “expected to decrease over the fiscal plan period reflecting declining amounts of deferred revenue recognition. This is the result of the very large bonus bid cash sales, occurring in the 2007-08 to 2009-10 period, being fully amortized over nine years compared to lower sales results in the past six years and a forecast for relatively weak sales over the next three years.”
Given that that’s from the Ministry of Finance, I think that complements what the minister is saying, unless there’s anything further that the minister wants to say. Revenue from this item, Crown land tenure revenue, is going to continue to decline from this ministry over the next three years. Is that a fair summary?
Hon. R. Coleman: I think that’s a fair assumption because of a number of things, like I described.
First of all, the bonus bids in the tenures have actually started to be worked by the companies. Because of prices and, frankly, the world markets and capital available to companies, it has probably slowed down some of the sales.
The member is right. We do have this nine-year amortization period. There was a period where we received significant bonus bids and values back, ironically…. If you follow the financial cycle, it pretty well matches up to the climb up and then the downturn from 2009 and then, obviously, the world oil prices in the last 24 months and all of those.
I think, from our perspective, we need to be very prudent in our Crown land leases and sales over the next couple of years as we see what world prices will do. There may be some successes that’ll happen with regards to this industry that will actually jump-start it. We might see some other bonus bids in the future.
At this point in time, I think it’s prudent, given just a look at the historical map — the world downturn, the commodity price — that we wouldn’t be predicting for significant land sales when we can, obviously, tell by reading the tea leaves of the marketplace and the prices that the interest is going to wane on that side for a while.
Also, given the amount of land we have under lease and sale that’s already done, there is significant capacity and ability, with some very good gas fields, to move forward for a long, long time without having any additional expansion of what we might sell in land today.
B. Ralston: I want to turn to a question about the LNG power supply agreements that are set out in the minister’s service plan.
When I asked a similar question last year in estimates, the minister said, and I’m quoting from Hansard of May 13, 2015: “We have one power supply agreement with LNG Canada for the year ’14-15. That was completed. We have a second one completed, but it’s under a confidentiality agreement pending the consultation with First Nations. We have two more underway that are governed by the same aspect as the first but not as far advanced.”
The LNG Canada one, the minister said, was in the public domain. A year ago there was a second one that was completed and two more underway. Can the minister advise on the progress of those?
Hon. R. Coleman: I’m sorry it took so long to get the answer, but I have to make sure I say this correctly without interfering with confidentiality and markets.
Obviously, the one, LNG Canada, the member is aware of. The second one. Our end is complete. The company has to finalize its consultation with First Nations before they can sign an agreement. It would then become public. The third one. We’re still at the table in negotiations. There are issues around volumes and bankability and some issues there that have to be worked out at the negotiating table, but that’s ongoing.
As each project moves down the stream of discussions with us, different issues in and around power come up. Those are the three that are actually live at the moment. Two would effectively be done, one requiring the final consultation. The other one is in process. Obviously, I can’t get into the commercially sensitive piece of that one with regards to it. I’m also advised that because the companies involved here are market-driven, I can’t name the actual companies that would be involved in these at this point in time.
B. Ralston: Just so that I’m clear, then. Last year, a year ago, there was a second one completed, but it’s under a confidentiality agreement pending the consultation with First Nations. So that one is still in consultation with First Nations. Perhaps the minister can just confirm that.
Interjection.
B. Ralston: I believe the minister is saying yes, just for the record. Sometimes the nods don’t show in the transcript.
“We have two more underway that are governed by the same aspect as the first but not as far advanced.” That was the minister’s answer last year. I only heard the minister mention one. So there’s another one that’s underway and still in negotiation. Would that be correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: The other one was a company that was going to do it on some First Nations land. Subsequently, the First Nations decided not to proceed, so they’re actually looking for an additional site. Those negotiations would only restart once they had a site that they were prepared to do some work on.
B. Ralston: The notes describing a power supply agreement mentioned one electricity supply and grid interconnection agreement. Can the minister just explain briefly what the components are? Is this a tripartite deal, or maybe a four-part deal, between the company; First Nations, if they’re involved; Hydro; and the provincial government? Are those the players who would be signatories to this agreement?
Hon. R. Coleman: That was in reference to LNG Canada again. That’s strictly between the company and B.C. Hydro, both on the interconnect and on the power supply agreement. So they put that together. Obviously, to move the load, there have been some negotiations on the interconnect. That’s my understanding with that one.
B. Ralston: Just so it’s clear, in terms of developing future load plans or capacity for B.C. Hydro, is the commitment, once one of these agreements is signed, a firm commitment on the part of Hydro to supply a given amount of firm power at a given price over the life of the agreement? I assume that this would be an agreement that would be a run in somewhat the same length of time as a project development agreement — say 25 or 30 years. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: That’s essentially correct. It’s an agreement where B.C. Hydro agrees to sell the power at a price. The company agrees to buy it at a price. Then, over the term of the agreement, there is also, because of inflation and other escalating clauses that are built into that…. I don’t have all those details with me, but that’s basically it. It’s a long-term power purchase agreement with some clauses for escalation agreed to by both parties on the supply and the purchase of the power.
B. Ralston: Turning now to project development agreements. Last summer we debated the first of the concluded project development agreements with Pacific NorthWest LNG and some subsidiary agreements with its related partners. I know and believe that there are others under negotiation, but in my search of the media reports and of the minister’s website, there don’t appear to be any others concluded. Obviously, LNG Canada would come to mind and Woodfibre LNG. They’re probably the two that are the most advanced, after Petronas.
Is the minister able to say if there are any other…? Given his 2015-16 forecast, performance measure 2, that there would be three concluded by March 31, 2016, other than Petronas, are there any other concluded project development agreements?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, there aren’t, although two of them are well advanced. LNG Canada, particularly, is at the table now in significant negotiations on their PDA. That’s all going on now. But no, there were not two more by March 31, which is unfortunate because that was the objective within the letter. However, these negotiations are affected by markets and, also, by different pricing and models as they do it.
Quite frankly, on the LNG Canada piece, the senior partner in this was also involved in a major acquisition in the $80 billion range with regards to BG, which is also going on at the same time. So they’ve been at the table. We’ve made significant progress. I think there are very few items left before a conclusion of getting to a PDA with that particular project.
B. Ralston: The minister will know — certainly, that’s one of the questions that he is asked regularly in the media — when there will be a final investment decision. That’s an aspect of the project development agreement itself. I do have a couple of questions about the implications of the project development agreement as it pertains to the Petronas project.
Media reports — of course, they’re not always reliable, as we all know. But the most recent report out of Bloomberg was that: “The Canadian government expects to make a decision on environmental approvals for Petroliam Nasional’s $36 billion liquefied natural gas project on the nation’s Pacific coast by mid- to late summer.”
The minister was reported in the media as having sent a team of people from his ministry and, perhaps, from Finance — I’m not sure — to meet with responsible ministers who might be overseeing the potential approval of this project. Can the minister say who went to Ottawa in those endeavours? I’m assuming that my information is accurate. Who did they meet with generally, not specifically? What was their goal?
Hon. R. Coleman: There were two sets of meetings that were taking place in Ottawa that these folks went to. My deputy minister and the Deputy Minister of Finance sat down with the officials in Canadian Environmental Assessment and other people in and around DFO. The purpose of the meeting was really to get the parties to the table to understand that the communication on what is required in order to get to certificate is clear to all parties so that we can help manage that issue.
What we found for the last 1,000 days is the company would get a request for more information, but it wouldn’t be detailed as to what information was being requested. Then it was like a guessing game as to what information they needed to supply.
[ Page 12890 ]
It was really to just try and kick-start a new working relationship to make sure that that connection could be made and the relationship could be built so that we could all work together — both governments and with the proponent — to be able to make sure that the correct information gets to the CEAA certificate. It’s taken an inordinate amount of time.
It’s a different process federally than it is provincially. Just as instructive for the member is: the LNG Canada project has both a federal and provincial environmental certificate already. But they were in a harmonized process, where we had a substitution relationship on doing the work.
We collaborated directly between the two Ministries of Environment, with the federal government ministries. That work was done. Then the two parties both actually still had to do their own and had to make the statutory decision. But that was done in 180 days.
If I could explain what that was like, if there was an issue with regards to, let’s say, fish science, the parties would come to the table, they would discuss it and say: “We need this much information. We need this to actually finalize some of the information we want.” So the parties would go and do the work. It wasn’t a guessing game. It was a way more iterative process between the parties — and much more effective.
This particular process has been, in the old…. Before harmonization and some substitution work was done, it was in an older process, which is…. This is how they do it on an independent basis — independent of not having that relationship on the two environmental ministries working together.
At the same time that those folks were in Ottawa doing that, the chief of staff to the Premier, the deputy chief of staff and one of her communications people also met with federal ministers. The meetings were particularly with, I understand, federal minister Carr and federal minister McKenna.
That was really to update them, as new ministers, on where the project was, what it was, what the benefits were and what the numbers were with regards to the project. It was to continue to build on an earlier relationship we started when we did a trip to Ottawa in January and to continue to make sure we had that line of communication with ministers’ staff so they’d have an understanding of where the progress was and what the information is so we could be coordinated between both levels of government, to have a clear understanding of where this particular project was.
B. Ralston: As the minister will know, of course, the new government changed and promulgated, or made public, a new interim approach for environmental assessments, announced on January 27, 2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada provided an assessment of the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.
So there are, effectively, new assessments, new rules for the overall environmental GHG impact of any particular project. And as the minister will know — and we’ll get to this if we have time a bit later — this project, according to the federal environmental assessment report, would be among the largest single point sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. If it is approved and it’s built, it will be a major source of GHG emissions.
What discussions were there with…? You mentioned the Minister of Environment, the minister of industry. What discussions were had on that particular shift in regulatory requirement by the federal government? What impact is that going to have, does the minister view, on the ultimate decision?
Hon. R. Coleman: The group that went to Ottawa didn’t deal with this issue that the member just brought up. They were just strictly to deal with a specific project issue. The federal government has said that that project, standing on its own…. With regards to it, because it was in process, they’re not going to overlay new processes into that at this time. Plus the fact that there already will be lower GHGs than any other LNG facilities in the world.
They did, early on, though — as the member knows — say they wanted to look at the upstream emissions with regards to natural gas. There’s been some work done through the Ministry of Environment and conversations with the federal ministry to get an understanding of what that means to British Columbia and future projects.
The first thing we said to the federal government was: measure us against our competition relative to GHGs to begin with, in North America and Canada, and you will, first of all, find — because we’ve already done some electrification, what we’ve done on venting with methane and all of those things — we’re already ahead of the rest of the continent with regards to how clean we do this.
The second thing. Noting that the GHG concern in the upstream is of concern to the federal government — that’s why our earlier discussion, when I talked about the electrification, is a significant piece of the conversation. If we did manage to electrify the upstream with clean energy, the GHG emissions would drop almost to zero or dramatically. I guess zero’s probably not true. It’s not correct that we can get all the way down there, but it would be such a substantial drop in GHGs that there wouldn’t be a natural gas field operation, I think, anywhere in the world that could match to how low our GHGs would be, compared to the rest of the world.
That’s why we actually welcome the work that’s being done by our ministries with regards to electricity and looking at those opportunities. We think, you know, we need to be ready to work with the federal government
[ Page 12891 ]
to help them achieve their goals and, at the same time, achieve the green issue with regards to British Columbia.
Of course, the LNG industry already pays a carbon tax, as do other industries in B.C. At $30 a tonne, it’s the highest tax in North America already. And we’ve already put the regulations in about the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. Part of that conversation with the federal government was to really explain to them the big, significant steps that we’ve been making with regards to these things, working on emissions with industry and stakeholders and governments to reduce emissions, including carbon capture and storage, which is another property opportunity.
Basically, it’s us saying: “Hey, we want to get there. We want to work with you. We want to get there. We think it’s a worthwhile pursuit.” And they did…. When they were talking to us way back originally about the project, it really wasn’t about the project so much as it was what’s happening in the upstream. So the upstream emissions part — we’re going to be aggressively going after that. We’ve made that clear, that we’re happy to work with them to do that.
The only request we really made of the federal government at the time was: “Make sure you’re measuring us against everybody else.” If you’re going to set a standard, and you’re going to set a B.C. standard using B.C. — where we’re at today — then the first thing you should know is nobody else is even going to have reached those standards — where we sit today.
If we can do some things — electrification, change out certain types of equipment and stuff — as we go forward, it just means our footprint’s going to get lower and lower and lower as we work on this particular industry which, I think, is important. You know, we have that part where they want to add this into environmental assessment processes. We, as a leader in North America — with the first real operating carbon tax and the other things we’ve done in carbon-neutral government and stuff like that, obviously being the leaders that we are — want to continue to work on climate issues that can benefit the rest of the world, by seeing how we do things.
We should know that the carbon footprint of Canada is pretty small compared to larger industrialized and highly populated areas of the world. That’s part of it.
I’m sure we’ll get a chance to cover this more in the next day or so. We’re working pretty hard to make sure we’re ahead of the curve on this stuff, not behind the curve. We don’t think we need to have somebody come and dictate it to us. We’re already working with our industry to lower the footprint and see what other things we can do innovatively with regards to electrifying, or whatever the case may be, to reduce our GHG footprint.
Noting the time, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.
Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada