Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 256
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2019
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. L. Popham: As we all know and can smell, it’s B.C. Beef Day here at the Legislature, and we’ve got some guests visiting us. Many of us are having meetings with representatives from the cattle association. From the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, we have Renee Ardill, the environment committee chair; Jon Solecki, livestock industry protection committee chair; Brian Thomas, BCCA board member; Lani French, who’s a producer; and John Jenson, who is a producer.
We also have representatives from the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders: Joe Heemskerk, Doug Haughton and August Bremer. Then, from the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association, we have Bob Miller and Corey Lepine joining us.
Please make them welcome.
L. Throness: It’s always a pleasure to have people visit from our ridings. I want to welcome Peter and Christina Kerkhoff today, who are visiting Victoria for a few days. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to welcome two guests today. Justin Schmid is the legislative coordinator for CUPE B.C. He hates it when I say that I remember him from the days when he was the chair of the young workers committee, but I will say that.
I’d also like to welcome — I believe she’s in the precinct already — Geri Bemister, who is a criminology professor at Vancouver Island University and North Island College. She is a human behavioural scientist, an interventionist, a child advocate, an addictions consultant. She works closely with the B.C. Centre on Substance Use, and she is the recent winner of the very prestigious Courage to Come Back Awards for her own heroic journey to recovery and for everything that she has given back to the community, thanking all the people along the way.
Please give a warm welcome to Justin and to Geri Bemister, who will be joining us in the House today.
R. Kahlon: Just momentarily we’re going to have 40 students from Sands Secondary, joined by their teacher Mr. Ryan Evans and some parents. They’re coming in momentarily to watch question period. So in advance of them coming, I hope the House can make them feel welcome.
S. Furstenau: I have two guests to introduce today. Shelby Saulsgiver is a constituent of mine. She’s born and raised in Maple Bay, in Cowichan, and she attended Frances Kelsey. She’s currently a volunteer in my constituency office. We’re so delighted to have her here, and she’s here to shadow me today to explore her growing interest in politics.
Also, I have Waya Aeon, who was born in Trail, grew up in Kaslo. He’s 21 years old. He’s a brand-new member of Citizens Climate Lobby, a volunteer group that seeks to create the political will to act on climate change. He has come down with a group from the Kootenays, and he’s here today to also shadow me.
I’m delighted to have both of them here. Would the House please make them feel most welcome.
T. Stone: I would like to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming a few of my constituents here today. It doesn’t happen very often.
I also would like to acknowledge Doug Haughton, who’s in the gallery. Doug is a fourth-generation Knutsfordian. He’s from Knutsford, British Columbia. His grandfather settled in 1906, started as a grain farm and transformed to beef production, I believe, in the early to mid-1970s. Gregarious guy and great friend.
Sitting next to him is another constituent of mine, Joe Heemskerk, who has a significant feedlot operation in beautiful Westwold as well.
Gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to see you here in Victoria. Thanks for coming down. We’re all looking forward to partaking in Beef Day later on.
Would the House please make Doug and Joe feel welcome.
M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House today is someone who I think is quite amazing. Melanie Atwell is the executive director of Cedar’s COCO Cafe, a social enterprise in, well, Cedar. Cedar Opportunities Cooperative is a community-run co-op started by families who believed that opportunities for employment and for making friends were the greatest needs for their children with developmental disabilities.
Now, under Melanie’s leadership, what once was a cafe providing hands-on employment, training and socialization opportunities for people with developmental disabilities has expanded into a catering company and a commercial retailer that creates wholesome, frozen take-out meals that are sold at the cafe. They deliver an exceptional program, and they’ve won numerous awards, including the international Ruderman Best in Business Award, which recognizes businesses across North America for hiring, supporting and employing people with disabilities.
Would the House please congratulate Melanie and COCO for their success and make her feel very welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us shortly in the gallery will be a number of students from Eric Hamber Secondary. A number of those students actually reside in my riding, although the school is in the riding of the member for Vancouver-Langara. I’ll be having an opportunity to speak with those students shortly after question period. Will the House please let them know they’re very welcome.
D. Davies: It gives me pleasure to welcome two folks from the far north. I’m going to steal one from Peace River South — an introduction. Dan Rose is the vice-chair of the regional district. As well, the chair, Brad Sperling, who lives in my riding, in Charlie Lake. Would the House make them feel most welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M217 — INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE
DISCLOSURE (CLARE’S
LAW) ACT, 2019
M. Lee presented a bill intituled Interpersonal Violence Disclosure (Clare’s Law) Act, 2019.
M. Lee: Clare’s law is modelled after the U.K. legislation which passed after the tragic murder of Clare Wood by her ex-partner. Clare was unaware of the three previous violent convictions under her then-partner’s name. This bill will allow at-risk individuals to access information about their partner’s potentially abusive or violent past.
The bill will allow police officers to disclose any information regarding a partner’s violent history to an at-risk individual. Under Clare’s law, immunity would be granted to the minister, the government of British Columbia, a police force, an agent, an employee, a board of police commissioners or a member of a board of police commissioners based on any cause of action arising from the enactment of this bill, the application in good faith of all or any provision of this act or any disclosure of information about an individual by a police service, if the disclosure is made in good faith and in adherence to the act.
It would also remove the need for police officers, pursuant to the work, to submit any evidence or testimony related to the work conducted.
The provisions of this bill seek to provide additional protection for those who feel they may be in danger of partner violence. Access to this type of information will help at-risk individuals remove themselves from dangerous situations. It is instrumental in the continued effort to curtail partner-abuse incidents.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
M. Lee: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M217, Interpersonal Violence Disclosure (Clare’s Law) Act, 2019, 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)
B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY
D. Barnett: I have stood in this House on several occasions to praise British Columbia’s cattle industry. Today marks another opportunity for me to do so. It is the tenth annual B.C. Beef Day, a day to celebrate the accomplishments of local cattlemen and to support this vitally important industry.
I encourage all members of this House to engage with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association and other industry stakeholders who are here today to celebrate with us. They will be hosting a barbecue outside here on the legislative grounds from 11:30 to one. Enjoy an incredible lunch and learn more about the high-quality and great-tasting beef that is produced right here at home.
This is an industry that employs many British Columbians. It is leading the way in terms of sustainable practices and land protection and makes an estimated contribution of $600 million to the provincial GDP every year. The B.C. beef industry plays a particularly important role in my riding, and we are honoured to be hosting the B.C. Cattlemen’s AGM in Williams Lake on May 25.
The barbecue season is underway. Whether you choose your B.C. beef at a restaurant or the supermarket or a farmers market, this goes a long way in supporting hard-working ranching families in our communities as well as our provincial economy.
This is B.C. Beef Day. Let us all pledge to buy local and support local and eat the best beef in Canada.
D. Routley: It is Beef Day. Not only is it the day that presents an opportunity for government to meet with the people behind the industry — including the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders, the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association, the B.C. Association of Abattoirs and the B.C. Dairy Association — but it’s also the favourite day of the calendar year for the member for Chilliwack, being a champion in all things smoked and otherwise cooked outside.
B.C. Beef Day is a day for industry reps and government reps to meet to discuss opportunities to continue to grow the ranching and beef-processing sector in B.C. It is one of the most sought-after days on the legislative calendar, and everybody should get in line early outside for the barbecue.
Ranching is a long-standing industry in British Columbia, with many families tending the same ranch and property for over 100 years, like the Turner family at Turner Ranch in Pritchard or the Hunter family at Scotty Creek Ranch in Cache Creek.
I was fortunate enough to serve on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food. We did a report and a consultation around the province on local meat production. This happened in May and June of last year. It was very interesting. We saw the many challenges that ranchers face in this province — problems of scale, problems of geography, problems of seasonal timing.
These are all not insurmountable. With cooperation, I’m sure that legislators, policy-makers and ranchers will coordinate to further secure the food supply of British Columbia. This is a noble task. It is a value-added task that adds value to our land base, adds value to our communities, adds value to their products and, at its best, adds value to the province of British Columbia and all of its people.
DIABETES PREVENTION AND
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
INITIATIVE
L. Reid: Let’s begin the conversation about the opportunity before us. Diabetes is a challenging disease but one that we can prevent, in many cases, by modifying risk factors and better managing diabetes. Recognizing this, Diabetes Canada convened more than 115 individuals representing nearly 100 stakeholder organizations over the past year to build a new strategy for diabetes in Canada.
With this flexible blueprint modelled on the proven, ambitious approach used for HIV/AIDS and other global disease prevention and management strategies, we can deliver results in just seven years by focusing on the following key targets. Ninety percent of Canadians live in an environment that preserves wellness and prevents the development of diabetes. Ninety percent of Canadians are aware of their diabetes status. Ninety percent of Canadians living with diabetes are engaged in appropriate interventions to prevent diabetes and its complications. Ninety percent of Canadians engaged in interventions are achieving approved health outcomes.
These targets are based on extensive consultations and rigorous analysis of research. The actions required for their achievement are detailed below, as are the unique considerations of people with type 1 diabetes and Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Diabetes Canada recommends that the federal government should establish a national partnership over seven years to establish and create the development and implementation of a new national diabetes strategy, based on the 360 framework. With federal government support, implementation of this national strategy could begin in 2020 and continue through 2021, a milestone year that marks the 100th anniversary of Dr. Banting’s discovery of insulin.
This would allow Canadians to mark the occasion with another critical achievement in the prevention and management of diabetes and, once again, improve the lives of millions of Canadians. I’m on board. Are you?
SMALL BUSINESSES
M. Dean: Small businesses are integral to the growth of British Columbia’s economy. They support diversity in urban and rural communities and account for 35 percent of GDP. There were just over half a million businesses in B.C. in 2017. Of these, 98 percent were small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, and 60 percent were self-employed individuals with no paid help.
Vancouver Island and the coast account for 16 percent of the small business total. Esquimalt-Metchosin hosts a huge diversity of small businesses, from the village store in Metchosin; to the first retail geocaching store in Canada, the Sharkz Store, in Esquimalt; with 328 Taphouse in Colwood; and Pete’s Tent and Awning in View Royal all in between.
Recently I attended Viva La WestShore, hosted by the Westshore Chamber, and met a number of these local business people who support the local community as well as the economy. Thanks to president Mike Reilly and ED Judy Lawlor for all of your work.
Nearly 1.1 million British Columbians worked in small businesses in 2017, accounting for 54 percent of private sector employment. This sector thrives in Esquimalt-Metchosin. I attended the Esquimalt Chamber’s Linger at Lunch recently and discussed what’s important for local business owners and operators. Thank you to Chris Edley, who is the president of that chamber.
Now, approximately 38 percent of the self-employed in B.C. are women. We’re very fortunate to have the Westshore Women’s Business Network, which hosts regular speakers and events. The room is always filled with dynamic and enterprising women. Thanks to Deb Alcadinho for all of her hard work.
In fact, thank you to everyone who supports B.C. small businesses.
FRIENDS OF HUDSON’S HOPE SOCIETY
D. Davies: Today I’d like to speak about a local group from the small town of Hudson’s Hope. Hudson’s Hope is located about 90 kilometres from Fort St. John and sits on the banks of the Peace River. As well, it’s the home to the W.A.C. Bennett dam and the Peace Canyon dam.
It’s also home to a group called the Friends of Hudson’s Hope. The Friends of Hudson’s Hope was formed in 2001, with the purpose to provide assistance for those in financial need that have to travel to medical appointments outside of the town. Financial assistance can be provided to both the patient needing the medical services as well as an accompanying person, if required. Funds can also be used for medical equipment that the patient is not covered for.
Patti Campbell is the administrator of the society and, unfortunately, will be leaving the society soon, but a search for a new administrator is underway. Patti is extremely proud of the wonderful volunteers, including the board members: Barb Frocklage, Lynnea Stacey, Edith Rosa, Travis Winnicky and Kathi Birosh, all of whom have made the operation possible.
The support from all of the community volunteers is a testament to the care that the residents of Hudson’s Hope have for one another. The Friends of Hudson’s Hope runs the local food bank and owns and operates the local thrift store, where Patti is also the manager. All donations from this thrift store go back into the society itself. A few years ago the store itself was in need, as the building it was located in burned down, and was homeless for a while. The community stepped in, and today they have a new location that is perfectly suited to their needs.
Each year, during Christmas season, the group also runs a Christmas hamper for those in need. To raise funds to support these endeavours, the Friends of Hudson’s Hope also have numerous fundraising raffles and appeals for donation from the local businesses and townspeople that make this organization so successful.
From myself to all the Friends of Hudson’s Hope Society, I’d like to personally thank you on behalf of the residents of Peace River North for all that you do to make your community a great community.
NORTH VANCOUVER YOUTH COUNCIL
ON CLIMATE
ACTION
B. Ma: The world is changing and in disastrous ways. Glaciers have shrunk, plant and animal species have been lost, and the sea level is rising. There are longer, more intense heat waves; longer, more damaging droughts; stronger, more intense hurricanes, floods and forest fires; and exploding pine beetle populations.
Climate change is real, and we feel it here in B.C. It’s no wonder that so many have cried out that we must act immediately to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards a cleaner, better future, with our youth as the most vocal among us.
The North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA’s Youth Leadership Council on Climate Action is a group of students from several North Vancouver high schools who have joined together to educate the public on the need to take climate change seriously. They are Cameron Sullivan from Argyle Secondary; Giovanna Lazzarini from Carson Graham Secondary; Nikolas Montecalvo and Shiqi Xu from Sutherland Secondary; and Callie Yoo, Emily Pennefather and Griffin Lee from Handsworth Secondary.
Working with each other and many of their peers at their respective schools, this team of young people will be hosting a climate strike rally at North Vancouver city hall, Civic Plaza, on Friday, May 24, starting at 4 p.m. We hope you will come to support them in their efforts to raise awareness about this global issue.
While this government’s CleanBC strategy to meet legislated reductions in overall emissions of 40 percent by 2030, 60 percent by 2040 and 80 percent by 2050 is exactly what B.C. needs to be doing, we are also only a small part of the equation. Every province in this country needs its own CleanBC, as does every country in this world. Let’s stand with our young people and fight together for a better future.
Oral Questions
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING
COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF
CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER
M. Polak: Yesterday we raised questions about a letter from Donald Sorochan, QC, that contains serious allegations against the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Included in the allegations are claims that the minister instructed her staff to act in a way to “avoid her communication being captured by freedom-of-information law.”
Why did the minister give this instruction to her staff?
Hon. J. Sims: My colleague across the way has sat on this side and has been in government. Let me be very clear. Ministers use their government account for government business and legislative account for legislative or constituency issues.
When I hire a new staff person, anyone who comes in, I’m very clear with them that government communications are to be done through my government email, but constituency-related communications are to be done through the appropriate channels. That’s how the division is meant to work.
My colleagues across the way, from the time they sat on this side of the House, know exactly how that works. That is why, when we became elected as MLAs, we got our legislative phone, our Leg. email and our computers. Then, when we became ministers and got sworn in, we got a ministerial phone and an email and a computer.
It would be remiss of me if I did not make that very clear with employees when I hire them. I told my constituency staff that they should not use my ministerial government email for constituency matters.
This was a challenging HR matter involving a former employee, and because of privacy, I can’t get into the details. While the opposition continues to focus on gotcha politics, I’m focused on our government’s important work to make life better for those who live in B.C.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.
M. Polak: Unfortunately, what the minister made clear was her intention to avoid the scrutiny of having to divulge and disclose government business that she’s conducting, now, what seems to be in secret.
Of the claims that the whistle-blower is prepared to swear under oath, by the way — she contains that in her letter — is the assertion that the minister “explained to me that she only used her ministerial phone or email for routine tasks or conversations because ‘I have to have something to show them.’ The ‘them’ she referred to were those members of the public, opposition or media who were making freedom-of-information requests for her communication.”
Can the minister explain why she said this?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me make it very, very clear that there is a differentiation between what we can communicate through government phones and government emails. That’s good record management practice. Also, the constituency assistants have a different set of rules, and that is that constituency work is not supposed to be done on government email. I made that very clear, because it is important that when new constituency staff come into our offices and they’re working in an office of a minister, there is a delineation about constituency work.
I’m sure that when my colleagues who sit on that side now were on this side, they must have explained the same to their staff and said: “If it’s constituency communications, they go through these channels. If it’s government communications, they go through these channels.”
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a second supplemental.
M. Polak: In spite of the minister’s ongoing descriptions of what we all know to be the regulations on our communications as government ministers or MLAs, I note she hasn’t denied making the comments that the whistle-blower claims.
These are very serious allegations. It is alleged: “On more than one occasion, the minister’s senior ministerial assistant called me to explain to me that I was not to communicate with the minister or her ministry staff via their government emails unless I first checked by a text or phone call.”
That doesn’t comport with what the minister is describing. Can the minister explain why her senior ministerial assistant would have given that direction?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me restate. I was very clear with my staff when they were hired that they were to use my legislative account to communicate business that had to do with constituents — my constituency office. That is good advice to give to an employee when they come in. I was very, very clear that if it had to do with government business and they had to communicate with other offices, which they do when they’re seeking assistance for our constituents, there are appropriate ways to do that and to use those channels.
When a new staff member comes in and…. By the way, this staff member was with me for six weeks, and the employment ended for a variety of reasons. This is an HR matter. I cannot get into the details, and my colleagues know that. But I will be very, very clear. I was very firm with my staff that they had to make sure they were following the rules and not to circumvent them.
J. Johal: It’s an auspicious day today, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but we’re celebrating an anniversary. It was a year ago today that this minister had to apologize for using private email while she conducted government business. It’s an embarrassing anniversary, and clearly, this minister has no credibility on this file.
Now we have a letter from Mr. Sorochan, QC, which contains extremely serious allegations. In it, the whistle-blower says: “I was repeatedly told to never admit the use of personal email for ministerial business, as we have to protect the minister.”
To the minister, why was the whistle-blower given this direction?
Hon. J. Sims: That is a load of nonsense. A load of nonsense. I follow the rules and the appropriate use policy, and I use my government email for government business.
Now, when a new staff person comes into your office or when you hire a new staff person and you’re a minister, you actually sit them down and explain to them how communications work. That’s exactly what I did.
This is a very difficult HR matter. The person was my employee for about six weeks and is no longer my employee. Because it is an HR matter, my colleagues also know that I cannot get into the details. But let me assure them that I was very, very clear that the individual was to follow the proper practices, and there was nothing nefarious about them, despite the fact that my colleagues would love to find something.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: It was exactly a year ago today, as I said, after initially denying any wrongdoing, that the minister was forced to admit she had broken FOI rules.
The serious allegations contained in the Sorochan letter show the minister has gone to even greater lengths to circumvent the system she has sworn to uphold. According to the whistle-blower: “The minister routinely used iMessage, WhatsApp and her personal email address to conduct ministerial business.”
Why is the minister continuing to use private communications for government business?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me say it one more time. When a new employee is hired in a constituency office and the person in that constituency office also happens to have in there a minister, then I think it’s perfectly appropriate…. As a matter of fact, I would be remiss if I did not explain to them that they could not do constituency work through my government email or phone, and that is exactly what happened.
I do my constituency business through my constituency phone, as my staff is told to do. And, yes, I do use WhatsApp, but I do not use WhatsApp for government business. I do have it on my Legislature phone, and I use it for local constituency matters and for personal things, like connecting with my family and talking about my mom.
It is also…. As my colleagues across there know, WhatsApp is a commonly used social media tool that is used in the South Asian community. But I make sure that my WhatsApp is not on my government phone and that it is being used for personal or legislative business.
SOIL DISPOSAL SITE IN
SHAWNIGAN LAKE
WATERSHED
S. Furstenau: From the very beginning, the Shawnigan Lake community has been abundantly clear: depositing five million tonnes of contaminated soil in our watershed is an unacceptable risk to our drinking water and our community. After years of relentless efforts by the Shawnigan community, some of whom are in the gallery right now, and seemingly endless court battles, the previous Minister of Environment revoked the permit in February of 2017. I thank her for that.
Now, two years later, the company is proposing to leave the 100,000 tonnes of soil that was deposited at the site that overlooks our drinking water source, a site that Shawnigan Creek, which feeds the lake, wraps around.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. He has a decision to make. Will the soil be allowed to stay, or will the minister put the long-term interests and well-being of the people of Shawnigan first and order the soil removed?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. This is a long-standing issue. I understand the considerable concern of the residents of Shawnigan Lake about the integrity and safety of their drinking water. I also recognize the tremendous amount of effort that members of the community and the member of the Third Party have put into trying to resolve this issue, resulting from a decision made several years ago by the previous government.
We have taken a number of measures to ensure that there is transparency in the review of both the plan and the testing. Information on the landfill, sampling data, inspection reports, the order and warnings are all made public for people to view. The member, as well as members of her community, have recently, in April, attended briefings with officials from my ministry and the Ministry of Energy and Mines. The ministry is working hard to review the closure plans submitted, to gather all the information necessary to provide to me for a decision to ensure that whatever the final decision is, it maintains the integrity of the drinking water for the residents. That decision will be made this spring.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: It’s interesting to note that those inspection reports are actually signed off by an engineer named Mike Achtem, who used to be with Active Engineering, which was the company that had a secret profit-sharing deal with the quarry owners.
I also wonder if the minister has considered the many other issues that are associated with this site: the endless questions about the integrity of the liner beneath the landfill; the concerns raised by a Ministry of Environment hydrologist that the monitoring wells beneath the site are at the wrong depth to determine the impacts to groundwater; the interaction of the high levels of sulphur with the metals and hydrocarbons, resulting in sulphuric acid; the contaminants showing up in the surface water below the site. This is only a very short sample of a very long list of serious concerns about this site and the process that resulted in a permit being issued in the first place.
We have drought conditions across Vancouver Island. Water restrictions are already in place. Shawnigan Lake is one of the few natural drinking water reservoirs on southern Vancouver Island.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Does he think that allowing for the potential contamination of a drinking water source for 12,000 people, and one of the few natural reservoirs on southern Vancouver Island, is an acceptable risk?
Hon. G. Heyman: I want to assure the member and the people in the gallery that our government takes the protection of drinking water, human health, protection of the environment, extremely seriously. That is why we are putting a tremendous amount, in the ministry, of diligence to reviewing all of the aspects of the closure plan, all of the test results, the information provided by the member — information provided not only by the qualified professional to whom the member referred but by an independent qualified professional retained by the ministry.
This is a difficult issue. We are doing due diligence. The ministry is looking at every aspect of the issues raised by the member and the community. All of that information will be provided to me for a final decision. We take the protection of drinking water extremely seriously.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING CITIZENS’
SERVICES MINISTER
S. Bond: The Premier said that he was profoundly disappointed with the evasion of FOI by the Minister of Citizens’ Services a year ago almost exactly. He admitted: “We missed the mark…. I acknowledge that. And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Well, by now, the Premier will have discovered that on March 4, 2019, his office, via the cabinet secretariat, was made aware of these and other serious allegations concerning the conduct of the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Serious allegations were made more than two months ago about the conduct of a sitting minister.
What exactly did the government do? What actions, to the Deputy Premier, did this government take?
Hon. D. Eby: I have a copy of the May 12 letter the members were referring to yesterday that I took on notice. I’ve had the opportunity to review it. It appears to be one of a series of letters sent. The lead address is Mr. Michael McEvoy, who’s the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
Certainly, for any person in British Columbia that has a concern or a complaint about government’s administration related to information and privacy, the correct place to send those concerns is the independent commissioner, whose office is set up exactly for that purpose. The letter is properly addressed to the commissioner, and the individual and any British Columbian with concerns should pursue those with the commissioner’s office.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the Attorney General full well knows that that letter also contains serious allegations about the conduct of the Minister of Citizens’ Services that were directed to the government. The Attorney General has just admitted that this government was apparently aware of a letter that arrived over two months ago, and yesterday he appeared surprised by the fact that there had actually been a letter.
Let me quote the Premier once again. The Premier’s office was told on March 4…. This is exactly what the Premier’s office was told more than two months ago. “Please note that throughout my employment” — that has nothing to do with the Privacy Commissioner — “a constant has been the strident instructions from both the minister and senior political staff to phone or text only.”
It is absolutely unimaginable that two months ago a letter arrived in the Premier’s office that alleged serious, serious issues of misconduct of a sitting minister, and now the Attorney General stands in the House and simply dismisses that letter. Could the Attorney General please tell us what he is prepared to do today to deal with these serious allegations?
Hon. D. Eby: The letter is dated May 12. It arrived in my constituency office on Sunday night, late. In it, though, I note that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is already in correspondence with this individual. It said that the office was available to receive additional information and: “For your information, FOIPPA does not apply to MLAs or the office of a person who is an MLA, because MLA offices are not public bodies.”
There’s interaction going back and forth. This is the proper office for this concern to be brought to. The commissioner is the lead addressee on the letter. The office is independent — and independent for a reason. I have confidence in the ability of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to do the job that the commissioner is set up for. The individual and any British Columbia that has concerns like this should raise them with the commissioner’s office.
P. Milobar: Well, to be clear, we have a minister who has repeatedly shown she has zero regard for the freedom-of-information rules that she is responsible for. A year ago the Premier said he was profoundly disappointed and said: “The deputy minister in my office is ensuring that best practices are being observed with my staff. I expect that, and in fact, it’s going to happen.”
We know, despite the Attorney General continuing to refer to the May 12 letter, that on March 4 of this year, the Premier’s office was contacted as a first step in trying to solve these serious allegations. It seems nothing has changed, though, and this has happened again in yet even more spectacular fashion than a year ago.
Again to the Attorney General, when did the Premier know…? What steps have been taken from the March 4 letter to today to actually address these serious allegations from within government?
Hon. D. Eby: I have pointed out that there is an independent office that is tasked with looking into exactly the concerns that are being raised here. It’s the proper place to raise those concerns. They’re the lead addressee on the letter. Any British Columbian that has concerns about issues like this should properly bring them to the….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: Any person that has concerns about government’s administration related to freedom of information and protection of privacy properly should bring them to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which appears to be exactly what has happened.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: Despite being caught last year, this same minister continues to purposely circumvent the system that she has sworn to uphold. A year ago, when there was finally an admission that the documents were not being handled properly, the Premier committed that his deputy minister would be ensuring best practices are being observed. Yet here we are a year later, and the answer we’re getting back from the Attorney General is trying to dismiss these concerns over to an independent body.
A year ago the Premier was more than happy to try to step in to solve this problem. Now we have the Attorney General saying — even though these are, potentially, even more serious allegations than a year ago — that the government has no role to play in this, that the Premier and the Attorney General have no role to play in this. The exact same allegations have been made once again, and they’ve been forced to publicly chastise the minister to make the promise that it wouldn’t happen again.
Again to the Attorney General, when is the government going to step in and actually investigate this and take proper actions on something that they’ve known about now in the Premier’s office for the better part of two months?
Hon. J. Sims: I take my responsibilities on freedom of information and good record management very, very seriously. Let me be very clear. This individual did not work for government. This matter relates to her employment as a constituency assistant. As such, the executive director of caucus dealt with this matter. As it is an HR matter, we can’t go into it in any further details.
Let me assure my colleagues that what I said to a constituency assistant, who works for an MLA, not for government…. The clarification I gave to her was: “When you’re dealing with government business, those you communicate through the government emails. But constituency staff, constituency information, casework to do with constituents is dealt with through the Legislature emails.”
Let me also be clear that the colleagues across the other side, who are getting so excited right now, were sitting on this side for 16 long years. During those 16 long years, many of them were ministers. Many of them were ministers. As ministers, I’m sure they must have explained to their new employees how communications work in government and how they work in MLA offices.
Let me read out to you what was said in the very letter that my colleagues are quoting from. In that very same letter, the Privacy Commissioner stated: “For your information, the FIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, does not apply to MLAs or the office of a person who is an MLA, because MLA offices are not public bodies. ‘Public body’ is defined in schedule 1 of FIPPA and specifically excludes the office of a person who is an MLA.”
That is what I explained to my staff.
M. de Jong: The question today is this. On March 4, the cabinet secretariat in the Premier’s office was notified of these allegations. Allegations that a minister in the cabinet with a record for attempting to manoeuvre around the legislation, the very rules that she is responsible for upholding, was doing so again. Allegations contained in the letter that went to the Premier’s office to, ironically, the ethics adviser, one Alex MacLennan, that the same minister was attempting to facilitate entry into Canada of foreign nationals who were on a security watch in exchange for money. Allegations contained in that letter.
The question is not whether the Attorney General believes the allegations. The question is: what steps did the government take to investigate these serious allegations that they were aware of over two months ago?
Hon. D. Eby: I can’t think of a better place to look at concerns related to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act than the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. Now, it’s an arm’s-length office from government. It’s an office of the Legislature with all the tools necessary to look into matters like this. It is in front of that office. There’s a dialogue back and forth, obviously, between this individual and her counsel and the commissioner, who’s the lead addressee on the letter. There’s been previous correspondence that I was not included on. It is properly in front of that office.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: A year ago the Premier stood in this chamber and acknowledged that his minister had failed to uphold the appropriate standard, acknowledged that he had failed and that his government had failed to uphold the appropriate standard of records management. He pledged, as you have heard earlier, that he was going to do everything he can to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Today the Attorney General conveniently attempts to sidestep these serious allegations by saying that, actually, the Premier and the government don’t want anything to do with this. It’ll be for someone else to take account of.
The letter that went to the Premier’s office via the cabinet secretariat contained a whole list of serious allegations. We have focused on one. I’ve just mentioned another, involving the attempts to bring foreign nationals into the country that were on a security list, in exchange for money.
The question is what steps the government took, what steps the Premier took, what steps the Attorney General took, to investigate allegations that have now been confirmed in a letter from Donald Sorochan, QC.
Hon. D. Eby: I became aware of this issue at question period yesterday. There was a letter sent by a lawyer to my constituency office late on Sunday night. I’ve had the opportunity since then to read the letter, which is one….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: This is simply when I became aware of the issue.
It appears to me that this is in front of the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The office is at arm’s length from government. It is in front of the commissioner’s office. They have received a letter from this…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: …individual’s lawyer, Mr. Sorochan, that outlines her concerns in some detail, that offers to provide additional information to the office. There’s a dialogue going back and forth, as there should be. This office was set up to look into…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: …issues exactly like this. There’s a reason why it’s independent. The members on the other side know the role of this office in looking into these allegations very, very well.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: I have full confidence in the ability of the commissioner to look at this issue.
[End of question period.]
J. Martin: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
J. Martin: Outside in the grounds on the precinct is a very special person, a friend of mine and, whether you know it or not, a great friend of yours. The tradition continues. Brian Misko from the House of Q is cooking up hundreds and hundreds of pounds of tri-tip and lots of other great offerings in honour of B.C. Beef Day.
It’s a huge undertaking for him and his crew. This is one of the biggest feeds that takes place by anyone on the barbecue circuit.
Please welcome him once again, and show your appreciation for all of his effort. Have a great lunch out there.
S. Furstenau: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Furstenau: I see Sierra Acton, the CVRD area director for Shawnigan Lake, in the gallery, along with some other folks from Shawnigan. I just wanted to make Sierra and the Shawnigan residents welcome.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 31, the Police Amendment Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 26, Financial Services Authority Act. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Health.
[J. Isaacs in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 31 entitled the Police Amendment Act, 2019, and I move the bill now be read a second time.
It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 31, the Police Amendment Act, 2019, which makes changes to the independent investigation office, or IIO, in British Columbia. As members will know, the role of the independent investigation office is to investigate critical incidents of death or serious harm involving police officers and special constables in B.C.
This bill is intended to address two specific areas of concern regarding the quality and timeliness of IIO investigations. Specifically, the Police Act will be amended to reduce the hiring restrictions for IIO investigators for a period of two years to allow the IIO to bolster its investigative capacity and reduce the amount of time it takes to conclude investigations by hiring investigators with more experience and expertise than is possible under the current provision and the state of civilian training.
The IIO’s referral standard to Crown counsel will also be amended to be consistent with the referral standard used by the police so that fewer cases that are unlikely to meet the charge approval standard of Crown are referred. This change will facilitate the timely completion of IIO investigations.
These amendments are reflective of extensive consultation with stakeholders, including representatives from various law enforcement agencies, civil rights groups, advocacy organizations and Indigenous groups. Justice Thomas Braidwood, who led the public inquiry that recommended the establishment of an independent civilian police oversight office, was also consulted on the proposed amendments.
Overall, consultations indicated strong support for raising the referral standard to Crown counsel. Stakeholders also expressed general support for providing the chief civilian director of the IIO with expanded hiring discretion, acknowledging that the goal of complete civilianization of the IIO should not come at the expense of ensuring the organization has the necessary expertise to conduct high-quality investigations. Government remains committed to the continued civilianization of the IIO. The two-year time limitation on the director’s expanded hiring discretion demonstrates that commitment.
In conclusion, the amendments in this bill will assist in bolstering the important work of the independent investigations office. I look forward to hearing the comments of other members of the House.
M. Morris: I chaired the committee that did the review into the IIO a couple of years ago. We heard from many, many stakeholders right across the province and from experts. We spent a lot of time formulating the report at the end of the day and providing our recommendations.
I do know the amendments to the Police Act that are being introduced deal with a couple of things in there. One of the ones is the primary concern over hiring police officers that have been out of their police organization for five years or more. The committee felt that it was reasonable to look at the expertise that these folks had — so to exclude that five-year rule on there.
We don’t contest the fact that, eventually, the IIO should be a truly civilian organization. We fully support that, and I do as a former police officer. I know most of my police colleagues out in the field also feel the same thing. But there are a couple of elements here that are of concern.
The investigations that the IIO undertake are quite complex. In order to achieve the level of competence required not only to investigate criminal offences but to determine the difference between the inquiry that they’re making into possible wrongdoing by the police officer involved — to know when the line is crossed when it comes to the criminal aspect of things and to determine what kind of constitutional warnings they have to offer an implicated police officer — takes a lot of skill. And it takes a long time to acquire those skills.
In the police world out there, in order to become an accredited criminal investigator, it takes years and years of experience — years and years of providing testimony in court and learning from your mistakes but also keeping abreast of jurisprudence as handed down by every court, from the provincial court level right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, that all provide direction to police officers and criminal investigators on how to do their job.
These are happening all the time. It’s not that once a year, you review all the jurisprudence that comes out. It’s happening on a routine basis. There are some of the cases that come out that are fundamental in changing how police gather evidence, how they treat evidence, how they treat suspects and how they treat witnesses. There are a number of issues that are there.
When it comes to the IIO…. One of the things that hampered the early part of the IIO when it came into force was the fact that they didn’t have enough of these skilled investigators. A lot of these investigations were protracted for very long periods of time. The protraction not only impacted on the public perception of what was going on and, perhaps, the confidence that the public had in the IIO at the time but the pressure that it was putting on implicated members.
Unfortunately, a lot of these cases involved people who lost their lives. To have this held over the head of a member — of an RCMP or police officer member who was implicated in the involvement of that death — is a lot of stress, not only on that police officer but on their family as well. To sit there for a year or two years or longer, in some cases, waiting for the decision of the IIO to come out, was highly stressful. It impacted family lives. It impacted relationships. It impacted a number of things there. So the pressure on making sure that the IIO has the talent and expertise necessary to do the job is significant.
I understand what the IIO has gone through. They’ve implemented a number of training programs for their staff, which is excellent. It’s a step in the right direction. But subsection 38.06(5) of the Police Act says that: “The chief civilian director may retain consultants, experts, specialists and other persons the chief civilian director considers necessary to enable or assist the chief civilian director in exercising powers or performing duties of the chief civilian director under this Act.”
That allows him to go and get the expertise that’s out in the field — those men and women that have the skills necessary to do those kinds of complex investigations. The thing stopping him, in this particular section here, from doing that is that the current act — not this amendment, but the current act — states that he can’t hire them unless they’ve been out of a police organization for five years or longer.
The problem that we saw, as a committee, when we reviewed this and we looked and we heard from all the stakeholders, is that after five years, your level of acuity and your level of being current with what’s going on out in the world of jurisprudence and best practices and scientific technology changes becomes somewhat diminished. You don’t get that level of expertise unless you’re getting somebody that’s very current in the field.
I applaud the government for introducing the amendment. The part that I have difficulty with on this is the fact that it’s only good for two years, and then it reverts back to the original section, where you can’t hire anybody unless they’ve been out of a police organization for more than five years.
We can’t…. Unless government has some way to determine and forecast how quickly the current level of investigators’ skill increases, I think two years is an arbitrary benchmark. I think it’s too short a period of time, based on my own experience in criminal investigations over the years. I’ve watched these young constables and investigators progress through their service and gain that level of expertise in their performance. It takes time.
You see them growing, and it takes time — sometimes seven, eight, nine years — to get to that level of expertise where you’re accepted by the courts at the various levels. Your evidence is accepted, and you really know what you’re doing. You know how to function. You’re keeping abreast of all these changes here. So I think the two-year limitation is something that we need to have a look at. I think it’s something that, perhaps, should be removed, but we can talk about that later on.
The other part of it is the recommendation…. I didn’t see this in this bill before the House here, but one of the recommendations that we made as a committee when we reviewed the IIO was that there be some legislative requirement to do a complete review of the IIO after a six-year period of time. But I didn’t see any part of that in this legislation, in this bill before the House. I think that would have been an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the civilianization goal of the IIO, of making it fully civilianized, and see the effect of these trained experts coming in to help the IIO attain that level of professionalism — to see whether or not it’s adequate.
Six years is a short period of time when you look at the issues that are going on. Six years is a short period of time when you look at the effects that these kinds of investigations have on the police officers involved, on the organizations involved, on the families involved, who may have lost a loved one in one of these situations, and on the IIO themselves. I think every opportunity should be extended to ensure that they function at the level that is required there.
The other part of it, in this, that has received wide applause from those that I’ve spoken to within the police field is the fact that the civilian director now must have reasonable cause to believe that an offence may have been committed, which is the standard. When police officers do criminal investigations, their charge approval is based upon reasonable and probable grounds, and the recommendations for charges is based on reasonable and probable grounds. This is a standard now that all police officers can recognize and understand. The legal community understands it. I think it’s the only standard that should be met here, so I applaud government for introducing that amendment to this bill as well.
Like I said, the only issue that I have is this very short window, this very short period of a two-year limitation on this particular amendment — to revert back to the old ways. I think that probably shortchanges the opportunities that the IIO might have in order to develop that expertise over the next five, ten years.
It takes a long time for the level of expertise to be at that level where the job is done in a technically elegant way that is deserved by the police officers involved, and that’s exactly what the public expects. Those are my comments now for this particular aspect of this process. I look forward to maybe examining it in a little more detail at the committee stage.
N. Simons: I’m pleased to be able to speak about this bill that’s before the Legislature today. It’s an amendment to the Police Act, which defines how police in this province act.
This particular amendment to the Police Act says that the independent oversight body of the police forces in the province are going to be able to hire former police officers from B.C. quicker, so that’ll give them a bit of current expertise. But they’re only allowed to do that for a couple of years, because the ultimate goal of the independent oversight body, the office of the independent investigations, is to become completely civilian, to be completely a civilian-run oversight of our police system. I think, ultimately, all sides of the House agree that that is a laudable goal and one that we should be striving for.
When the Attorney General introduced this act, called Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, it included two changes to how the oversight system works. One was what I mentioned — the ability to hire former police officers to strengthen, perhaps, the level of expertise that the oversight body can have, because they’re investigating when someone dies as a result of a police action. So if people are injured or killed in their interaction with police, we have a special office to look at what happened. For the public, we have to be confident that that oversight body has the capacity to do the job well and without interference, without even the semblance of any interference. So you can see why this section of the bill is supported.
I think that it’s important for the critic to know that the people hired would be grandfathered into the office, and they wouldn’t have to leave after two years if they were hired. I’m very pleased that our work at making this independent oversight body more civilian is continuing. I think this piece of legislation brings us towards that goal.
The other thing that this bill changes is when…. After the independent office investigates what happened in the interaction between police and civilians, when they investigate, they have to decide whether or not to refer the case to Crown counsel, the prosecutor’s office. The Crown counsel decides whether to charge the police officer for what happened.
When the independent office is considering, “Is this enough evidence to say that a criminal offence occurred?” they’re not the ones that actually make that decision. They just have to have a reasonable belief that maybe a crime has been committed. And then it’s the Crown’s job, the Crown representing the Crown, to decide whether to charge them. The investigation office just says: “There’s not enough evidence for the Crown to even look at it” or “There’s enough evidence, and there’s reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has occurred.”
Previously the independent office just had to have…. They think that maybe a crime occurred. It’s like a different level of being convinced that maybe something happened. Previously it would just…. A lot of cases would be referred to the independent office. And what happened was the independent office wasn’t adequately funded, perhaps you could say. It didn’t have enough resources in order to do the investigations properly.
Now, the opposition member suggested that was because of the inability to recruit expert officers, expert investigators. That could really be part of the problem because, you know, recruiting people to work in this office, work in the Lower Mainland, is expensive. It’s hard to find people that are qualified and then to hire people that are qualified, so expanding the pool of people you can hire from is a good thing. It’s one that our government believes is going to help reduce the backlog of investigations.
I represent, in the Sunshine Coast, a mom and family who lost a family member, a business person from the Sunshine Coast who died in a confrontation with police. It’s been going on for a couple of years, three years now, and there’s no result. The family is still waiting. What happened? They don’t have answers. The independent office, throughout this period of being underfunded and having trouble — I guess some internal issues around recruiting people to do the investigations…. They have not reached a conclusion yet. Oh, they reached a conclusion finally, a couple of months ago. They referred it to the Crown counsel. They referred that case to the Crown.
The length of time it took — and the process continues — is really very hard. As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie said, it’s very hard on the police officer’s family to be waiting for a decision to be made. I would add that it’s extremely difficult for the families of those who have been injured or killed to wait as well, and the slowness of the process, perhaps, is a serious problem. I would say it’s a serious problem.
I would also add that the delays that are impacting cases are not just because of the understaffing of police forces or the investigation office necessarily. There has been a dispute as to what police are required to tell when they’re investigated for their involvement in the injury or death of a civilian. The police forces — and I’m generalizing — have been arguing that they don’t have to immediately answer questions of the investigation office.
Let me just say that it was difficult for the investigation, for the independent office to conduct investigations, when there wasn’t full cooperation from the police forces involved. I’m suggesting that that lack of cooperation added increased stress on the families that have been impacted by the injury or death of a loved one.
I’m really glad that a member of a government caucus sees the importance of independent oversight of very important institutions in our province. We have independent oversight of our child welfare system. If something goes wrong in our child welfare system, where the kids are in foster care or what have you, then there’s oversight. We have oversight of…. There’s an ombudsman that provides oversight for all agencies in the province to make sure that government services meet the needs of the citizens of the province.
I think police oversight is really of core importance to a democracy. We have to have full trust in our law enforcement. Part of having that full trust is knowing that they’re accountable. They’re accountable to the people through an independent office.
What we’re doing with this bill…. When it passes — and I’m hoping that it has the support of all the members of this House — it will strengthen the office of the independent investigations office. It will make the process both easier for the officers involved…. I shouldn’t say easier, but without the added stress of unnecessarily lengthy investigations. It will reduce that stress, and it will provide an opportunity for the families impacted to close a chapter of their life with respect to what has happened to their loved one.
I’m really pleased that these two amendments, basically two amendments, are coming forward. I really do hope that members from the opposition agree with the government side and continue the process of making this office more civilian-based. I’m really pleased that our government has not only increased the funding for the independent office but increased their ability. There are three teams of investigators now instead of two. That’s going to help a lot.
They’ve really improved the support for the training program for people who work for the independent office. So if you haven’t been a police officer conducting police investigations but you have investigation skills and you have the technical knowledge of how to conduct the investigations, the Attorney General, the province and the Justice Institute are working on a program to train people to work for the independent office. I think that that process is important to measure as we go along to make sure that the goals of government, the goals of the province, are being pursued, that we’re getting closer to having the system that we want. This is an important step towards that.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity, and thank you to the Attorney General for introducing the legislation.
D. Routley: I’m pleased to support this amendment to the Police Act and stand in the House to support an effort to increase the capacity and ability of the independent investigations office.
It’s so important that British Columbians have faith in the process — faith in their police force, faith in the courts, faith in the political process. It is a challenge in any system when capacities are exceeded. Any system that delivers a service will falter when capacities are exceeded by an extraordinary amount for a long period of time, which is what has happened here in B.C.
Of course, there is an attempt to fully citizenize the independent investigations office — civilianization of the office is the term — so that there is oversight from fully independent people who represent the public. The task of doing such an investigation requires such technical proficiency and legal proficiency that…. The office has found it very difficult to recruit investigators over time, particularly from within B.C., because of a rule that has a five-year limitation on service of any ex–police officer in B.C. in the independent investigations office.
This has placed a certain burden on the office in order to maintain capacity. Not maintaining capacity means that investigations don’t happen in a timely manner. Investigations not happening in a timely manner means that families are left wondering and waiting at a time when they should have resolution of their situations.
There’s also another change to the act which would ensure that only cases with a reasonable likelihood of charge approval would be referred to the Crown. That will go some distance to reducing the workload of the office, given that some of the cases that have come forward so far might not have come forward had that standard been applied in the past.
Basically, not being able to hire police officers until five years have passed since their employment as a police officer here in B.C. has put considerable constraints on the office’s ability to hire and to recruit. They have not been able to recruit from outside the jurisdiction enough service to compensate for that challenge.
It’s important that this government act to support the functioning and the efficiency of the independent investigations office. That’s what these two amendments will do. They will restore the ability of the office to keep up to its mandated task and to do it in a way that serves people who are obviously in very difficult and challenging times.
Obviously, the long-term civilianization of the office is a goal that all of us, I think, would share — that an office tasked with reviewing police-involved injuries or deaths would be fully independent. And it is. But sometimes the best intentions can lead us to consequences that weren’t part of the design. When the five-year limitation was placed, it created a situation where it’s clear that the office would not be able to recruit enough people from within the province. Then, with other jurisdictions moving to establish similar offices, it becomes more difficult to recruit people from other jurisdictions as well.
This doesn’t mean that the independent office hasn’t been attempting to keep up with this flow. It doesn’t mean that all the people involved haven’t acted with the best intention and with professionalism and efficiency. It’s just that when the demand is so far in excess of the capacity of any office, it will, obviously, falter and won’t function as it was designed to do.
The Attorney General has indicated that a new training program is going to be put in place to ensure that a sufficient pool of adequately trained and experienced candidates will be available to hire as investigators. He said that once fully implemented, the planned training program for civilian investigators will help solve this problem down the road. However, British Columbians immediately need the IIO to complete timely, comprehensive and high-quality investigations on extremely sensitive matters.
Obviously, when we’re dealing with these kinds of serious matters, it’s not a simple government service. It involves, obviously, very sensitive and personal issues in almost every case. And almost every case is, by definition, very different. So the abilities and capacities, the technical proficiency, of those who do the work need to be maintained and need to be at a sufficient standard that we can go back and ensure that people in British Columbia have confidence in their police forces, in their court system, in the independent investigations office that oversees the police and in the political process.
I think it’s all part of trying to restore and ensure a degree of faith in the province amongst people who have, perhaps, been jarred by recent news, with the prevalence of money laundering in this province and challenges that have been, perhaps, politically motivated in addresses that have been made to the Attorney General’s difficult task.
I think that every little step we take that will help people feel as though the system that protects them is just doing exactly that, any step that we could take that would encourage people to not feel cynical when they consider the likelihood of having a just outcome from a complaint that they might have or a difficult situation they may have experienced — all of this is important in restoring the faith of people in the overall system.
These amendments deal specifically with the technical ability and proficiency of the people doing the work, as well as the need to maintain independence and freedom from any kind of bias. That is an important perceptual difference that we must maintain. People must perceive that there is that independence, and they must perceive that there isn’t a conflict of interest on the part of those doing the work.
Obviously, a five-year period where we can’t hire anyone who has served as a police officer in British Columbia was put in place for a very laudable purpose, in trying to maintain that there would not be, perhaps, as many working relationships as there would be should there not be a longer waiting period.
We face a difficult point of balance here, where the fact is the office has not been able to maintain its orderly functioning, in that it is not able to complete the investigations on time. It’s clear that it has not sacrificed quality in the pursuit of quantity, but what that has meant is delay and an inappropriate length of time to seek resolution on the part of, particularly, families who have suffered a loss of one kind or another.
It is an important bill, important to the Legislature. I thank the Attorney General for being vigilant in trying to maintain the functioning and efficiency of our judicial systems and policing systems. I think that it’s a difficult task for anyone. I’m sure that the complexities only grow as time goes on when we address any kind of legal challenge in terms of public-policy-making.
Just as this five-year ban on hiring was a public policy decision that was meant for the best of intentions, it’s one that brought consequences that weren’t necessarily forecast or predicted. Therefore, when we do take steps like this, we have to be additionally vigilant not to allow ourselves to fall into a place where unintended consequences would be the result of our actions here.
I think the Attorney General has taken great strides and steps to ensure that the steps taken would be intermediate in terms of trying to preserve the functioning and efficiency of the office, while also preserving the long-term goal of civilianization of the oversight of policing in British Columbia.
With that, I will take my seat and thank the Attorney General for bringing this bill forward.
S. Chandra Herbert: I should say I rise…. And yes, I’m wearing my Speaker garb absent the robe. To be clear, it’s because I’m speaking as an individual member, not as a presiding officer. I would remove the tabs as well, but I know ties are required in this place, and I would not be allowed to do that.
I start in just to say thank you to the Attorney General for acting on this. The call to make the independent investigations office, of course, independent and not arm-in-arm with police services was meant to provide that independence so they could judge, from a fair distance, interactions between the police and others where serious death…. Well, obviously, death would be very serious, but a serious injury could also be part of that. They assess whether or not reasonable steps were taken by our police services to ensure that that didn’t happen, of course, or that they were not involved in some sort of a criminal way.
Now, I sat as the Deputy Chair on a committee that looked at and reviewed the independent investigations office about two years after it was established. It was a challenging time, obviously. The office was getting established, but we did, certainly, hear of some serious human resource issues, some serious challenges in terms of being able to get investigations completed and done in a fair way, in a good way.
We heard from many people across the province about their desire for a fair investigations process, because they wanted to have their faith in their police services and in the justice system. I certainly heard from police officers, as well, who were tired of people making assumptions about them and the kind of work they did and wanted to be clear that there is an independent process, whether it’s the Police Complaint Commissioner or the independent investigations office.
One of the recommendations that we made as a legislative committee was — this was in 2016 — to make sure that we had appropriate investigators. We heard about the challenge to hire people with enough skill to be involved in these sometimes very highly complex cases.
The legislated rule that they couldn’t be employed as investigators here in B.C. for five previous years was lauded. People thought that was a great idea and want us to continue down that path to make sure that that does happen. But they also told us: “Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good, in the sense that we actually need these investigations to occur.” We actually needed people to look at the cases that were piling up. We need people with the skills to look at them, not just anybody.
I think, certainly, you can go and do training at the Justice Institute and many other places to get skills as an investigator to look into these issues, but it takes time. It takes time to get the skills to do the appropriate work. I think our police deserve skilled investigators, just as the families and alleged victims deserve skilled investigators, to make sure we get to the bottom of the story, because crime scenes can be confusing places. People’s recollections get muddy over time. Evidence is not always there, or it’s not always clear. Sometimes it’s one person’s word against another. You need skilled investigators.
This amendment is actually, in many ways, a direct response to our report, where we called for the government to make it easier for them to hire skilled investigators and not cut them off because of the five-year time frame.
We set a course with caution. You want to still work to ensure that we have skilled investigators. You want to train them. I’m glad that the Attorney General and this government are dedicated to ensuring we have more trained investigators to do this kind of work so that we’re not as reliant on police officers from within B.C. Certainly, I think, that is the direction that we continue to go in.
We also have to recognize that in an economy as hot as ours, with as many people working and with the lowest unemployment rate we’ve had in many, many years, it’s challenging to find investigators just floating around, with all the skills, not attached somewhere, not already working. That’s the case all across Canada as well, I understand.
Thank you to the Attorney General. I’m glad that although it’s three years after we made the recommendation, we’re finally getting some action on our committee report in terms of that specific request. I know there have been a whole bunch of other changes within the independent investigations office, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Solicitor General and within the police in general to respond to our other arguments. Certainly, from what I’m told, things have improved immeasurably in the independent investigations office since we did our report, back in 2016.
Thank you to the minister. Thank you to the staff at the IIO. Thank you to the staff at the police associations and police offices all across B.C. Thank you to the advocates who also continue to stand up for, sometimes, people who feel voiceless, who are not recognized, who may have been hurt, who may have been injured and who want justice for their own family and the victims as well.
It’s a tough job to enforce the law in this province. I have great respect for those who step up to do it. It’s not easy by any means. I think they deserve the best support we can give as a government. I thank the minister for bringing some great support forward.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General shall close debate.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the members for their remarks in relation to the bill, noting the challenges between balancing the goal of civilianization with the reality of the IIO and their ability to hire and train to date. As members have noted, there are significant steps being taken to address that issue.
One member raised the issue of cooperation. I note that there is a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision on the duty of cooperation. That decision has been appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal, and we’re watching that very closely and waiting for the court to determine that, at this stage, before acting on that issue.
With that, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting…. Oh, pardon me. I’m trying to get ahead of myself without a vote. That’s not how this place works.
I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you. I now move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.
BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
A. Weaver: I move that Bill M206, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, be now read a second time.
I’m very proud to stand today in the second reading of the private member’s bill that I introduced on March 7. I would like to take this time to thank government for calling this bill for second reading and for their feedback on it over the last two months. I’d also like to recognize and thank the B.C. Liberals for making the first round of family violence changes that were brought forward in the Residential Tenancy Act amendments in 2015. Their work set the foundation for this bill.
This bill before us today was developed in close consultation and collaboration with West Coast LEAF and the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia. I’m very grateful to both of them for their advocacy and their leadership on this file. My office also spoke extensively with LandlordBC, and they were very supportive of the changes, just as they were in 2015, when the family violence provisions were first brought in. I commend them for standing against violence.
Lastly, thank you to the legislative drafters and editors who worked through half a dozen versions of this bill to make sure every word was just right and legally sound.
As canvassed in its first reading, this bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It expands on the constrained family violence provisions introduced in 2015, and gives, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break their lease so that they can move to a safer home.
The term “occupant violence” was first introduced and defined in the bill presented at first reading to capture all violence associated with the property, using an adapted version of the existing family violence definition. After receiving extensive feedback from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the distinction between who is an occupant, who is a tenant and the overlap between the two may be somewhat unclear to some people. So I’ve tabled, and you’ll notice on the order papers, a number of amendments to try to clarify this. We’ll move them at committee stage.
In particular, you’ll notice on the order papers the amendment to section 1. We’ve changed “occupant violence” to “household violence,” and that was based on extensive feedback from legislative drafters as well.
The amendments adjust some of the language for clarity and certainty, but the original policy intent remains. For example, I propose that we replace the term “occupant violence” with “household violence,” as I mentioned, to prevent any confusion that arises from using the terms “occupant” and “tenant” in overlapping sections. That was advised to us by government’s suggestions, but the policy outcome, as I mentioned, is the same. This amendment act gives tenants the right to break their fixed-term leases if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security.
Another amendment that you’ll see on the order papers may be made to the commencement section to give the minister ample time for consultation with the third-party verifiers before it comes into force — a change I was happy to make, as they are key to the success of this section of the Residential Tenancy Act. As it currently stands, for the family violence section, written third-party verification of violence can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victim support workers and others. So the definition with respect to who can provide information in the family violence section is carried forward into this tenants or occupants or household section of the bill.
The previous Liberal government did an admirable job with the development of the regulation that they put in place with the 2015 legislation. Having regulations that extend the verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be going to the police as their first step. Some will choose to focus on working with medical practitioners, First Nations support, counsellors, etc.
In the case of domestic violence, for example, the risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse had contacted police or is planning to or is leaving. Having a range of professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option that they believe is in their best interests.
This bill also makes it clear that the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide the confirmation statement about family violence will have the same powers in cases involving household violence. Although simple in its structure, the bill will have a significant impact on the people who need it.
The Ending Violence Association of British Columbia estimates that there are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year, over a thousand cases a week. In the majority of cases, that violence happens in the home. Once that happens, the home may no longer be a safe place for the victim or their children, and the implications of that shift from the home to the scene of a crime are profound.
I’m proud to be advancing this bill that will give survivors the freedom to seek safety, security and the space needed to heal. No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.
S. Chandra Herbert: I want to thank the member, the Leader of the Third Party, the Green Party, for bringing forward this legislation.
I remember back to 2015 when the government of the day did move the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act — I guess it would have been 2015 — to bring in some protections for people fleeing or leaving, escaping, running from domestic violence in their household. I think it was important legislation at the time.
I want to acknowledge the current Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, for his work as critic in opposition for forwarding some of these concerns.
I also stood at the time and made arguments for including a person fleeing from violence from a neighbour, from the landlord, perhaps, or someone else. I thank the member from Oak Bay for reminding me of those comments. There have been so many times, I guess, that I’ve stood in this House around residential tenancy issues and working to try and improve the situation….
That one I forgot, hon. Member. I looked it up, and I see indeed we were working then. I thank the member for raising this today. It didn’t come up in the rental task force hearings, but it clearly matters to the advocates. I know it’ll make a difference for people found in this situation.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
That being said, I would like to move adjournment of the debate and save my place to continue after lunch, if that’s all right.
S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 26 — FINANCIAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY ACT,
2019
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 26; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:05 a.m.
On section 1.
Hon. C. James: As we have talked about in second reading, I think this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation. It does move to introduce a new independent Crown agency. And as we talked about at second reading, this really is an opportunity to ensure that our financial services regulator is able to be effective, to be efficient and to deal with the issues, the more modern issues, that have arisen in the financial services area over the last number of years. So I look forward to the committee stage discussion.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, and welcome, staff. This is a bill that is relatively straightforward and, I think, something that we are supportive of. We have a few questions, of course, and we’ll canvass this.
I guess my first question would be with respect to the rationale behind transitioning FICOM to a Crown agency.
Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, I think all of us would agree that we need to ensure that a financial regulator can be effective, can be efficient, can make sure that regulations are in place that serve, ultimately, the people of British Columbia but, obviously, all the various sectors as well — credit unions, insurance and trust companies, pensions, mortgages. It’s a broad area covered.
As we’ve talked about, there’ve been reports come forward from the Auditor General and others talking about some of the challenges that are there at FICOM to do with the structure, to ensure there’s independence, which really is the international standard.
In looking at and reviewing over the last year what structure seemed to best meet the needs, seemed to meet international standards and would ensure that kind of robust regulatory structure that was important, we felt moving to a Crown corporation was that structure. It will give us an opportunity, as I said, to be able to be consistent with international standards and to be able to match up with best practices, which, again, is that the regulators are independent.
As the member knows — we had a bit of this discussion in the second reading — right now if there’s a surplus, for example, in the budget, the regulatory organization, FICOM, has to bring that back to government, not giving them the independence of a longer-term budget and using those dollars to be able to meet the needs of the organization. So this will also bring it in line with other provincial regulators, like the B.C. Securities Commission.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
T. Redies: I wonder if the minister could explain how she sees the new Crown agency functioning.
Hon. C. James: This section sets out the powers and the duties conferred under the act. Maybe the way I can begin — and if the member has more specific questions — is just to talk about the current FICOM. Currently FICOM is responsible for the regulation of credit unions and insurance and trust companies under the FIA. The superintendent of financial institutions also has regulatory power under the Insurance Act and the Insurance (Captive Company) Act.
I think it’s important to recognize that, going forward, the authority is going to assume all of the powers and duties of FICOM — the pieces that I’ve talked about — and will exercise its regulatory authority in those areas in the credit union, the trust and the insurance sectors.
The mandate is actually being expanded. The mandate of the authority is being expanded to include, as I mentioned, the pension and the mortgage broker sectors. That will give the authority to appoint the statutory decision–makers under the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the Mortgage Brokers Act. So it expands that authority and basically brings them under the umbrella. It provides the opportunity for all of those areas to be covered under the new Crown corporation, which, again, looks at efficiencies, looks at the opportunity for regulatory powers to be robust and to be able to suit the needs that are there.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. These are all very complicated businesses, as we canvassed in second reading.
Was there any concern or, I guess, a contrarian look at whether or not it made sense to pull all of these complicated businesses together in that — having the appropriate talent to run all of those businesses? Was that looked at, at all, as a risk?
Hon. C. James: Certainly, all of those issues were looked at. It was a very thorough review. We’ve taken the time to do the review around the best kind of structure.
I think I’d point the member to two areas where that was taken into consideration. One is the board and the board itself. We’ll see as we get to further sections, but there is a requirement for those sectors to be recognized in board appointments. So that gives, again, the knowledge base that I think the member is referring to, making sure that those areas are well represented. I think the board is one of those strongest pieces where we’ll be able to get expertise from these sectors, to be able to provide the oversight as the governance board.
Then I think the second piece is the effective delegation, again, which comes later in the bill. There will be a person to oversee the Crown corporation, but effective delegation actually occurs to statutory officers, and those statutory officers, again, will have expertise and will be experts in their particular field.
I think that those two pieces will address the member’s questions about how we ensure that all sectors are represented and well governed in this organization.
T. Redies: Another issue we talked about in the second reading of this bill was the issue that the current entity, FICOM, has in terms of finding the right talent, mostly because of the wage restrictions under the current authority.
Again, in looking at making it a Crown agency to address that issue, I wonder if the minister could tell us what she anticipates the expected cost increases will be associated with this new Crown agency.
Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. It’s certainly one of the issues that have been raised by credit unions and others but also by the Auditor General around staffing vacancies and the challenges of being able to find staff at FICOM to fill those positions.
The organization is still going through their process. Obviously, when the legislation passes, they’ll have the opportunity to be able to develop their full budget. It is, as the member probably knows, a self-funded organization. So the fees are paid by industry. Certainly, I know the organization will need to go through that process of balancing affordability for the organizations that pay fees as well as making sure that they have a budget that will be able to attract and retain staff.
I think there are two other pieces, though, that I’d mention as well. One is that public sector guidelines…. Obviously, organizational guidelines apply, just as they do with every other Crown corporation around compensation. But I think the biggest piece…. And it comes back to the independence. I think the biggest opportunity here for the organization is that they will be able to manage their budget longer term.
Right now every year the surplus comes back to government, and they don’t have an opportunity to look at that longer-term plan, whether it’s staff compensation, long-term guidelines around opportunities to be able to recruit people or whether it’s their budget.
I think that the biggest benefit, from my perspective, is the opportunity to have that independence and to be able to develop that long-term plan, which will give them a chance to develop some of those recruitment issues, address some of those staffing issues and do it in a way that also continues to make it affordable for the organization over the long term, rather than having to look at one year and then provide the surplus back to government.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I mean, a number of these businesses are experiencing challenges right now. So it is absolutely vital that the new CEO and superintendent make sure that they balance the need for cost recovery with the serious issues that the industries are facing. I hope that that will be something that might be included in the CEO’s mandate as an important balancing act.
We were talking a lot about the independence. I guess what I’d like to understand, from the minister, is: what will be the FSA’s relationship with government? Will it be fully independent?
Hon. C. James: As with other Crown agencies, there’s a balance. There’s a balance around accountability to government, to the people of British Columbia, basically, through government. I think it’s important to just note that they will be required to have a mandate letter. They will be required to have a service plan. They will be required to have an annual report. This is all through the Minister of Finance through their accountability.
Their fees, for example, have to be authorized by government. Again, that’s another check and balance. They’ll have to issue a financial statement to be able to show their budget. Again, it’s a balance around the accountability to government through those mechanisms. But basically, they have operational and regulatory independence.
Those are the pieces that will be in their control as a Crown corporation and that they will do. Their reporting process brings the accountability, then, back to government and to the people of British Columbia.
T. Redies: Just to confirm with the minister, does that mean that the Crown agency will not be used as an instrument of government policy?
Hon. C. James: No. It’s important for that independence to be there when it comes, particularly, to regulatory authority and operational authority. That will be their mandate.
T. Redies: Again, these are really important questions, because for the FSA to function properly it does need to have arm’s-length ability to make independent decisions in these matters.
The minister has been speaking with respect to international standards and bringing these sectors up to international standards. I wonder if the minister could comment about how she sees these changes fitting into the Basel core principles and what, if any, other work is being done in that regard.
Hon. C. James: I think the biggest international standard that this meets and that is critical and important and is, in fact, a part of Basel III — but part of other discussions — is the independence of the regulator.
That’s really what you see in the moving to a Crown corporation. It’s the ability to have that operational and regulatory independence, which is one of the strongest recommendations coming forward.
That’s not the only place the Basel III discussions are occurring, as I think the member knows. I know we talked a little bit about this in the second reading as well. The Financial Institutions Act review is still going on. That’s a review still happening. There is further discussion around Basel III and other things during that review. Those discussions will continue to occur. But the biggest recommending out of Basel III is the issue of the independence of regulators, and that’s what we’ve looked at in this act.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. We’ve been talking a little bit about the need for balance with this legislation, and I think one of the concerns I’ve had when I’ve read some of the releases of government is that it makes this kind of overarching statement about the need for these institutions to meet international standards.
[N. Simons in the chair.]
Of course — and I think I’ve said this in the second reading — the risk profile, just for example, of the credit unions is quite different from the risk profile of the big financial institutions. When you’re talking about regulations, rules, there are costs associated with that, and there are also impacts to customer service as well.
I guess my question to the minister is: how is she, through her ministry, going to make sure that there is balance in this process? I have actually seen the heavy-handedness of regulators, in some cases. Again, looking to apply international standards is kind of like using — dare I say? — a shotgun to kill a mouse. We have to be very, very careful that the regulation is smart regulation, that it’s not excessive regulation. I’d just like just to hear from the minister how that balance is going to be maintained.
Hon. C. James: From this perspective, I think there’s no question that we agree that B.C. has a unique context when it comes to credit unions, in particular, and when we talk about international standards, it’s always important to put them into the B.C. context. I would agree with the member that it’s not taking the standards from somewhere else and presuming one size fits all. We know that when it comes to B.C., we have diversity. We have diversity in the size of credit unions, for example. Different rules may apply in different kinds of ways.
That differential already exists in international standards. There are those things taken into account when international standards are looked at for provinces. That’s certainly our expectation. It’s critical to look at how we support B.C.’s context and how we ensure that the regulations that come in look at the differential we have in B.C., look at the diversity we have in B.C., support it and not take, as the member said, a heavy hand to one size fits all. That’s not the approach that is being taken here.
T. Redies: I think the minister appreciates the uniqueness of, certainly, the credit union system and the other industries in B.C. I guess my question is more around: given the independence of the regulatory authority, if there is a challenge in this area, what will the Finance Ministry do about that?
Hon. C. James: I think rule-making, which is kind of what I think the member is referring to…. The discussion around that right now…. The authority sits with the Financial Institutions Act. The discussion around rule-making and constraints…. It’s not quite the word I want to use, but I think the member knows what I mean.
Constraints, or checks and balances, on that regulatory authority are being discussed right now as part of that review for the Financial Institutions Act, looking at checks and balances like ministerial approval, which would provide that balance that’s there. An appeal process still remains, so if there were institutions, or others that felt that there was a challenge with a rule coming forward, the appeal is still there. So there’s no change in the authority around FICOM moving to a Crown corporation.
That discussion — which is a critical discussion, as the member points out — is happening through the Financial Institutions Act, and the checks and balances are being looked at as part of that consultation.
T. Redies: I appreciate that. Again, that’s very important.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
T. Redies: Again, the board of governors and its governance are a very important aspect of the successful functioning of this new regulatory authority. The minister was speaking a bit about making sure that there was industry experience on the board. But the legislation is pretty light with respect to that. It’s very general. I wonder if the minister could talk about what the process is going to be in terms of appointing the board. Is there going to be any consultation with industry on that?
If the minister could also talk about what she sees as the main duties of the board with respect to this authority.
Hon. C. James: Just to talk first about the process for the board…. The member asked about the process. Just as with other agencies, organizations and Crown corporations, it’ll go through the usual board process, CABRO process, in government — merit-based, looking for people’s experience and qualifications.
The member asked what kinds of things we’ll be looking for. I think I’ve mentioned one already, which is financial services experience in the areas that are covered by the Crown corporation. We want to make sure, again, that we’ve got a variety of people with experience in those sectors so that the sectors are represented.
I would suggest we’ll also be looking at how we balance corporate board experience, governance experience that people may have had, with financial and regulatory experience. I think each of those is important. These aren’t people who are staff in the organization; they’re board members. I think it is important, obviously, that they have the financial and regulatory experience, but I also think if we’re able to find people who have the corporate governance experience, that will provide us with an ability to be able to look at that balance in the role that’s there.
Then, I know, throughout the legislation — certainly in section 8 — it talks about some of the authorities set out for board members. The authorities will carry over, so there’s not a lot of change from the authorities that carry over from the act. Where there would be some additional pieces, obviously, would be to establish a CEO. This is a new organization, so they’ll need to establish a CEO. They’ll supervise management. Then the usual kinds of resolutions and bylaws and putting the structure in place will also be board members’ authority.
T. Redies: Is the plan for the chair to be an independent chair or an executive chair?
Hon. C. James: I think I’ve got the member’s terminology, what the member is using. Like the B.C. Securities Commission, they will not also be a staff person; they will be an independent board chair, from that perspective.
T. Redies: That’s good to know. I was asking that question because B.C. Hydro has an executive chair. That’s why I was asking the question.
In terms of the makeup of the board, which I think is two to 11 directors, we’ve seen with other boards, at least from an industry perspective, that sometimes there isn’t adequate representation from the industry. Is there going to be a prescribed number from each industry for the board? If there isn’t, is it the expectation that the majority of the board will have expertise in one of the sectors that is being regulated?
Hon. C. James: There aren’t prescribed numbers. We think, again, it’s important, as I talked about earlier, to look at how we balance that corporate governance experience with financial and regulatory experience. We want to make sure that we have the sectors represented, but you see in the broad numbers that we want to make sure that we’re broadly represented. There aren’t specifics, but, again, we’ll be looking at all of those sectors. We’ll be looking at people’s financial experience. We’ll be looking at people’s governance experience and looking at that balance on the board.
T. Redies: I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to what she expects the costs will be with this, with respect to the board.
Hon. C. James: It fluctuates, obviously, depending on the number of meetings. Basically, the cost of the board is the per diems. The estimated amount for the ’19-20 year would be $130,000. That’s been about the amount that has been there for members. There are seven members now, moving up to 11 — again, a proportional increase. But this is based on per diems.
T. Redies: Just one quick question. Again, the importance here to get board members who really understand the business is absolutely critical. On observation, that doesn’t sound like a lot of budget to acquire the type of talent that the minister is looking for. Is it the expectation that that budget might increase, then?
Hon. C. James: That’s budgeted per diem. There’s a laid-out per diem within government for boards, agency boards and commissions. That’s the existing per diem.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
Hon. C. James: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: The members reserve the right to ask on section 10. Thank you.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
On Vote 31: ministry operations, $20,698,339,000 (continued).
Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to start by answering a couple of questions asked by the member for Richmond South Centre yesterday. I promised to get back.
The member had asked, with respect to care standards and facility staffing in long-term care, what the number of facilities was under 3.00 and under, I think, 2.90. I think she asked those questions. Members of the committee will know that the provincial standard is 3.36. At the end of the fiscal year 2016-17, between 86 percent and 90 percent of facilities in B.C. were below standard.
The member asked a different question, which is, essentially: how far below standard were they? This is the answer. At the end of 2016-17, 88 care homes in B.C., or 30 percent of the total, were below 3.00. In other words, approximately 20 percent below standard. At the same period, a full 75 of those — and I’ll share the graph with the member after the session — were below 2.90. So a full 26 percent of care homes were below 2.90, which is roughly three hours and 15 minutes a week below standard, per resident, in long-term care. That was at the end of March 31, 2017.
What has been the effect of the measures that have been taken by the government? As noted, there were 88 facilities under 3.00. Essentially, when I became Minister of Health, at the end of the first year of our plan to improve staffing levels, that number was down to 38. We went from 88 to 38 under 3.00, which is, to say the least, a significant improvement.
More significantly, on the 2.9 number, the care homes were almost all either private or non-profit care homes. In fact, they were all private and non-profit care homes. There were 75, as noted, below 2.90, which was dramatically below standard, I would say, by any measurement. That number has been reduced to seven. So we’ve gone from 75 which were three hours and 15 minutes a week below standard to seven in the entire province, which is, I think, an enormous success — for the government, for the need for the policy, but also for the care providers and the workers involved.
Those are the statistics there, and I’ll happily share this graph with the member.
The member had questions with respect to the care aide registry. Questions had been raised yesterday, amongst others, by the B.C. care providers. I wanted to note a few things about the registry. The registry employs five people — that was one of the member’s questions — to support the registry process.
The member asked about B.C. graduate registration processes. The response is that processing time is usually five business days, with proof of successful completion of a recognized training program for HCAs. However, depending on the complexity of the application, of course, some may take longer, but five days is the standard. So within B.C., not a significant barrier.
The member noted some of the concerns around people coming from either outside of the country or outside of the province. She will know that in 2016, the Ministry of Health instituted a standard called the nursing community assessment survey. That was a decision by the minister of the day which changed somewhat and essentially raised standards for care aides in British Columbia. That was the decision by the previous government. That decision has had some effect, I would say, in terms of the processing and the success of people making it through the regulatory process.
That standard, which was established and put in place by government and funded by government in 2016, was put in place for international education in health care — in the international process, for people from outside of Canada — on January 1, 2017, and for other provinces in Canada, on January 1, 2018. So the decision was in ’16, internationally applied on January 1, 2017, and applied to Canadians from other provinces on January 1, 2018.
Just to give a sense, because the member asked questions about who was getting through and who wasn’t, on the international side, there has been a 54 percent application registration rate since the NCAS implementation. You’d argue that was either significant or not. If you believed in what Minister Lake was doing, then you would say that there were people below standard, and this is raising the standard, and that’s the consequence of that. Or you would say that there are concerns about people getting through the process.
On students going through the Canadian process, there was an overall 23 percent application to registration rate since the NCAS implementation.
The member asked, I think, fair questions about that process, as did the care providers. I’ll certainly be looking at that. But those are the facts about those questions which the member asked yesterday.
T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the time.
Richmond has the fastest-growing senior population in B.C., and many of them are Chinese-speaking. In the next 15 years, the projected growth of the 65-years-and-older age group is 121 percent compared to 102 percent for the province.
Surrey. The senior population is set to grow by 144 percent in the next 25 years, and many of those seniors in Surrey are South Asian.
These two largest ethnic senior communities are in particular need of attention, as their language barriers and cultural concerns often limit their options for suitable culturally sensitive residential long-term care homes.
I’m glad to learn from the Finance Minister’s Budget 2019 speech that this government is investing in senior care with hundreds of new beds. Would the minister let me know if any culturally sensitive residential long-term senior care homes are in the pipeline?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s great to be here. I don’t think that this room has been so full in a long time. I’m delighted to see that, contrary to the fact that we’ve moved from the Douglas Fir Room, we’re still drawing well for MLAs. Anyway, this is good news.
I thank the member for her question. The short answer is yes. There is a process going on right now in Surrey for new beds, and that standard — the culturally sensitive standard — is key to that process. It’s an RFP process, so the decisions are independent of me. But the directions have been given, and that’s going forward.
I would expect more such processes in the future. I think they are important. I think that’s important. Specific RFP processes for new beds are important. As well, improving standards in existing facilities is really important.
I think the thing we were talking about before the member got up — raising care standards — is an important part of that. Ensuring that people have access to the personal care that they need is very important to that. I attended an event recently at Lakeview care home, which is near Trout Lake in Vancouver, which I would say has a majority of residents who are Chinese Canadian. You see that in the changes that they’ve made in care standards and in the quality of care and in the types of care, particularly around issues such as food.
I think SUCCESS recently sponsored a very useful conference which addressed some of these issues. The Premier himself attended a session that was led by SUCCESS on that matter, so it’s a high priority for us. You’re seeing that reflected in policy changes, in investments in the sector, in improving standards in the sector, in improving supports for respite care — which are very important for all communities, including immigrant communities — and, of course, specific RFP processes that are taking place right now, more of which are expected to follow.
T. Wat: I’m glad to learn from the minister that that’s the priority.
Just now the minister mentioned that there’s progress in Surrey. From what I understand, there’s not even one long-term residential care home for the Punjabi-speaking seniors in Surrey. Right now they’re being located in Surrey Hospital. I understand that PICS is trying to raise funds for a culturally sensitive long-term care home in one part of Surrey. Is the government funding this culturally sensitive long-term care home for the Punjabi-speaking seniors?
Hon. A. Dix: There is, in fact, a process taking place right now which started with an RFQ process. Obviously, we have competitive processes, so it would not be appropriate for me to direct that process in the direction of a particular organization. That will be judged on the merits of the proposal. But culturally sensitive care is at the centre of that proposal. If the member has been to the really extraordinary assisted-living home run by PICS in Surrey, she’ll know the quality of that care.
I would say as well, though — and this is an important fact — that we fund a significant number of care homes in Surrey, in Vancouver, in Richmond, and while establishing new care homes that focus on culturally sensitive care is important, we’ve also got to take steps, it seems to me, to improve the quality of care across the board.
We’re never going to fund, overall, enough care homes so that we have one set of care homes for people who, for example, speak one language and one for another. In Burnaby, as the member knows, New Vista is building a care home. There’s support from the Korean-Canadian community there. That’s an exciting proposal. So you are seeing these proposals develop, and they are significant.
I wanted to give a couple of other examples of some of the training that’s going on within, particularly, Vancouver Coastal Health but other health authorities. For example, within Richmond and the area of the hon. member, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority offers something called DementiAbility, which is a person-centred approach to care that acknowledges a person’s culture and background in framing how care is provided. Part of it is training, part of it is communication and part of it is establishing new standards to reflect the residents who are in our care homes.
After all, these are, beyond everything else…. There’s always a debate about this. We sometimes debate about whose home it is. Whose home it is, is not the owner of the facility. Whose home it is, isn’t the volunteers in the facility, although they’re wonderful. Whose home it is, isn’t the staff of the facility, although they’re wonderful, and we need more all the time.
Whose home it is, is the residents in the facilities. We have to respond to their needs and ensure that, even in long-term care — where, unfortunately, you have to meet a fairly high standard of acuity to get into, even at that moment — people’s liberty and their freedom and their ability to live their lives, even under sometimes constrained circumstances, is there. That includes issues around culturally sensitive care.
T. Wat: I totally agree with the minister that we have to look after all populations. But then the problem is that there are more and more Chinese-speaking and Punjabi-speaking seniors who don’t speak English.
I just want to confirm…. I know that the minister cannot give me details, but will there be a culturally sensitive long-term senior residential care home in Surrey that is in the pipeline?
I also want to ask another question on the Chinese-speaking seniors. I can cite my own example. My parents are in their 90s. They cannot get into the SUCCESS long-term senior care home in Chinatown because, as I was told from their website, their waiting line is at least two years. My parents cannot speak English, and they are now living in Royal City Manor. It’s strictly an English-speaking environment.
Even for a simple medical appointment — if they have a flu, the doctor will come and see them — they cannot provide any Chinese interpreter. For me, I cannot just take leave and go there and help them do the interpretation — which is my job, because I’m the only sibling there — and I cannot rely on my friends to go and take a day off to help me.
I’m trying to cite this example to show that more and more Chinese-speaking seniors are in British Columbia, especially in Richmond and Vancouver, yet there’s not sufficient long-term residential care beds for them to go through those language barriers, not to say about the diet, a different diet for them. You cannot change diet all of a sudden when you reach their age.
That’s why I’m really passionate to ask the minister whether we have a plan to come up with more culturally sensitive long-term residential care beds for the largest ethnic senior population, meaning the Punjabi-speaking and Chinese-speaking seniors.
Hon. A. Dix: Sorry. I may not have communicated this correctly when I said it, but I did say yes. We are delivering on an RFP. It is proceeding. All I’m saying is that the decision around — whether it’s PICS or someone else — winning that RFP will be made, obviously, through the health authority process, as you would expect. The answer to that is yes, we’re proceeding. We started proceeding not long after I became Minister of Health.
These are important changes. They’re things that, the member will know, I believe passionately in as well. This, I think, will be a model for future care, and we are doing this across the board. We’re promoting and working on expanding the idea of dementia villages, which are important for all people in care and, I think, really resonate with people — the idea that people have a better space to live in. That’s important.
The issue of culturally sensitive care, which we are working closely with and which I myself have met with success on, is another important issue. Clearly, we’ve got to develop that. The point I’m making to the member is that we not only have to provide individual care homes that offer culturally sensitive care and might be focused on a given community or another; we have to ensure that all care homes are able to do a better job meeting standards.
Inevitably, there are going to be people in the member’s parents’ position, where at that moment, however many culturally sensitive care homes you build, there will be a demand on those care homes. So we have to ensure that the service levels are high not just in culturally sensitive care, which we’re working on and which I am very optimistic about in terms of building on, but also that there’s culturally sensitive care across the board.
We’re working with people in Denominational Health. Some of the most impressive care homes in providing culturally sensitive care, including Mount Saint Joseph’s, are from Denominational Health facilities. The strong link between Providence and the Chinese-Canadian community over the years is something we’re planning to continue to build on. In the coming years, I see enormous possibility and prospect in that. That’s happening now.
We have to do this, but I think we have to build on this across the board. Otherwise, we won’t be able to serve the residents — of Metro Vancouver, in particular, but other parts of the province as well — in the way that they should expect.
I say this, finally, setting aside…. I’m not going to conflate it. There’s a whole separate set of issues with respect to Indigenous people who require long-term care in other parts of the province. They’re not the same set of issues. They’re specific to those communities. We’re working with the First Nations Health Authority on that. There’s also a necessity for culturally sensitive care there, for care that involves Indigenous communities and that they direct in their own right and have a voice and a leadership role in ensuring that people who are receiving care in those communities also receive care that we might call culturally appropriate but care that reflects the lives they’ve led, the values they have and the supports they need.
T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for your commitment and your passion.
Now, for lack of time, I’m going to move from the culturally sensitive to the general question. My colleague from Richmond South Centre and myself represent Richmond. Richmond has the lowest number of residential care beds per capita in B.C. Richmond has 54 residential care beds per 1,000 population aged 75 years and older.
The B.C. average is 74, and I understand that the minister has a notional target of 75. Is this correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, I’m going to hesitate to defend my predecessors Terry Lake and Kevin Falcon and George Abbott for this record. I’m going to hesitate to get into that at all and say that, yeah, Richmond has been also, obviously, a fast-growing community, particularly for seniors. I think you’re going to see that reflected in capital decisions in the future.
We’re moving now to proceed on care home proposals in Richmond. I think it’s important there. The standard is, as the member suggests, 75, and Richmond is well below that. While the distance between the two is so large…. It’s discouraging. We’ve got to close that gap, and I think it can be discouraging when you see it’s going to take this much to close that gap. But the way you start closing gaps is to start, and that’s certainly our expectation.
I think, to defend those previous ministers and the situation that we’ve inherited here, what is also true is it’s a fast-growing community, and that situation has evolved in a relatively rapid period of time. Now we have to begin to respond, and that’s our intention.
G. Kyllo: The Shuswap area, which I represent, has a significant seniors population. I’m just wondering, Minister, if you could share with us. With the number of care beds that are provided, how does the ministry determine where the beds are provided across the province? Does it take age demographics into consideration? Is there a constant monitoring of wait-lists in establishing where those care beds are actually provided?
Hon. A. Dix: I think there will probably be a follow-up question, so I’ll just briefly say yes. That role, in the case of the member’s constituency, is led by the Interior Health Authority. The Interior Health Authority looks at its number of facilities and where those facilities are and then assesses against standards, such as the one we just talked about — the number of care beds in the community against the number of seniors.
Now, it’s a reasonable way to follow through on that. If there’s a large number of seniors and an unmet need, that tells you where the care beds need to be. Frequently it’s different from community to community. In the community we were just talking about, some of the care beds actually serving that community are not even physically in that community, as the member for Richmond South Centre will know. We count them as that community’s beds, but they’re not physically in that community. So that changes.
If there are increasing numbers of seniors in a particular community — and that is the case in, I’d say, a number of communities across Interior Health — those are obviously the next places one goes to do it. The Interior Health Authority goes through a process to determine that.
G. Kyllo: I know that there’s been concern about the federal funding formula for health care across Canada. It does not take age demographics into consideration. I know it’s been a concern expressed by the previous government, and I’m assuming it’s probably an issue that’s of concern to our current government.
With respect to that, does the ministry take age demographics into consideration in determining the funding that goes to the various health authorities across the province?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, there is a population needs–based formula that defines allocation money by health authorities. Obviously, health authorities have different needs and provide different services sometimes, and they’re obviously provincial services that are provided by the Provincial Health Services Authority. But the short answer is yes. Needs and demographics apply between the health authorities and their funding and within a health authority and its funding.
If a particular area in a health authority has more expectant mothers, obviously there’s a response to that, and that can be a challenge sometimes. If you talk to your colleague from Peace River North, there’s a significant challenge in parts of his constituency as well — the need to travel, for many mothers, to give birth and so on.
Those factors are considered both as between the health authorities and the funding formula. I’ll share it. We have a note on it, and I’ll share it with the member later, but yes and yes. Yes, as between the health authorities, and yes, as within a health authority.
I’d say, on the federal government, the member is quite right. We’ve made this case for a while. The previous government did as well. When the funding formulas were renegotiated by the Harper government and then again by the Trudeau government, B.C. got, let’s just say, the short end of the stick with respect to the way the funding formula dealt with age and demographics. This is a significant question, we know, all the time.
We live in a country, and we have an open, affordable health care system. And I think we should. But it is a fact, and anybody who lives on Vancouver Island knows — I’m not referring to any MLAs here in particular — that people often live all their lives in Alberta, pay taxes in Alberta and then move to British Columbia as seniors, which seems to me to be a very reasonable and logical thing to do.
The member’s riding is a great place to go and live as a senior, and many do. The consequence of that, of course, is you have people paying taxes in one jurisdiction but consuming the majority of their services in another jurisdiction. That’s just part of being a country. I think we have to acknowledge that. But it puts special pressure on the B.C. health care system.
G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that response. When it comes to the quality of care that’s provided at our seniors facilities across the Shuswap, in recent months I’ve had an increasing number of concerns come forward, constituents expressing concerns with the level of care that their parents or grandparents have actually received. A lady by the name of Ms. Carole Jeffries, and her husband and a friend, Colleen, had come in to see me a while ago. They took the time to put together a very comprehensive list of both concerns and potential considerations.
I was wondering if I would be able to present that to you. It’s a very lengthy list. I know that our critic has been very kind to provide us lots of time, but it’s certainly not enough to get through the exhaustive list at once. I really want to thank Carole and her husband Jerre for the time they’ve taken to put together this comprehensive list. I’d like to present it to you, in hopes that you’d be able to follow up directly with my office.
Hon. A. Dix: I’d be delighted to do that. I thank the member for his question. The fact is that we need to create circumstances where families become involved in care and where we support families and their involvement in care. Frequently this is a tension with care providers, sometimes with the government, about whose role it is and whose responsibility it is, because care providers have real legal and ethical responsibilities.
The role of families, the role of family councils, in British Columbia — and the need to grow that role, I think — is really important. Because some problems are at the facility level, and some are at the system level. Having active families advocating for residents living in long-term care is really important, and it sounds like Ms. Jeffries is a part of that, that her active family is involved. So I’ll take the letter and be happy to respond to the member and to Ms. Jeffries as well.
D. Ashton: Minister, first of all, I just want to thank you for your attention to what we’ve been talking about this morning, my peers have been talking about. It’s incredibly important. I came in at part of the conversation where you were talking about some of the adjustments that have been taking place.
I would just like to draw your attention…. I’m quite sure you already know about the differences between what I will call facilities — those run by Interior Health in my area — and those that are not-for-profit. The wage difference is substantial.
To get out of this issue that we’re facing — the clocks have rolled on, but X amount of years ago, it was more acceptable that there could be differences in wages, etc. — with facilities where people are getting paid between $5 and $6 an hour more, plus the benefit packages that are being offered through Interior Health and through the HEU, I would strongly suggest that it’s going to take not only your ministry and not only Interior Health and the health authorities but also the unions. Everybody has got to step up and try and get a level playing field here.
I not only get continual calls from individuals that work in not-for-profit care homes, but I actually have a family member in a not-for-profit home for which our family pays. Because of income, we’re allowed to contribute to help offset some of the costs that my family member incurs there. I can tell you that the amount-of-care levels have decreased substantially in the facility that I’m speaking about with a family member in it.
What I would encourage the ministry is that we take a holistic look at this. It not only comes through the facility that I’ve just mentioned about my family member, but I have staff members calling me at home on nights reporting that there is one staff member for 20 residents. The minute one resident requires that additional care, there are 19 residents that have zero eyes on them, which is unfortunate.
I would just ask the minister…. Again, I would like to thank him personally for stepping forward and trying to address some of these issues. But this is going to take a collective opportunity for all of us to work together to try and address this.
Just your comments quickly. Then I have a follow-up question.
Hon. A. Dix: Well, lots of comments. We had a little bit of debate with the B.C. Care Providers and a presentation about this in Interior Health yesterday. I heard in the media the president of the care providers say this isn’t about wages. Well, their own surveys in the past have indicated that for some people, it’s about wages, especially for younger care aides.
If two care homes, one non-profit associated with HEABC and one for-profit, not, and the non-profit is offering more money than the for-profit, that presents a series of problems, right?
We previously, prior to 2001, had more of what we would call coherent bargaining through the sector. That changed, frankly, with decisions made by the previous government in 2001-2002, which we don’t need to revisit now, but they leave us with the sector we have today.
It is a problem. That churning is a problem, where people move from one facility to another. We saw it when we opened the hospital in Comox, where people were under different collective agreements, doing effectively the same work, moving from one job to another because it paid more, which is not an unreasonable thing to do for someone supporting a family.
Those issues are significant issues as well. We’re seeing this, I think, reflected a little bit in some of the work done by both private and non-profit care homes, in terms of addressing and trying to attract more care aides. It’s a significant issue. And that gap, when it exists, is a significant issue when there’s labour market pressure.
Of course, what the member says is logical. It’s not unreasonable. We have to ensure the continuity of work. That’s why I’m very proud the government has acted on successorship. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do and good for the sector. I’m absolutely proud that we brought in Bill 47.
I’m also proud that we’re giving, in particular, for-profit and non-profit care homes more money for staffing — and we have, to the tune of $46 million this year, incremental, out of a $48 million fund for them. That didn’t go to health authority–owned and –operated, outside of Northern Health, in the first part of that program. I think that was the right decision.
The member is right. We also need to ensure that the things we declare at this level, at the ministerial level or even at the health authority level are felt on the ground. In some cases — and I think I know the care home the member is talking about — that appears not to be happening. Then the regulatory process needs to kick in, and standards have to be maintained.
D. Ashton: Also, with the numbers, it’s my understanding that 3.36 includes everybody in the facility. It’s not just the delivery upon the floor. I fully understand that kitchen staff and some forms of management staff should be included in that number, but unfortunately, it appears it’s everybody that works in the facility.
One last thing. I do not think it’s fair that people — i.e., families — have to bring in their own staff, paying for that in addition to what is being charged at the care facility to ensure that their loved ones are being looked after. That is happening on a regular basis.
Minister, I would just hope, and I would just say to reinforce it, that this is not just your ministry. This is going to take the facilities. It’s going to take the ministry. It’s going to take the unions. We can all sit down and work through this and try and get equity so that it’s a balance. Right now it is not a balance.
I would just, again, like to thank the minister. But the issue I cannot stress enough is that the care for the people that are there is absolutely wonderful care when the staff are present. But it’s unfortunate, when the staff aren’t present, that the authorities, including Interior Health, are quick to put more residents back in when unfortunately somebody passes, instead of addressing the situation. That balance can have a tendency to go the opposite direction that I think the ministry is trying to seek.
So a precautionary note. Again, as my peer just said about the long list of opportunities that are being presented to you…. Also, people have come to me, and they’re saying: “If my loved one is affected because of short-staffing, where Interior Health is specifically moving more people into a facility where it is already understaffed, God forbid.” I say that from the bottom of my heart.
Minister, thank you again for your attention, but just a heads-up. There are issues on the horizon, and they’re not very nice ones.
Hon. A. Dix: I think the member is right, what the member argues for about the importance of family councils, because we need to empower people. I think it’s one of the things that the seniors advocate does really well in her work around the province empowering families, engaging with parents, families listening to families, the survey that she did a couple of years ago, talking to 22,000 people receiving care in their families, trying to hear those voices as well.
Let’s be very precise about 3.36, because we need to empower people. That does not include non-direct care hours, does not include support or secondary resident care such as laundering of linens; preparation, cooking and plating of meals — does not include.
It’s a subset of worked hours, and it includes only the hours worked by staff or contracted service providers, including RNs, RPNs, LPNs, care aides and allied care, in the direct delivery of services to residents. Direct care consists of one-to-one first level of care interactions with the residents and other clinical-related interactions. It includes care coordination, assessment planning, delivery and treatment, and there are long definitions here.
It’s very important when we talk to the care facility that 3.36 does not include people preparing food. It doesn’t. It’s direct care hours. This is an important distinction. It’s important for health authorities to ensure when we’re funding direct care hours that those direct care hours are actually going for the purpose that they’re intended.
That’s, after all, both public funds and the contribution of residents. It’s their home, right? When we talk about publicly provided beds, we mean both, so it’s important on the ground. That’s why I really think it’s important that we create every opportunity for families on the ground to be empowered with information.
D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister again. I would just hope that licensing does check on those figures — i.e., especially for those that are working outside of the facilities area.
M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. I think what we’re hearing today are concerns that you will hear across the province for many of us who have seniors. Obviously, in Parksville-Qualicum, I have an aging demographic. Forty-seven percent of Qualicum alone is over the age of 65. So I would say the busiest file in my office is health care, especially health care for seniors.
The Oceanside support for family caregivers is led by Carol and Fred Dowe. They also are advocates for the Oceanside Health Centre. They’re true champions in our community. Currently the group really is saying that where the help is truly needed is in the funding area, to support the caregivers, the respite, the home support. So really, when we’re looking at more and more seniors who are trying to stay at home and age in place, and supports are needed to keep them at home, we know that that costs the health care system less, but we have to ensure that we are supporting those caregivers who are taking care of the aging family member.
Really, I’m wondering if the minister can tell me specifically, through Island Health, in Parksville-Qualicum, what will go to day programs and care aides or respite for their caregivers. Our day programs are already at capacity. Additional funding for seniors to pay privately is hard for them because they’re on fixed incomes, so it’s hard for them to pay, to get that break so that they can go do their grocery shopping and take care of their own health needs. We know that if we don’t take care of the caregiver, we end up with two patients, and that’s worse than the first situation. If the minister could inform me on that.
Hon. A. Dix: It’s, as I say, with the excellent advice provided by the seniors advocate, who is, as members will know, a passionate advocate both for respite care and caregivers support. That’s the community of people that she’s developed around her, and I think she’s done an excellent job doing that. That was all of her work. Partly because of my work as an MLA, as the members’ work often involves going to seniors homes, going to care homes, frequently my constituents….
I live right on a health authority border, so I frequently go to Burnaby, to St. Michael’s or to Three Links or others in terms of care homes. The stress on families that we see now is significant. We’re living longer. That’s fantastic, but that often puts family caregivers in a position of supporting children or grandchildren and supporting their parents or grandparents and puts enormous pressure on the process. That’s why, as a central part of the plan that we’ve put forward, we added $75 million, over the three years of the plan, to increase supports for adult day programs and for respite care.
In the first year of the program, we added close to 10,000 adult day spaces across British Columbia, which is significant. But as the member will, I’m sure, tell me, it’s not sufficient in her community because the numbers are expanding. Clearly, on Vancouver Island, the need for more adult day services is there, and I strongly believe in that.
Sometimes they involve choices as well. What adult day programs do, what respite care does and what home support and home care do — in addition to improving the quality of life for people, which is the most important part of it — is ensure that they get the appropriate level of care, which is also the most cost-efficient level of care. When you’re making those allocations and people are saying, “Spend it on long-term care,” well, we also have to hold back some of that, just like we have to protect a little bit and enhance primary care expenditures against the inevitable pressure of acute care — and more and better, which often comes into acute care.
We have to protect exactly these services, which is why we carved out specific funding to add adult day programs in the member’s constituency. We’ll get some details about Vancouver Island to her, should she wish to follow up — community by community. We’re going to expect that over the next few years. The first year of the program was the smallest year, and we’re building out. I think, by the third year of the $75 million, it’ll be up to $35 million, which is significant.
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Holy mackerel. You know, hon. Chair, I’ve often felt that what this committee required was shorter questions and longer answers.
In any event, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada