2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. de Jong: Over the years and the decades British Columbians and this House have been served by some incredibly talented individuals in the capacity of Attorney General. Today we had a brief ceremony in the rotunda, and we honoured the achievements of all of those individuals. I'm so pleased that seven past Attorneys General were able to be here today. I'd like to introduce them to the…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. M. de Jong: They are a shy, retiring lot. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The dean of the alumni group, who helped, I think it's fair to say, make the ceremony at noon a smashing success is — and I hope the House will welcome all of these individuals — Garde Gardom, who served from 1975 to 1979; Brian Smith, who served as Attorney General from 1983 to 1988; Russ Fraser, who served from 1990 to 1991; Colin Gabelmann, who served from 1991 to 1995; Andrew Petter, who was Attorney General in the millennium year of 2000; Graeme Bowbrick, who served from 2000 to 2001; and my immediate predecessor, who served from 2005 to 2009, Mr. Wally Oppal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They are all deserving of our respect. The House has already made them feel welcome and I know will do so once again. [Applause.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1335]
Hon. K. Heed: Good afternoon. I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming some more very special guests today. Since the tragic death of their daughter Reena, Suman and Manjit Virk have turned heartbreak into hope by sharing their story in an effort to prevent similar tragedies. The Virks, in honour of Reena, have spoken at schools and community events to educate teens and the public about the true costs of bullying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These parents are truly an inspiration. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming them, along with their son Aman and his wife, Elizabeth, to the assembly today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also in the House today is a very good friend of the Virks. He, too, works with our young people to combat crime and build safer communities. I would also ask all members to join me in welcoming Const. Paul Brookes of the Victoria police department, who we are proud to welcome to the Legislature today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tributes
VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIDERS
R. Cantelon: On Saturday the Vancouver Island Raiders, for the third consecutive year, won the Canadian Junior Football League championship. In two weeks Nanaimo will host the Canadian championship game. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Surrey Rams fought hard. Their quarterback was flattened and had trouble getting up, but Cam Clark got up and tried again. Congratulations to the Vancouver Island Raiders, and good luck in the Canadian championships in two weeks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
Hon. I. Chong: Somewhere in the precinct — I know they're touring — is a group of students from a school in my riding. That is Hillcrest Elementary School. There are 29 grade 4 students and six adults, led by their teacher, Miss Margot Kirkpatrick. They may show up at any time. I know they are in the precinct. I ask the House to make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Statements
mcdonald's champion kids
Selection of Johnathan Botelho
Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Mackenzie and Nechako Lakes…. We wanted to share a very good-news story with the members this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Olympic excitement is building, and that's the case in northern B.C. as well. There is a program called McDonald's Champion Kids, and it chooses 11 children from across Canada to participate in an international program connected to the Olympics. The students were chosen by a selection committee including two-time Olympic gold medallist Cassie Campbell. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are thrilled to tell you that one of those champion kids is from Prince George. Johnathan Botelho is a grade 7 student, a member of the local under-12 all-star A level soccer team. His enthusiasm for sports and great communication skills have allowed him to be a cub reporter on CKPG TV's Cougar View as well as a junior announcer at the CN Centre during Cougar games. He's an outstanding youth leader and now a McDonald's champion kid. He will be attending the Olympics, visiting cultural sites, interacting with other champion kids from around the world and filing a few stories, I am sure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are absolutely proud of Johnathan and wish him a wonderful time at the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
G. Hogg: We are delighted, I'm sure, to have with us in the gallery today a gentleman, a bon vivant, a former ministerial assistant to a gentleman who thinks he's a star basketball player — he is, clearly, a former Attorney General, Mr. Wally Oppal — and a man who is currently the recipient of higher learning here in our province. Would you please join me in welcoming Mr. Terry Lalari. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Bill 21 — AMBULANCE SERVICES
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT
Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.
Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, be introduced and read a first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
[1340]
Hon. K. Falcon: The Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act is designed to bring an end to the current impasse between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and CUPE 873, the union representing ambulance paramedics and dispatchers in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When B.C.'s paramedics began their job action on April 1, earlier this year, we sincerely hoped that a mutually agreeable settlement could be reached. Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts over the past seven months, the two sides have been unable to resolve their differences. The last offer made to the union was generous, given the difficult economic challenges we face as a province, and it is in keeping with what other public sector workers will receive in 2009-10. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We value the work and services of B.C.'s 3,500 ambulance paramedics, and many of us have great relationships with individual paramedics across the province. However, we are concerned that the longer this dispute drags on, the higher the risk for patients, a risk we are no longer prepared to countenance. With the H1N1 pandemic impacting the acute care system and with the busy holiday season fast approaching, the public needs certainty that they'll have the care they need in an emergency. It is time to move forward in the interests of all British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is not a decision we have come to lightly. The settlement we've put forward in the act reflects the key elements of the offer made by the B.C. Ambulance Service during the last round of talks in September. It is a one-year deal, retroactive to April 1, 2009, and includes a competitive compensation increase of 3 percent in wages this year, in line with other public sector workers. This wage increase was accepted by the union in September. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, I will be calling on the Minister of Labour to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner to identify options for repairing the labour relations structure between the two parties before the next round of bargaining in the new year. The union indicated that the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner was the most important issue to address, and we agree. In particular, I also intend to address the issues raised by rural paramedics, who face unique challenges under the existing structure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 21, Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 20 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No.
2), 2009
Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009.
Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, amends the following statutes: Animal Disease Control Act, Community Care and Assisted Living Act, Community Living Authority Act, Criminal Records Review Act, Election Act, Forest Act, Forestry Revitalization Act, Homeowner Protection Act, Hydro and Power Authority Act, Land Surveyors Act, Livestock Identification Act and Motor Dealer Act. This bill also represents the final piece of legislation that the government intends to introduce for passage during this session. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, 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. CRIME PREVENTION WEEK AND
SURREY COMMUNITY SAFETY AWARDS
S. Cadieux: Today I would like to acknowledge the many British Columbians who are working to make their communities safer places to live. To that end, I would like to read the following proclamation: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1345]
"Whereas the week of November 1 to 7, 2009, has been designated as Crime Prevention Week in British Columbia and in recognition thereof, communities throughout the province are actively participating in this event; and whereas the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and crime prevention groups throughout the province wish to heighten public awareness of crime prevention programs; and whereas the success of crime prevention depends on the people working together in families, neighbourhoods, businesses, communities and youth groups to promote safer streets in every community; and whereas British Columbia encourages local governments to build strong communities that discourage crime and work cooperatively with justice and law enforcement agencies, crime prevention groups, communities, schools, youth groups and businesses to build public awareness and involvement in crime prevention activities; and whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903 on October 11, 2002; now know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and declare the week of November 1 to 7, 2009, inclusive shall be known as Crime Prevention Week in the province of British Columbia."
I'd also like to recognize two Surrey winners of the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Awards this year: the Surrey board of education, for their safe schools program; and Carrie Chattell, an RCMP employee in Cloverdale who developed a six-week course entitled "Protecting Yourself" in response to the needs of her community. I'd like to have the House encourage that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
PATIENT SAFETY
M. Mungall: Well, this week marks the beginning of Patient Safety Week all over Canada. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute launched Canadian Patient Safety Week as an annual campaign every year nationally. This week is part of the institute's mandate to build and advance a safer health system for Canadians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The theme of Canadian Patient Safety Week is "Ask, listen, talk," because communication is key to patient safety. Good health care starts with good communication. If something doesn't seem right, ask questions, listen to the answers, and discuss your concerns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Asking, listening and talking are exactly what Nelson and West Kootenay residents have been doing since 2002. Concerned about patient safety in rural areas, West Kootenay residents have been asking questions about their health care system, listening to a wide variety of answers and, of course, talking about their experiences and their concerns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Transportation between communities and health services is a very big issue that impacts patient safety. Access to acute therapeutic and long-term care in our communities is a major talking point. Thousands across the country will participate in events that raise awareness. One of the things that this week reminds us is that between 9,000 and 24,000 people die each year as a result of preventable adverse events or harm in Canadian hospitals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are more deaths each year due to adverse events and preventable harm in hospitals than deaths from breast cancer, motor vehicle accidents and HIV combined. I'd like to take this opportunity to applaud the residents in my area who are dedicated to the concept of patient safety and committed to improving it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SURREY AND WHITE ROCK
community resources fair
D. Hayer: Last week I attended an exceptional community resource fair hosted by Peace Arch Community Services Society, in partnership with the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, at my old high school, Queen Elizabeth Secondary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
More than 48 very important community organizations participated in this event. The fifth annual fair provided a huge information resource for my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead and for all residents of Surrey and White Rock. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The list of organizations that participated range from the Alzheimer Society to the Surrey Hospice Society, Surrey RCMP, Legal Services Society, Options: Services to Communities Society, Tzu Chi Foundation, South Fraser Women's Services, Surrey Food Bank, DiverCity, Children's Foundation, South Fraser Community Services Society, Newton Advocacy Group, SEEDS, Immigrant Services Society of B.C., Atira Women's Resource Society, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Community Living B.C. and a host of others — also, representatives of such diverse groups as the Shell Busey home referral network, RBC Foundation, Surrey Board of Trade. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This incredibly informative day for Surrey residents would not have been possible without the outstanding organizational skills of such persons as Anthony Intas, Charan Gill, Victoria Clements, Satbir Cheema, Sue Sanderson, Sandy Alleyn, Jessie Kergan, Yasmin Ali, Jagtar Dhaliwal, Gurinder Budwal and Renu Gambhir. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Special thanks must also go to many, many volunteers, including Diane Elmer, Teresa Beck, Don Cosens, Dan Sardinha, Teresa Campbell, Sandy Alfonso and Shafeem Kahn. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I ask all the members to join me in congratulating and thanking all those mentioned and many, many more individuals, organizations and sponsors who worked so hard to make this event very successful and accessible information provided to the community as a resource for the residents of Surrey and the citizens of White Rock. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1350]
commemoration of
internment of UKRAINIAN CANADIANS
K. Conroy: On October 24, I attended a moving ceremony in Edgewood to unveil a plaque commemorating Ukrainian Canadians wrongfully interned during the First World War. Now, most Canadians know about the Japanese Canadians who were interned during World War II and the Québécois who were detained in the '70s, both under the War Measures Act, but I have found very few people who know that the Ukrainian Canadians were the first group of people to have suffered under this notorious act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The federal government set up 24 internment camps across the country. The internees were housed in bunkhouses and were employed in hard labour, including roadbuilding. In Edgewood they built the road to nowhere, as there was no ferry crossing on the Arrow Lakes at the time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the UCCLA, who specializes in the political geography of eastern Europe and the ethnic and immigration history of Canada, described it best: "Keep in mind that these were civilians who had come to Canada expecting to find freedom…who had done nothing wrong yet found themselves described as enemy aliens and herded together in camps and forced to do heavy labour, even though that was prohibited by existing international laws governing the…prisoners of war." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This day, though, was about recognition and celebration and that this wrong should be righted and these people's contribution to our history remembered. While no survivors of these camps remain alive today, the unveiling of the plaque was a symbolic restitution of an act that should never again be repeated in this country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The plaque, permanently situated at the entrance to the Edgewood Internment Camp site, was unveiled by longtime Edgewood residents Dot and Rollie Crabbe and Ron and Phyllis Volansky. I want to thank the local UCCLA coordinator, Andrea Malysh, and the other UCCLA members, the Edgewood Community Internet Society and the Edgewood Royal Canadian Legion branch No. 203 for the fabulous lunch they provided and everyone who was involved for ensuring a very successful and memorable event. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
STRONGSTART B.C. CENTRES
IN NORTH VANCOUVER
J. Thornthwaite: On Friday I had the pleasure of attending the openings of two more StrongStart B.C. programs in North Vancouver, with my former colleague Susan Skinner, the board chair; Rick Chan, who's the principal; childhood educator Heather Van Haltren; Joanne Robertson; and Irene Young. I was very pleased to be there to meet with them again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The preschoolers of both Lynn Valley and Seymour Heights now have the opportunity to learn in an interactive and fun environment. Not only does this partnership create a stronger community. It also creates an environment that facilitates early learning and literacy for our little ones. As a parent with three children in North Vancouver, I appreciate the values that these centres represent, and I know that if they had been available when my kids were young, I would have been eager to participate in the learning opportunities they represent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These centres require great teamwork between school districts, schools, educators and, of course, the public. It's an investment into the future of our province, as the children of today are our leaders and innovators of tomorrow. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The official opening of Lynn Valley and Seymour Heights brings the total to seven StrongStart centres in North Vancouver. This goes to show that the communities in North Vancouver are dedicated to providing our youth with access to all of the skills they need to be successful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Children are our most precious resource. We must do everything we can to give them the best of all possible starts in school and in life. By working together, we will reach our goal and make British Columbians the best-educated and most literate people in North America. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ROLE OF PRINCE RUPERT
IN POTASH EXPORT INDUSTRY
G. Coons: Taking the lead from Terrace's Hockeyville success, Prince Rupert is poised to become Potashville. As the Saskatchewan potash industry pushes to double exports in the next decade, those in Prince Rupert anticipate they will tap into the Port of Prince Rupert to try to avoid the rail congestion to other locations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Canpotex, an internationally recognized business, plans to adds about 11 million tonnes of shipping capacity by 2012, almost doubling its current capacity. Just over a month ago over 500 people turned out to a public meeting about the project in Prince Rupert. The magnitude of community support caught Jon Somers, vice-president of Canpotex, off guard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the heart of the matter is a proposal to either build a $400 million potash terminal on Ridley Island — which Somers said would probably be the world's largest and the world's most innovative and will create hundreds of construction jobs, with 80 to 100 full-time operational jobs — or to expand their existing facility in Vancouver. Somers sees it as a gateway, a straight shot from Saskatchewan to Prince Rupert right to the heart of Asia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1355]
Prince Rupert, as we know, is the closest North American port to Asian markets, with faster sailing times, lower costs. It can handle the largest of cargo ships, unlike Vancouver. Don Krusel, president and CEO for the Prince Rupert Port Authority, is confident that the Prince Rupert gateway will provide Canpotex and the potash industry with significant advantages in growing their export business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The project also reinforces the success that can be achieved when CN, the port authority and the Coast Tsimshian First Nation work together to demonstrate the strategic advantages of our trade corridor. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The price of potash, a key ingredient for fertilizer, has fluctuated over the past year. But every morning the rush to check out the TSX puts a strain on our local Internet speed as we get poised to raise the banner. Prince Rupert is Potashville. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
L. Reid: I am pleased to introduce a group of students visiting from Portland State University in the School of Government. They are with us for an educational day of presentations to learn about our system of parliamentary democracy. They are both graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in a Congress and parliaments course. They are accompanied by their professor, Dr. Richard Clucas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask the House to please make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS
R. Austin: As we raised last week, 535 workers are losing their jobs as a result of the permanent closure of the Eurocan pulp mill in Kitimat. I was home this weekend, and I can tell you that this announcement is having devastating impacts on the town, the workers and their families. Everyone, quite frankly, is in shock. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also found out that senior bureaucrats from the Ministry of Community Development will be heading to Kitimat on Wednesday. To the Minister of Community Development: will these officials be bringing a cheque for $2 million to provide immediate assistance to Kitimat to plan for a future without Eurocan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: I would like to start by repeating something that my colleague the Minister of Forests said last week to the member and to anyone else in this House who lives in a community that is dependent on the forest industry, as I do. I still have some mills that are down, as the member opposite does. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the 535 workers and their families. I have some idea, from talking to my own constituents, of what that's like. It's not an easy time for them. It's not an easy time for the community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, we will do everything we possibly can, not only through the ministry that I'm responsible for and the Rural Secretariat, but I know the Minister of Forests is interested and keen to help with this situation. I know that the Premier has spoken with the mayor, and together this government will do absolutely everything that we can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Austin: On behalf of the community of Kitimat, I do appreciate the sympathies of the minister, but now it's truly time for action. Before the election Mackenzie and Fort St. James got $2 million in direct aid. Why wouldn't Kitimat get this right away? It makes no sense to delay this assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The workers in Kitimat also need direct aid. They need to know that they will be directly assisted to make their own transition. Will the Minister of Community Development commit today to add provincial dollars to the community development trust transition fund specifically for the workers at Eurocan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Despite the fact that our government cut the school taxes for major industry in the province by 50 percent and despite the fact that we have the second-lowest corporate income taxes in the country and despite the fact that we have the promise of $140 million going into the forest industry when HST is implemented on July 1, 2010, this particular company made a business decision that this business was no longer viable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that the NDP's first reaction to everything is: "Let's just cut a cheque." We have people going to Kitimat, as the hon. member has already mentioned. We'll have a discussion. We'll take some time and figure out what we can do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1400]
I can say to the member that both Fort St. James and Mackenzie are 100 percent forest-dependent. I would suggest to him that if he looks around at the potential that Kitimat and the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine have, he will see there is a lot of opportunity there in addition to forestry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
FOREST INDUSTRY
C. James: Well, the minister's response shows that there is no plan in place for the workers in Kitimat — absolutely no plan in place for the workers in Kitimat — just as this government has refused to have a plan in place for the 50 forestry mills that have shut down across our province. No plan in place, as tens of thousands of workers lose their jobs on the Island, the Kootenays, the Interior, the north. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Minister of Forests. At a time when B.C. Liberal policies have hurt 535 Kitimat families and tens of thousands of workers across our province, how does he explain not having a plan in place to deal with the crisis in the forest industry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. P. Bell: In fact, this government has a very in-depth strategy and plan, and it's starting to pay off benefits. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. P. Bell: The members of the opposition may not have paid attention to the amount of effort that we've put into growing the Chinese market. Yet every single economist, every single individual you talk to says that that is the future market that we need to be focusing our resource-based industries on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the last six years we've built that market from one that was not even in the top ten markets for British Columbia. This year China will be our second-largest market. It's a market that's going to continue to grow. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: We just got another example — and the people of Kitimat and forest workers across this province got another example — that the minister just doesn't get it, doesn't get that we've got a crisis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On October 21 the minister told the Cowichan Lake District Chamber of Commerce that he is "excited about the course the government has been charting for the forest industry." Excited. The 535 forest workers in Kitimat and the tens of thousands across this province who have lost their jobs just don't buy it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It took this government a few weeks to be able to come up with a plan to spend half a billion dollars on a new roof for B.C. Place. But they've had eight years of a crisis in the forest industry, and they've done nothing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question is to the minister. How many more communities will have to be in crisis before this government will finally act? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad the member opposite gave me another opportunity to talk about some of the real windows that are open for the forest industry going forward. You know, Mr. Speaker, this government has made a significant commitment to the bioenergy industry. In fact, we produce enough electricity through our bioenergy industry already to electrify about 700,000 homes provincewide. But that's not enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're becoming one of the largest pellet producers in North America, electrifying actually most of the European marketplace as well. We're growing new opportunities with companies like Lignol, with companies like Nexterra energy, as a result of the $35 million that we've put into the B.C. Bioenergy Network and as a result of the innovative clean energy fund that is ongoing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government is committed to a new, revitalized forest industry, and bioenergy is going to be one of the key components of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The minister's words are cold comfort to those families in Kitimat, to that community which is struggling, to the tens of thousands of workers across this province who, for the last eight years, have heard those hollow words from this minister and this government and who have seen over 50 mills closed down. The government's response has been to gut protections for workers — a failure to pay attention until after the damage is done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, a straightforward question to the minister: will he finally admit that the B.C. Liberal forest policy has failed communities like Kitimat, and will he admit that they don't have a plan in place to deal with a crisis in our major industry in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1405]
Hon. P. Bell: This government is absolutely committed to revitalizing the forest industry in what is the most difficult period for forestry ever, historically, in North America. The member opposite may not have noticed, but the U.S. housing market that used to build two million homes per year is down to about 500,000 homes per year. Our industry has continued to function, albeit in very, very difficult circumstances. We're building new opportunities, whether it's through China, whether it's through bioenergy, whether it's through wood-first policies in big buildings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know what, Mr. Speaker? HST is the biggest single thing that we can do to enhance our forest industry — $140 million a year. That works out to $7 per thousand board feet of production. That makes our industry the most competitive one anywhere in the world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS
N. Macdonald: The minister talks about the HST. He didn't before the election, but now it seems something that he likes to roll out. What's clear is that we had a long list of tax cuts, and they led to nothing. Each and every time this government comes forward with one of these policies, there is a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. But it never happens. What we have seen is a comprehensive failure — 25,000 jobs lost. Eight years of B.C. Liberal mismanagement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For communities like Kitimat, it is almost a week. There has been nothing put in place by this government. This is not the first community. This is the 55th mill that has gone down. For a government to flounder after 55 mills with no plan in place is a disgrace — an absolute disgrace. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question for this minister is: what specifically has he done for Kitimat? What specifically has he done in the almost week that he has had to deal with this issue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. P. Bell: If the member would tone down the rhetoric and actually have a reasonable conversation around this discussion, it might be that people could accomplish something. It's been very challenging to have to listen to this on an ongoing basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. P. Bell: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we've been absolutely committed to working with the people of Kitimat. I attended a conference call with the mayor and council, an extraordinary council meeting that was held last Thursday afternoon. My colleague the Minister of Community Development has individuals going in this week to work with mayor and council to make sure they're aware of all of the programs and opportunities that are available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My district manager for the district, the forest district there, is travelling to Kitimat, as well, to find out what the key issues and opportunities are. We've got a wide array of programs that we're going to work with Kitimat to make sure that we help mitigate this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's time for all of us to work together on this. The member needs to cut through the rhetoric and actually start working collaboratively on these issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: The government was asked: "Is there $2 million?" There's no answer there. That hasn't been thought about. Is there money, any provincial money at all, for the transition programs that are needed? There's none. That hasn't been thought through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question that I put to the minister is.... It is clear that the B.C. Liberal forest policy is a complete and comprehensive failure. That is evident for everyone to see. That failure continues. The CEP represents workers at Eurocan in Kitimat. They're calling for a multiparty federal-provincial emergency summit on forestry to lay out a new direction for forest policy in the province. Does the minister support that call? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. P. Bell: I talk with the folks from the CEP, including the national head, on a regular basis. They've not yet asked me to attend that. I have a lot of respect for David Coles, the leadership of the CEP, and I'll be working with them as we move forward on this file. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1410]
But I'm a little bit tired of hearing the lack of support for those communities. The job opportunities program has already delivered over $5 million to the people of Kitimat-Stikine — 130 resource jobs directly as a result of that — $125,000 in retraining, $2.2 million to help support the fibre basket and expanding the opportunities in the region, not to mention the $404 million in the northwest transmission line and billions of dollars in a new port, a new pipeline and a whole new series of business opportunities for the people of the northwest of this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
AUDIOLOGY CLINIC IN PRINCE RUPERT
G. Coons: Hundreds of infants and children from Prince Rupert, the coastal communities and Haida Gwaii who are at very high risk for hearing problems are still not receiving the diagnostic treatment services they need. Why? The brand-new $600,000 audiology clinic in Prince Rupert lacks the staff it needs to operate because this government has failed to deliver on its funding commitments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the minister release the operational funds that this government promised for the clinic? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you for the question. I will endeavour to get the information for the member. I suspect that one of the challenges may be around the area of recruitment. That has been an ongoing challenge for us in rural-remote communities, but I will be happy to get the information for the member and answer it, hopefully, to his satisfaction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Coons: I appreciate that, Minister. But when we look at what's happening in Prince Rupert, this job hasn't even been posted. Jess Rainey, the northwest senior audiologist, resigned last May due to the lack of commitment from this government and this minister to audiology services in the northwest. And it hasn't been posted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, will the minister provide the audiology clinic with the services as promised and at least direct Northern Health to post the position? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I do know that one of the health authorities that has performed in an outstanding manner and continues to is Northern Health Authority. We receive plaudits on the work they do every single day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the issue of if it may or may not be a challenge of trying to recruit and retain audiologists at the facility the member is talking about, I will get the information for the member. But I can assure you that one thing I am proud of is that it was this government that brought in those testing processes for all young British Columbians in the province of British Columbia. We're proud of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SUPPLY OF H1N1 VACCINE TO
COPEMAN CLINIC
J. Brar: The Copeman clinic is a private medical clinic that charges new clients close to $4,000 for services. Can the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport tell this House why a special supply of H1N1 vaccine was made available to the members of the Copeman clinic? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is that the vaccines that are provided from back east are distributed through the B.C. Centre for Disease Control to every health office and every licensed practitioner in British Columbia in accordance with a process that recognizes that whether it is a private clinic, a public clinic or a private doctor's office — which in most cases doctor's offices are — they all receive the same amount. It is to be provided to those that have chronic health care conditions, in accordance with the phased processing of the vaccination program, at no cost. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That will be the case for Copeman and any other clinic that has received those vaccines from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: The reality is this. The shortage of H1N1 vaccine is leaving at-risk groups, including pregnant women, individuals with chronic diseases, young children, waiting for the vaccine at public health clinics. Can the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport again tell this House why a special supply of H1N1 vaccine was made available to the members of the Copeman clinic and what steps the minister has taken to ensure the Copeman clinic follows provincial protocol? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1415]
Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as I said in my last answer, Copeman health clinic will be treated like every other medical practitioner. They are given an allotment of vaccinations. They are required to deliver those vaccinations in accordance with the directives of the program, and that is to chronically ill patients first, as part of the phased processing of this. They will do that, as professionals. They are all licensed professional doctors, and they will deliver that at no cost for the benefit of the patients that fit those categories. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To the member's other point about crowds, it's one of the reasons why we are asking the public to recognize that this is the largest vaccination program in the history of the province of British Columbia. It's one of the reasons why it's being phased in to ensure that high-risk groups — those with chronic illness, first nations and communities that are most at risk if they are in fact infected with H1N1 — are dealt with first. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're asking the public to cooperate with us on that, and we will continue to phase out the rollout this week. It includes children between the ages of six months and five years and health professionals. In the coming weeks we will have vaccinations available for the entire populace of British Columbia also. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: The minister will know that many people, even people in those groups —I'm sure they've contacted him; I know they've contacted me — have been unable to get access to the vaccine in British Columbia. So how does it make sense? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister says no preferential access. There is preferential access at the Copeman clinic. You have to pay $3,900 to become a member, and then you get the vaccine. At a time when there is a shortage, at a time when the minister is rightly asking British Columbians to be patient, how does it make sense to provide some of that supply to a clinic where you have to pay to play? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I know that the member opposite gets excited whenever there's a discussion of private clinics, but the member should know that licensed medical practitioners perform duties in private and public clinics right across the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is happening is that they have been given an allotment. I understand it's exactly the same allotment provided to doctors' offices, which in most cases are also private, as the member should know. They are required to administer it in exactly the same way that it's being administered at public clinics, at private clinics, at doctors' offices, at hospitals — that is, to at-risk patient groups at no cost to the individuals. That's exactly what I expect them to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Except you have to spend $4,000 to get access to that lineup. The fact of the matter is…. There's a case in Ontario right now, and that clinic is being forced by the government of Ontario to provide access to everybody. The government of Ontario is currently conducting a review into that practice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister surely understands why people who are waiting…. The majority of health care workers aren't going to get access to the vaccine this week. The majority of children aren't going to get access to the vaccine this week. Yet privileged access is being given to members of a particular clinic. Does the minister not think there is something wrong with that picture? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I would be careful with that, Member, because I am certain that the Copeman clinic also has clients that are suffering from compromised immune systems. They may have chronic health conditions that would necessitate a vaccination, just as doctors' offices right across the province or public health clinics also have patients that are dealing with chronic care issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I said to the member, the distribution of vaccines is being undertaken under the auspices of our chief provincial health officer and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. They are making sure that they are delivered fairly and appropriately across the licensed medical practitioner population, to be delivered for the benefit of those at risk first. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Children and Family Development
Ministry Budget Priorities
M. Karagianis: I have a question for the Minister of Children and Family Development. How does hiring four new assistant deputy ministers fit with the government's insistence that they are cutting administration in order to deliver more to front-line services? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: I'm pleased to respond to the member and advise her that this is part of our continuing transformation to ensure that we have the best practice possible and that we respond to many of the recommendations in the Hughes report around decentralization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1420]
I'm sure the member will be pleased to know that at the end of this shift in management, we will have no more management positions than we have now, and this entire change will be managed within the existing management and administrative salary budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
FUNDING FOR
INFANT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
M. Karagianis: Well, Dorothy Gazzola, whose daughter has Down syndrome, says that the infant development coordinators — a program this government just cut — were a godsend. She said that they were integral to the development of her special needs child. Yet this government cut those coordinators, insisting that it was a cut to administration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question again to the minister: shouldn't the minister start at the top rather than going down and hurting those most vulnerable as the first line of attack? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: The member well knows, because we've canvassed this before, that both the infant development program and the supported child development program continue uninterrupted, and that the administrative and coordinating functions that were represented by the provincial advisor's office will now be provided through the ministry regional offices — again, consistent with the multi-year plan that we are still continuing with to decentralize according to what Mr. Ted Hughes recommended in his well-known report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Well, that's not what the front-line workers say. April Kennedy at Sheway and her colleague work with young infants and pregnant women with substance misuse challenges. She and her co-worker provide developmental screenings, assessments and support to group parents. They rely heavily on the information provided to them by the advisers in the infant and Aboriginal Infant Development Program of B.C. so that the high-risk infants and their families have a better chance to succeed in life. Currently they have a caseload of 80 infants, and approximately 70 percent are identified as aboriginal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To the minister again: is the chance to succeed for 80 high-risk children not worth $300,000? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: I will advise the member that the infant development program maintains the same budget that it began with — $18 million this year, an all-time high — and supported child development has seen an increase in funding from $37.7 million in '04-05 to an all-time high now of $57 million this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are hugely valuable programs, but they're part of a complex array of supports that we provide to children and families around the province. As we shift to decentralize, I want to remind the members of something that Mr. Hughes said in his report — decentralization "allows for a closer match of services and programs to the unique needs of widely dispersed...communities." And that's what we are going to provide. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: You know, from the front-line workers' point of view, they take a different point of view than this minister. They say that training and current information on relevant trends and changes in early intervention are an essential part of providing quality services to the heavy at-risk caseload. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The infant development office has helped over 80,000 parents at the cost of $300,000. That's $3.75 per family. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why is it that this government can find close to a million dollars to spend on government MLAs and their cabinet ministers for Olympic tickets? Why is it that this government can find…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Take your seat for a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members.
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Why is it that this government can find half a billion dollars for a retractable roof, and they cannot find $300,000 to support front-line workers working with high-risk infants of 18 months or younger? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1425]
Hon. M. Polak: I will repeat this for the member. There are no reductions in service in infant development programs. There are no reductions in service in supported child development programs. In fact, both programs are being funded at an all-time high. There is no reduction in funding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll tell you what really concerns me. I have been travelling around this province, and I have been talking to front-line workers. What really concerns me is that you have parents who are dealing with at-risk infants, with special needs children, and they're being told by opposition members that those programs are not going to be there. That is the last thing those families need to hear. It's absolutely untrue, and those members should be ashamed of themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
MINIMUM WAGE
R. Chouhan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It has been eight years since B.C.'s lowest-paid workers had a raise. In fact, it was decreased from $8 an hour to $6 for the new workers. We now have the lowest minimum wage in the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To the Minister of Labour: how much longer do our lowest-paid workers have to wait? When will the government finally raise the minimum wage? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to take the member back eight years to when we were first elected and the NDP were defeated. So 60 percent of single parents were on welfare in this province, and 6 percent of people were earning minimum wage. Today that has been cut in half to 2.7 percent of the people on minimum wage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Coell: People earning minimum wage today pay no provincial tax, as they did when the NDP were in power, and the NDP voted against that. People earning minimum wage pay no MSP, and the NDP voted against that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[End of question period.]
C. James: I rise to present a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Petitions
C. James: This petition has 1,597 signatures from the Kelowna area opposing the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Herbert: I'd like to seek leave to present a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Herbert: All right. This petition is 1,407 signatures from the good people of Vancouver–West End opposing the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Hammell: I seek leave to introduce a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Hammell: This petition is signed by 3,496 people from the wonderful city of Surrey, and I present this to the House, as they are opposing the implementation of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts — and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1430]
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 14 — Housing and
Social Development Statutes
Amendment Act, 2009
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Housing closes debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I've been sitting listening to the members opposite for some time, and I must admit that the NDP love affair with criminals continues. It's absolutely amazing to me, though, that their tough talk earlier this spring, when they wanted to go after gangs in British Columbia, has withered away to actually opposing a bill that says somebody with an indictable offence would not be given welfare. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The interesting thing about this: it wasn't always thus. As a matter of fact, I will read just one section of a regulation that existed from 1997 to the year 2000 in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"A person is not eligible for assistance if a warrant for the arrest of that person or an adult dependent has been issued under the Immigration Act of Canada or under an enactment of Canada in relation to an indictable offence and the warrant has not been executed, and for the purposes of this section, indictable offence includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence."
That is part of a regulation that goes on for about two pages that the NDP had in place in 1997. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They stood over there on Thursday afternoon and berated the government for no consultation, not doing this thing publicly, going out for discussion in a house…. What did the NDP do? They brought that regulation in, in 1997, without any consultation, with no discussion with law enforcement, no discussion with communities. They went ahead and brought it into place. Subsequently, three years, they lost it to a Charter challenge because they didn't have the temerity to actually put in legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But they'll sit here at the absolute height of hypocrisy and berate a law that does exactly what they did in 1997. How could it be okay to do the regulation haphazardly in 1997 and not okay to do a piece of legislation in 2009 that actually tries to meet the test to deal with this issue in our province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Something switched. Somewhere along the way, the NDP have decided that some sexual predator from Montreal with a Canada-wide warrant coming into British Columbia should get social assistance, or some guy that's actually been assaulting someone — whether it be his ex-spouse or whatever the case may be — and has an outstanding warrant for an indictable offence should come to British Columbia. They'll wrap their arms around him and say: "Welcome to this province, and by the way, here's a cheque." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't agree with that, and actually, at one time they didn't either. They absolutely didn't either. But today they've changed their minds. Earlier this spring they wanted us to go after body armour. Earlier this spring they wanted to work with us on gangs. Now their policy is, "Well, we have a gang member committing an indictable offence, and they have an outstanding warrant. Give them welfare, because that's what we really believe in" — over there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yet the hypocrisy is that they already tried to do it themselves, and in so doing, they killed all the rest of the arguments that they had during second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sometimes you should look at your history. Sometimes you should look in the mirror. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we go through that, we should also understand that a number of the other things that these folks were actually complaining about during second reading need to be put on the record so that we can actually have these people understand what's going on in B.C. versus when they were government in the 2000s. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1435]
Let's deal with children and the LICO measurement, which is a measurement the members were all talking about. The children in poverty in British Columbia in 2000. Total population: 15.1 percent, the highest in B.C.'s history. Today: 11.1 percent, the lowest in B.C.'s history. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They don't want to talk about the fact that the percentage of children living in low income in British Columbia just in one year, in 2006 to 2007, declined by 29,000 children, a reduction of 21 percent. They don't want to talk about the fact that the incidence of children living in low income declined by 13 percent in 2007, the lowest since 1991. The proportion of families living in poverty is decreasing at a rate that is historical in British Columbia because of the policies of this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That LICO measurement doesn't measure rental assistance. It doesn't measure the other programs in government. It doesn't measure the lowest income tax rate for people making lower incomes. Even themselves, they say on their stuff: "Don't measure it by that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So then I sat and listened to things about SROs, and I heard things about issues with the Downtown Eastside. I could go on for hours on what's been done in Vancouver for housing, in the Downtown Eastside and across B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I could talk about the 7,000 people who were homeless 36 months ago, when our outreach teams have actually connected them to housing with supports across B.C. — and 80 percent of them are still housed today. I could talk about the fact that we've gone and bought 23 single-room-occupancy hotels, upgraded them and changed them into better housing and supports for people that are homeless with mental health and addictions on our street. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I could talk about the fact that we've taken the homeless shelters in British Columbia, almost tripled the amount in the last few years and taken the 24-7, 365 days a year and put in two other strategic moves with regards to cold-weather and extreme-weather strategies. But those I might actually save for my second reading debate under the Assistance to Shelter Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I could not wait, frankly, to talk about the love affair with a criminal by the NDP and the hypocrisy of actually having a regulation that almost mirrors the legislation that's before the House and not once taking this to any consultation or whatever when they did it. What are we doing? In open debate in the Legislature of British Columbia, we're debating an act, and we'll go right through committee stage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It should be interesting, as each one of these things matches up, what the objection of the members opposite will be to, let's say, section 1(2) of their regulation: "under any other enactment in Canada in relation to an indictable offence…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suppose they'll get up and debate that and be opposed to it and call division on that when they actually get to it, because obviously, they didn't believe in it then and they don't believe in it now. All they want to do is wrap their arms around the bad criminals of this country and say: "Come on guys. Come on down and get a cheque." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I close second reading debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Coleman: I refer the bill to a Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, 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. B. Penner: I now call committee stage debate on Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 17 — Health Statutes
(Residents' Bill of Rights)
Amendment Act, 2009
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 2:41 p.m.
Hon. I. Chong: I would like to introduce some of the staff with me today to begin with and then allow the members to ask some questions. With me today are Sue Bedford with our ministry, Christine Massey and Andrew Hazlewood, who's the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I'll entertain the questions from the members opposite. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 1.
J. Brar: Thanks to the minister and staff members. I hope we will go through committee stage in a meaningful way. Just to start the questions, my understanding is that section 1 talks about the display of the bill of rights at each care facility location. I would like to ask the minister whether the bill of rights will be displayed at one location or more than one location in each facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I understand, the question is whether there would be the displaying of the bill of rights in several locations within that facility. The requirement is that it needs to be displayed in one location within that facility, in a prominent location that is highly visible and that people can see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, if a facility should choose to prominently display it on, say, every level of their facility or in a number of areas, they can do so. But they are required at this time to absolutely have it visible in one location within that facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: What steps will be taken to make sure the rights of adult persons in care are known orally and in writing? We have already spoken about writing to personal care and their families and representatives. My question basically is around…. I understand the display of the bill of rights, which will be placed somewhere on the wall in an area which is visible to a majority of the residents. But orally or verbally, what method will be applied to make sure that all the instructions about the bill of rights are given to the residents? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would expect the facilities to ensure that the bill of rights is displayed in an appropriate and prominent location and that on admission to the facility, the staff there would speak to the family members, to the residents, and advise them that there is in fact a bill of rights that they can refer to from time to time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Will the bill of rights be displayed in more than one language, other than English? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, at present — and I know he had been at a briefing — the bill of rights will be displayed in English. However, we are prepared to monitor and see whether there are going to be significant requests for it to be translated into other languages. But at present it will be displayed in English at these facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Madam Chair, there are facilities available out there where we have, as you know, a significant population of residents who speak languages other than English, such as Cantonese, Mandarin or Punjabi. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll give you one example. In Surrey we have a facility where probably more than 50 percent of the people speak South Asian languages. So in that sense, in my opinion, if we want to truly implement the bill of rights and make it known to the residents, it's important for the residents to have that access in different languages. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question again is: what will be the criteria to figure out or make a decision when the bill of rights will be made available other than in the English language, where we have a significant population of residents who speak that kind of language? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, on admission the staff will be required to ensure that residents who are coming into the facility are aware there is a bill of rights or their family members are aware. They must communicate so in a way that it is understood that there is in fact a bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My question was pretty simple: whether the bill of rights would be translated into languages other than English — such as Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi — where the majority of residents of a particular care facility speak that kind of language. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, we will want to ensure that the facility operators do communicate this in a manner upon admission. It is not a legislated requirement that the bill of rights be provided in other languages. As I also indicated to the member, we would certainly consider that if in fact we find there is a need to provide the bill of rights in other languages. We would consider that, but currently the legislated requirement is that it is posted in English in a prominent location within the facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I would like to submit, though, that it's very important to the minister's office that we do make that option available under this bill. As I said before, if we want to totally implement this bill of rights, it's important that we translate the bill into languages that people can understand. So it's very important. I don't think if you give the option, that will serve the purpose which is actually the intent of this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are talking about the written bill of rights now. Similarly, I think the intent of this bill is that oral or verbal instructions will also be made available about the bill of rights to the residents if needed. So my question will be about that as well, because this bill says that oral instructions will be available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How is the minister going to implement that, or how is the minister going to make sure that the instructions in different languages other than English are available in a facility where people can only speak those languages — for example, Cantonese, Mandarin or Punjabi? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I assure the member that I am very aware, living in a multicultural and diverse province such as I, that there are certainly languages…. As he will know, our government has strived over a number of years to ensure that a number of publications are translated in a variety of languages. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Currently, as I have indicated, the legislated requirement is in fact in English. But we would be willing to work with the family councils, which will be established in these facilities, to see exactly the manner in which they would like to see a translated version posted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't occur. It's just that that option is available. We certainly would like to work with them. Also, the health authorities, as I understand it, have translators within the health authorities, and they work closely with the facility as required when there is a need for translation. So that will still be ongoing. That is still being made available. But most importantly, for residents and family members to know that a bill of rights is there so that they have understanding of what to expect in terms of a commitment to care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: When we talk about the translation, that matter could be taken care of very easily, because you need somebody to translate, and then, of course, you can display that on the wall. But when we talk about verbal instructions, that's a much bigger task for the care provider, if that's the expectation from them. Verbal instructions cannot be given to only translation. It has to be somebody talking to the resident in that situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is: how is the minister going to implement or make sure that the verbal instructions in this case — for example, in Punjabi, Cantonese or Mandarin — are available to the residents who can only speak that language if there is no staff in a particular care facility? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I'm just trying to ensure that I have the correct, I guess, response to the member's question. If he is referring to instructions on how to provide care, that would be what the health authorities are always and currently involved in, in terms of ensuring that the care facilities have the translators in place to instruct on the care that needs to be provided. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If we are talking, as this bill is, with regards to the residents bill of rights and to ensure that it is communicated properly, in that sense, then as I've indicated to him, it will be legislated that it is posted in English. However, we are willing to work with family councils and others to see whether some facilities wish them posted in a language other than English. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But if his questions are with respect to care and the care providers, that is the area of responsibility with the health authorities and health services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I would like to probably make it more specific. We are talking about the bill of rights, not the care which is related to the health authority. We are talking about the bill of rights, and I would particularly read from section 1(b), which says here under (c.2): "make the rights of adult persons in care known, orally and in writing, to persons in care and their families and representatives." So that's what the bill says. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's a good idea, but my question is: how is the minister going to implement that if, when it comes to oral language, the person who is receiving the message about the bill of rights — in that case, the resident of a facility — does not understand English and he or she needs to understand that in a language other than English? So how is the minister going to implement this particular subsection of the bill, particularly in the absence of a staff member who speaks that specific language? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
Hon. I. Chong: Again, it is important that the bill of rights is known, as the member has said — and I'm glad he agrees — orally and in writing to the persons in care, to their families and their representatives. We will ensure that if there is a translated version other than in English that is posted in a facility, it is an acceptable version, and we would be working with the care facility and their families to provide an alternate language, again, if needed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member is concerned that those instructions or that communiqué is not being made available, I do have the ability, as well, to make an order about how to have that displayed within that facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I think there is some miscommunication going on here. There's no question about the display. I understand that piece. At this stage, this bill does not talk about this having to be translated into languages other than English — which, I think, it should be. I'm talking more about on the verbal side of it. Now, verbal instruction can only be provided by a living individual. That's my understanding to the residents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question is…. In this one you're expecting the care providers to make sure the residents and their families and the representative know about the bill of rights, both in writing as well as in oral instructions. So you want to make sure of that. That's a good thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I want to make sure of is that…. If in a facility there's no staff member who can speak, for example, a Punjabi language, and there are 30 percent of the residents who speak a Punjabi language, then who will give them oral instructions in that situation to make sure this bill of rights is known to those people, the people who can't read and write? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I thought, in a previous answer, that I had provided that to the member. Again, I will reiterate for him that the health authorities will be providing assistance in this way. They'll be monitoring the requirements. They have translators, and they can call them if needed to ensure that should there be a problem that arises that a family member or a resident is…. If they are determining that they are not feeling an adequate acknowledgment of the bill of rights, the health authorities should call for assistance — call the translators to make sure they are aware that there is a bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The health authorities will continue to monitor them, and as I say, they have the staff complement. Especially in some of the larger densely populated areas, they have a number of translators that they can call upon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: So my understanding, then, is that when it comes to oral instructions being provided in languages other than English, that will be made available by the health authority. That's the expectation of the minister — from the health authority. But it will not be an expectation of the care facility itself to have people who will do that work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The care facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the residents and family members are aware of the bill of rights. As part of their licensing, the health authorities will be monitoring to ensure that they do adhere to this new requirement. So that's one of the reasons why the health authorities, as I've indicated, will be monitoring this. It is going to be a requirement that they do adequately ensure that this takes place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm sure that at the beginning there might be some confusion. If members feel that they have not been adequately provided with information, then we would expect that they would make that known to the care facility and that, therefore, the health authorities would be able to provide that assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
As part of the licensing requirement, that care facility will be required to ensure that they do provide that information and avail themselves of those translators in these health authorities if they need to call upon them to do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I was more clear last time, and I'm as confused as I was last time after the answer I got from the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To make it very simple, what I want to understand here is…. In my estimation, this would need additional work, whether by staff members of the care facilities or staff members of the health authority. I just want to figure out who in that situation will be responsible to provide verbal instructions — whether it's the staff of the health authority or staff of the care provider. That's my question. If the minister can clarify that, that will be helpful. We can move on to the next section then. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Again, as indicated, the care facilities are responsible. Their staff are responsible for providing this information. If needed, if they are not able to communicate this in a way that the resident or family members understand…. If they need assistance from a translator, then they can ask for help through the health authorities. But at the end of the day, the care facilities need to ensure that their residents or family members are aware. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what I said earlier — that on admission, they need to ensure that those members know. If they experience that that is not happening, then they will need to contact, as I say, the appropriate individuals, likely through the health authorities, to get the assistance to make sure that people are aware of this bill of rights. I hope that clarifies it for the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I understand that now. The primary responsibility basically, when it comes to the bill of rights and making it known to the residents, will remain with the care provider. That's what I understand from the response from the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In that respect, will that mean that some, if not all, care facilities may be required to hire staff members particularly to deliver instructions to a multicultural community if that's the need of that particular care facility? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I would just like to again reiterate for the member. He indicated care providers would be responsible, but I want to say while they are providers, it's the care facility itself which is responsible for ensuring that the bill of rights is made known to its residents or to family members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do want to say that most facilities do in fact have a complement of staff who speak a variety of languages. But if a facility found that they did not have a staff member who could adequately translate or communicate the bill of rights, they can, as I say, contact the health authorities. They can search out an organization within the community to ask for someone to come along and translate. They can choose whatever variety of ways to ensure that the resident or the family member is aware. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
I'm not able to suggest that every care facility is going to hire new people. It will depend on the circumstance. Particularly in the Lower Mainland, my understanding is that many of the care facilities do have staff on hand who speak a variety of languages. But for those other remote areas that don't, generally there will be a community organization that will have translators, as well, who could provide that. Even family members may feel that they are comfortable and adequately trained to be able to translate for the benefit of the resident or family member coming into that facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My understanding, then, is that the key here is that it is the primary responsibility of the care provider to make sure that languages other than English are available if that's the need, based on the population of the care facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The primary responsibility remains with the care provider, but they can seek help from the health authority, if that's the case, or they can hire somebody to get that work done, or they can get help from family members and all that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My point was that there could be a case where they need to hire somebody to get that work done, because otherwise this bill of rights will not be implemented if that capacity is not available in that facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, I will move on to subsection (c)(1.2), where it states: "The minister may make orders for the purposes of subsection (1)(c.1)(ii)." This is a bit confusing for me. I want to ask a very simple question on that one. What kind of orders can the minister make for the subsections I just listed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the best way to describe this is by way of example. If we found that a facility was not posting the bill of rights in a prominent location or that the font is so small that nobody can read it…. As you know, we're all getting older and need to be able to have it prominently displayed and also be able to read it. If it's not being posted appropriately in that manner, as the minister, we have the ability to make an order to ensure that those are corrected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I trust that that's a good enough example for the member as to how the minister would make an order to ensure that the bill of rights is well known to those in that facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I'll move on — I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing here — to section 2. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Brar: Under section 2(a), it says: "defining a word or expression used but not defined in this Act." I just want to ask: what is the purpose of this amendment? What is the end goal the minister wants to achieve by amending this particular clause? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: From time to time, I suppose, there are words or expressions that may be used which may appear ambiguous. What this section merely does is provide an opportunity for that word to be clarified so that there is no misunderstanding, so that there is no ambiguity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
This section provides the ability, by regulation, for us to make that clarification if we find that there is a word or an expression being confused or being used in ambiguous ways. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Can the minister give any example of those words or expressions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: What this section allows is essentially what is permitted through other pieces of legislation as well — that where you find a word or an expression within the legislation that is confusing, that requires clarification or is ambiguous, for then, by regulation, to make it more clear. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Because we have not yet implemented the bill, we don't know whether there is a word or expression in here that can be misinterpreted or that can be used in an ambiguous way. I can't give the member an example, because if there was an example, we wouldn't be putting it in. We would clarify it now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This provides a section for us to…. Upon its implementation, if we were to find that that were to take place, we can by regulation, therefore, make the necessary change to clarify it. It's dealing with a potential circumstance, if that should occur. There is, again, no example I can point to currently, because we don't know how people will be interpreting some of the words and expressions within this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I will move on to subsection (b) of section 2. Under that there are three different things that are mentioned here. The first one under (a) is: "designate a class of premises." Can the minister define what it means by designating a class of premises? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: This would allow us, if required, to designate a class of premises and, potentially, a new class of premises. Currently, what we're considering is a class of premises such as the long-term care facilities, a class of premises such as the community living group homes, a class of premises such as the mental health and addiction facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Should a new class of premises emerge in the future, again, it would allow us to designate that grouping as that class of premises. It deals with those that currently exist and anticipates, perhaps, adding and ensuring that that new class of premises would be captured by this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
J. Brar: Can the minister provide a list of premises that this bill of rights will be applicable to? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The examples I gave to the member were examples of the class of premises that we're dealing with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to be very specific, the bill of rights will apply to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Residential Care Regulation — so including the long-term care, as I've indicated, mental health and substance abuse, community living, hospice, acquired injury. It will also apply to residential care facilities regulated under the Hospital Act, typically referred to as private hospitals or extended care facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm presuming that's what the member is looking for, as opposed to a list of every single facility throughout the entire province of British Columbia. I hope that provides clarification. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Is there any exemption to any premises which fall under the community living care act which is not part of this bill? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: We have not considered or provided for any exemptions based on the list that I just read to the member. Those who are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or the Hospital Act in particular will be required to post the residents bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My simple question is: why not apply this bill of rights to assisted-living facilities? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I understand it, the member originally asked if there are exemptions. I indicated there are no exemptions. The follow-up question, I guess, refers now to why it doesn't include those who are living in assisted living. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bill of rights does not apply to assisted living because the persons who reside in assisted living are able to make decisions on their own behalf and do not need the extensive protections that are provided to persons with complex care needs. Those facilities, as I've indicated, are generally for those persons who will have complex care needs. That's why the bill of rights applies to those facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: If we believe that the intent of this bill is to improve the care for seniors…. There are a lot of people who are receiving home care from the government. I think it will make sense to include those people as well, if possible. So my question to the minister will be: why not include people who are receiving home care? Why can't we make them part of this bill of rights or a similar bill of rights? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Again, I indicated the bill of rights applies to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Residential Care Regulation, as well as the Hospital Act. Those facilities which are classified as assisted living are not licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. That's where we had made the determination as to where the bill of rights would apply. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
[1520]
J. Brar: This is actually the major line of questions I would like to ask, because this section has that list of the so-called bill of rights which has been developed, probably keeping in mind that this will improve care for the seniors in care facilities. My first question will be why the minister thought it was important to develop this bill of rights and make it available to seniors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: First, I do want to say that the bill of rights will not be applying just to seniors. It will be for all those adults. We actually did take a look at that. I think the original thought was that it would be applied just to seniors. Recognizing that some of these facilities will have persons who are adults but not classified as seniors, we created this residents bill of rights to clarify the rights of adults when they move into residential care, as the facility becomes their home either temporarily or permanently. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Therefore, the bill of rights is designed to help ensure that licence holders, the person in care and the family members are all made aware of that standard set of rights. That goes to the heart of why the bill of rights was created and established. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My understanding is that this whole list in the bill of rights is not a new creation. It is something that already existed in different places. The purpose here is to put together one consolidated list of those rights so that it can be made available to the people living in different facilities. Is that what we're doing here, or is this a completely new creation done by the ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The bill of rights actually strengthens provisions for persons in care. Actually, it's complementary to existing provisions. I want to clarify that we do have, as the member indicated, protections currently for residents of facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and under the Hospital Act. The introduction of the bills of rights is not merely a repeat of that but actually, as I say, strengthens that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me provide for the member, in a number of areas, what the bill of rights will do in addition to the protections that are currently there. It articulates government's commitment to care and to individualized care plans for each resident not necessarily in place now. It enshrines a right of participation in the development of their care plan or, where residents are unable to participate, the right of their family or representative to participate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It promotes transparency by requiring that the bill of rights is posted prominently for all residents, family members and visitors to a facility to see. It promotes accountability to residents and family members by requiring the posting of the most recent routine inspection report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It also creates a plain-language guide to the rights of persons in care. Most residents and their family members are not aware of the specific and detailed legislative requirements in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act, which are written in a more legal drafting style. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are some of the enhanced protections and rights that members can come to know and understand — and their family members, when they make a choice of moving a member into one of these facilities in which the bill of rights will now be posted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
J. Brar: For any new bill, either somebody initiated that bill from within the ministry to improve or streamline the system — that's understandable, and that's a good step if somebody does it — or there's a demand from outside, from the public, for some sort of change or amendment or for the new creation of any bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question was: is this bill of rights in front of us the outcome of somebody asking from outside, or is this the outcome of the ministry staff just looking into the existing bill of rights, which is probably at different places, to streamline the system, putting all those things together in one place? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The member will probably know that the act was renewed about four years ago, and on October 1, 2009, this year, we also renewed some of the Residential Care Regulation. It made sense that we were also moving forward, as I say, to build upon existing protections and moving towards the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member is suggesting that the staff and the ministry were just putting together a bill of rights without regard to a number of other events that were taking place, I want to assure him that it was a constant review of what we have in place. As I say, with the renewal of the act and the renewal of the regulations, it made sense to move forward to a residents bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Moving on to the next level, can the minister provide us a list of stakeholders that were consulted, specifically for the purpose of this bill, to ensure that the list in the bill of rights is comprehensive and inclusive? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Government did hold a number of extensive public consultations from fall 2004 through to January 2005 on the Residential Care Regulation, and that's one of the reasons why a number were introduced just this past October. They were held with a number of organizations and stakeholders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The residential care regulations, therefore, are compatible with the residents bill of rights, which is one of the reasons why we did not have a separate consultation, if that's what the member is referring to, on the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As he well knows, we had promises in our election platform. As well, it was reiterated in the Speech from the Throne just this fall. It certainly was very well known and publicly known. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We also, over a number of years, have had phone calls with organizations that include the B.C. Care Providers Association and the Denominational Health Association. They, too, were very clearly aware of the bill. Perhaps those organizations are two of the larger organizations concerned and wanting to have input and awareness of what was coming forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: If I understand that correctly, there were no specific consulting efforts made for this particular bill of rights. Is that true? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: There was no additional consultation made, if that's what the member is referring to, specifically for the residents bill of rights, because government had held an extensive consultation between fall 2004 to early 2005 on the Residential Care Regulation with organizations and stakeholders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
For that reason, that consultation really led to the compatibility of what was being proposed in the bill of rights. So no separate consultation, I agree. However, there had been extensive consultation leading up to the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: There is quite a bit of questioning on this one. My understanding, then, is that of all the stakeholders, whether it's seniors or care providers or other facilities…. Nobody was specifically asked to give input or feedback for this bill of rights. That's my understanding. If that's wrong, I would like to ask the minister to clarify that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand the minister is talking about the historic consultation done with the stakeholders, but that was for a different purpose. We are talking here about a particular bill of rights, and I think that question needs to be asked to the stakeholders. If that question was specifically asked previously, I would like to know that. If not asked, then I would like to know why the minister chose not to specifically consult the stakeholders — particularly, in this situation, the residents and care providers — to give input, to make sure that this bill of rights is complete, inclusive and comprehensive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: There were approximately 1,200 people who did participate in the consultation on the changes to the regulations. Because the regulations are compatible with the bill of rights, there was no separate consultation process that was taken. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member is asking: "Was there a separate consultation?" I've advised that there was not. He asked: "Why not?" It's because the consultation that took place earlier was such that they were…. The consultation that took place on the regulations ensured that they were also compatible with the rights that we are introducing now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: What will the minister then say to those stakeholders who now think that they should have been consulted and they could have given good input into the process? What will be the response of the minister to those people who are very, very involved in this process, either care providers or seniors or family members or staff members — all those people? What would the minister say to those who say, "We should have been consulted specifically about this bill of rights? We could have made it better or more effective" — to basically do the thing which the minister would like to do by implementing this bill of rights? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, because of the extensive consultation that took place and because that consultation complements the bill of rights, we did not feel that there was a need for a separate consultation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I acknowledge that the member may feel that further consultation can take place or should take place. So let me just say this to the member. If there is something that is fundamentally missing from the bill of rights that is required or should be required to be included, we are always willing to hear from stakeholders and organizations. But we do believe that the bill of rights does complement a number of the consultations that took place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
The bill has been introduced. It's been out in the public domain now for, I think, just over a week, and we've not heard from any groups that say that something that was fundamental should have been included in the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, we're always willing to listen. This is, as I say, a piece of legislation that allows us to build upon a number of protections that we currently have in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and in the Hospital Act. I believe it's a good step forward. Certainly, I'm sure we'll hear from others if, in fact, more should be considered in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would not have wanted to hold up putting something like this in place in order to, as I say, provide this complementary piece of legislation for the other rights that are currently available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: You know, we're talking about the bill, which is going to be implemented pretty soon — in the near future. There are people out there, by the way…. As I said, I've spoken to seniors. I've spoken to some staff members. I've spoken to care providers. I have spoken to a lot of stakeholders out there. A lot of people are not happy, because they think they were never asked about this bill. That is a very genuine concern of these people, and I think that that step should have been taken before putting together this bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister is suggesting now that the minister is willing to listen. I appreciate that. But what will that mean after you basically pass this bill and implement this on those people? The consultation won't mean anything until the minister brings this bill back to this House and makes the amendments. So that's a long process to go, and that's not the right process to follow. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would just leave a note on this particular part that it was a mistake not to consult the key stakeholders for this particular bill — which are the people in care, care providers, staff members and family members — because this is for them. They should have been given the opportunity to ask as to what they want to improve, if we really want to improve the care for the people in care facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will move on to a specific question. Section 3 says: "An adult person in care has the right to a care plan developed…." My question to the minister will be if the minister can tell us who will be responsible to develop the care plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The facility has responsibility for developing the care plan for the resident, for the individual, with that individual. If that individual wishes to include family members, they can do so, but primarily the care facility, or the facility in cooperation and working with the resident, will develop the care plan that best suits their needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: So my understanding is that this will be a responsibility of the staff members, to be more specific. The staff members of a particular facility will be responsible to work with the resident in care and talk about developing an individualized care plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is that the true or right definition of developing an individualized care plan — that it will be the responsibility of staff members working with the individual residents to develop individualized care plans? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
Hon. I. Chong: I want to be clear. It's not just the staff at the facility. It's the facility staff that have the clinical expertise to develop these individualized care plans. That is currently what is, in fact, taking place now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, to the minister. So my understanding then is that they will develop the plan, and they will also be responsible to implement the plan step by step. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Once the individualized care plan has been developed and agreed to, then that plan provides direction to all relevant staff to meet the needs of that person in care. So it will have been developed, it will have been agreed to, and then the plan is implemented. Direction is given to staff for them to implement it based on that agreement of that care plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Just to recapture that. I just want to make sure that at the end of the day, once it is implemented, there will be some guidelines for the care facility people, which will also serve as guidelines to the residents, who will be working with the staff members or the care facility for those individualized plans. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it will be developed by the staff members. There will be some input from the health authorities, and they will also be responsible to implement that developed plan step by step later on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My next question will be…. In each care facility there are residents who may come from different cultural backgrounds or diverse cultural backgrounds, and there may be staff members who come from different cultural backgrounds as well. Will the residents of a particular care facility have a choice to work with somebody they feel comfortable with? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I want to say, first and foremost, that care plans, once established, developed or determined, don't stay in that form forever. Care plans can be reviewed regularly as the needs of the person in care change. So there is that opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is up to the facilities to work with the residents and family members to deliver the best possible care for those residents and to recognize the unique needs of residents. There is not one approach that can be taken across the board. Every facility will, based on the residents' needs, develop their plans and ensure that they're followed through in that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
I also want to assure the member that licensing also monitors the concerns of residents' needs if they're not being met. In fact, licensing also will monitor the care plans through random selection, take a look at care plans again to ensure that they are considering in some cases unique needs of some of their residents. I hope that provides some assurance to the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: What will be the caseload on one staff member to ensure that this is done properly, meeting "unique abilities" as listed in this bill — "physical, social and emotional needs, and cultural and spiritual preferences"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I just want to be clear here that the bill of rights does not impose staffing requirements. For facilities regulated under the Residential Care Regulation, section 42, a licensee must ensure that, at all times, the employees on duty are sufficient in numbers, training and experience to meet the needs of the persons in care and to provide assistance to people with the activities of daily living. So we are not setting staffing requirements. That is not what the bill of rights is designed to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I think the expectation of the minister will be for this bill of rights — particularly as we're talking about developing an individualized plan for the person in care — that the plan is developed, then that plan is implemented, and that the plan is monitored. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister said, somebody is going to monitor the plan. To do that, there must be sufficient capacity. So what will be the expectation from the minister as to what is a reasonable number of residents for the caseload for one staff member to make sure this is done appropriately to the satisfaction of the minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I could, perhaps, seek a bit of clarification. I'm wanting to determine if he is asking about the staff requirement and the caseload — what he's indicated — that would be required to deal with the implementation of the bill of rights, which is, as I say, requiring certain clarifications for family members as well as for the residents in the care, or whether he's speaking specifically to the staff complement that is required in each facility for those residents in those facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not clear, when he's referring to caseload, what he's referring to. Is it the provision of the health care or is it the caseload for the provision of the bill of rights? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: We're talking about only one thing here. I just want to clarify that again. We're talking about the bill of rights here, and I don't think we're talking about anything else. We're talking about the bill of rights. We're talking about a particular item under the list of the bill of rights, and that is to develop an individualized plan for each person in care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
My question is very simple. The minister must have some standards, at least, or some expectation from the care facilities as to what the caseload is that is reasonable for a staff member to get this additional work done. That is my question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There may be 50 people in one facility and five staff members. Is that the right number to make sure that the individualized plan is developed and implemented and that somebody is there to monitor? I am asking about the caseload to develop the individualized plan, to implement it and to monitor it. What is the standard caseload that the minister will be satisfied with? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated earlier, there are individualized plans that currently take place, which were already in place prior to the introduction of the bill of rights. The bill of rights, as I say, is a clarification as to what family members and residents can expect, so it's not providing or requiring, necessarily, additional work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, the staff-to-client ratio will vary depending on the needs of the residents and will be up to the facility. If the member is looking for an average, it's very difficult, because every facility is different. There are more complex needs in some facilities than in others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The care plans are being developed, have been in the past and will continue to do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My understanding, then, is that the minister, at this point in time, is not sure as to what is an acceptable level of caseload from a particular care facility to make sure that this is implemented to the satisfaction of the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I will move on to the next bill of rights, another line there, which says: "to have access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints or resolve disputes…." Who will ensure access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints and resolve disputes? Who is responsible for that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As would be expected, the facility would be primarily responsible to develop the means to resolve disputes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My understanding on this one, as well, is that this will be a task the staff members will be responsible to deliver once this bill is passed and subsequently implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The next line there is: "to be informed as to how to make a complaint" to an outside authority. Who will be responsible to inform about this particular right? Will it be staff members or somebody else? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
Hon. I. Chong: I wanted to make sure that I had all the information for the member. I apologize for the delay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are licensing officers who currently have a range of tools that they can use to ensure compliance with the regulations and legislation. The facility will be required to provide information to residents or their family members as to how they can make a complaint outside the facility. That's why the bill of rights states, in plain language, that a resident must be informed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If a resident or a family member wishes to make a complaint, they have the right to be informed on how to do so. If that should not happen, then the licensing officer, who has, as I say, a range of tools to ensure that there is compliance, could ensure that they come into the situation. Also, if they have to issue any action on the facility operator's licence, which can involve things like suspension or cancellation, that could take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would expect that all facility operators will ensure that they have people on staff and even — again, upon admission — informing the residents and the family members, should there be a complaint, as to how to make that complaint outside of the facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: This is a little strange to me that the care facility will inform the people in care about making complaints against them to an outside authority. That is a bit strange to me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
Compliance is a big issue here. Accountability is a big issue here. I just want to get an understanding from the minister as to how this particular right will be enforced, because as I see it, there is a contradiction in this right. Somebody is telling somebody about making a complaint against the person who is telling them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How do you enforce this kind of thing? People in care won't know about this — where to go — so how do you enforce this? Is somebody going to go into a care facility and ask them if this is happening or not happening? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, informing residents and family members that they have a right to make a complaint to an authority outside of the facility is embedded right in the bill of rights. This is part of the obligation. This is part of the bill of rights. As I say, family members and residents will be made aware, or should be made aware, on admission that these are their rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, there are inspections that will be carried out. Also, the inspection information or reports will be posted. If there is a violation of that, we have our licensing officers, who will then be able to take direct action if in fact they feel that they are not living up to the requirements of the residential care regulations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I do have concerns about this particular right — as to how to enforce it. I will certainly suggest thinking through what is the best way to enforce this particular right if we want to really give the rights to the people in care. As I said before, it looks a bit contradictory that care facility providers will inform them to make complaints against them to an outside authority. There must be some system to make sure that happens. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, I will move on. They also have the right to have ready access to "laws, rules and policies affecting a service provided to him or her" and access to the most recent routine inspection report of the facility. Again, my question will be: who will be responsible to provide information or photocopies of laws, rules and policies affecting services provided to him or her and access to the most recent routine inspection report of the facility? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The facility is responsible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: This will, of course, require staff members to make photocopies and talk to the people. My point here is that this will be additional work for the staff members. That's what I'm trying to understand. That's my understanding. If it's the responsibility of the care facility, these are, at the end of the day, tasks to be performed by the staff members of that facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another right they will have is to be informed in advance of all charges that must be paid to the facility and a written statement for anything paid out in advance. Who will be responsible to make sure that this happens? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The facility, upon admission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Once again, I would like to make a note that it will, of course, be additional work for the staff members of the facility to make sure that this happens and that this is done the right way, to make sure that the bill of rights is implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
Another right they have is to have a family representative equally informed of these matters of transparency and accountability. This also, in my estimation, is additional work for the staff members. I understand that this will be done by staff members. I just want the minister to confirm that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I just want to clarify for the member, because implying…. I don't know if he's meaning to imply that there will be a substantial amount of work the staff have to do. This is about having ready access to copies of laws — not immediate access but ready access. Yes, staff can provide copies. They can show the website. They can provide information. It's not necessarily going to be more onerous on behalf of the staff and the work they do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to ensure the member is aware that this is about providing information. This is about allowing family members as well as the residents know what they can view in terms of inspection reports and what is available to them — but certainly not to say that staff drop everything and have that immediately made available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't expect that there should be required onerous amounts of time that the staff will have to spend to provide this information to those residents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I understand that this is a requirement. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. This has to be done by somebody, and this whole list of new rights is an additional responsibility for staff members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you look at their job description, this will be a new list of things to do. That's my point. If the minister differs with that, I would like to hear that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are all tasks, these are all responsibilities, for the staff members to perform if the minister wants to implement this bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The next one says respect of lifestyle and choices, including pursuit of "social, cultural, religious…and other interests." So my question here will be…. There are, as I said before, facilities where we have multicultural residents in the care facility who come from different backgrounds, have different faiths, different values, different languages and all that. There are people or a group of people in some care facilities who may wish to have their private prayer, for example. They will, of course, need a space to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will this mean — because this bill clearly states that they have to respect lifestyle and choices, including pursuit of social, cultural, religious and other interests — that the care providers, the care facility people, have to provide them a room or space, if that's the need, for the people or group of people who want to do a collective prayer in that facility? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I don't anticipate that there would be additional changes to accommodate this particular section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we know, many facilities now already have space within the facility, communal space in particular, which provides for opportunities for individuals to, as I say, pursue their social, cultural, religious, spiritual or other interests as well as to be supported in those ways. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
I don't see this section as adding additional burden on the facility — just to know that the resident has the right to have that respected and supported. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: So just to clarify. Is the minister saying there's absolutely no additional expectation to implement this particular right when it comes to the space availability? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I don't expect that to be the case. If a facility, in reviewing these rights, deemed that they have not had adequate space in the past and may wish to provide adequate space or a communal space, certainly they may wish to do so in order to accommodate this section of the act. But to suggest that all facilities in the province would have to suddenly make modifications or changes I think would be an inaccurate reflection of what is now taking place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are, as I say, enshrining certain rights in a bill of rights so that residents know what they can expect and, also, what the facility operator should expect to provide. That should allow both parties to move forward to ensure that those rights are adhered to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I don't believe that a whole new structure needs to be set up to accommodate this section. I do believe currently there are a number of facilities, particularly in the Lower Mainland, that are already accommodating this. Again, the bill of rights really clarifies what the expectation of residents and family members are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: The simple answer to my question could have been no. But the minister is not absolutely certain about this particular question that I have asked — whether there will be an additional space requirement for people to implement this particular right, giving them the option to practise their faith or religion, as I said before. So I will take it, as I understand, that the majority of the care facilities may have the meeting rooms or spaces available, but unless the minister says absolutely not, there's a possibility that this particular right may require additional space or room for the people to practise their individual cultural and religious needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other right they have in this list is protection from abuse or neglect. My understanding is that in order to protect seniors and vulnerable residents from abuse or neglect, care providers need to ensure an appropriate level and well-trained staffing in their care facility. Otherwise this will happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister is: will the minister agree with my observation on this? And can the minister tell us whether the care providers in the province of British Columbia have an appropriate level and well-trained staffing available? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I believe this goes back to an area we canvassed earlier, and that is the individual needs of persons in care and their care plans. Their care plans will have to identify the needs of that resident and the family members as well being aware of what the needs of that particular resident will be. The facility operator will know what they need to have in place to implement that care plan and to provide the care of that individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
J. Brar: Now, this is my take on this bill. In order to truly enforce the bill of rights, this is a huge undertaking — a huge undertaking, I would repeat — for the care providers, and it will require a lot of additional staffing hours and probably additional staff members and additional training for staff members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you read this whole list…. I will probably just recap a few of the additional responsibilities staff members will have. People in care will have the right to have an individualized care plan, which somebody has to develop, somebody has to implement, and somebody has to monitor. Then they will have the right to access "a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints or resolve disputes." Somebody has to make photocopies. Somebody has to work with them to resolve disputes. That is a time-consuming process as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They will have the right to be informed as to how to make a complaint to an outside authority. That is also a new task. They have to go to the person and provide them with all the information — phone numbers, the contact person, their name and all that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They will have the right to have ready access to laws, rules and policies about the services they are receiving. So this will need, of course, somebody who understands the law to tell them, to make photocopies and to make those photocopies available. If they need to translate that into a different language, somebody needs to get that work done. So that will be an additional responsibility and will need additional staffing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They will have the right to be informed in advance about all charges that must be paid to the facility and a written statement for anything paid out in advance. So this will also require, of course, additional staffing hours. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just mentioned a few of them. There are 15 different items on the bill of rights. This all will require additional staffing and training. This is a kind of rewriting of the job description of the staff members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, can the minister tell us if the minister has done any assessment to implement this bill of rights as to how many additional hours of staffing will be required to develop and implement all the requirements listed in this bill for the staff members? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I think the member may be missing the point somewhat. The rights are compatible with regulations that exist and, in fact, build upon some of the existing protections for residents of facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and under the Hospital Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is occurring is that most residents and family members are just not aware of those specific and detailed legislative requirements under those two acts. Even if they were aware, they don't often refer to them because they are written in some legalese. Only lawyers would spend the time to go through and understand specifically what they refer to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the bill of rights allows us to bring those rights, those legislative requirements, into a more plain-language document so that family members and residents are aware. As I say, a number of these rights do currently exist. People just aren't aware. This is one of the reasons why it's important to let people know, especially their family members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't anticipate that there will be a greatly increased workload. Many of the facilities in the Lower Mainland already do have a bill of rights — perhaps not written in this way but, I guess, a code of conduct that they adhere to as a best practice. So again, we do not anticipate that there will be additional staffing workloads, as the member appears to indicate, because these are requirements that are legislated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bill of rights ensures more clarity and more transparency so that members of their families, and the residents in particular, are aware of what they can expect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
I hope that provides some assurance to the member and to all those who may be paying attention to the debates that it's not that things are not already in place. Some people and family members are not aware, and the bill of rights attempts to correct that unawareness, if I can use that word — to make sure that the awareness, in fact, is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I am a little confused about the response I heard from the minister. I asked at the very beginning: is this bill of rights a new creation, a new list of rights, or is it already happening and the minister is trying to streamline the process? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister said at that time that there are a few things happening at this point in time, but there are new lists of things — part of this bill of rights. That's what the word was. There were additional or new lists of things which are the expectations of the minister of the care facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, there's a huge list, if we look at that, which will be expected of staff members or care facilities to implement this particular bill of rights. I'm saying this. I've spoken to the care providers. I've spoken to seniors and other people in care facilities. I've spoken to staff members. I've spoken to care facility people. All of them say one thing consistently, very consistently: they don't have sufficient staffing to implement all of this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're also saying that this is additional work for them. This is additional work, for any person who can understand that very clearly. This is a new list of expectations by the minister to improve, so-called, the care of the people in care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, my simple question to the minister will be: is the minister saying that this will not require any additional staffing hours to implement this bill? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member is not wanting to put words in my mouth. I did not say that that was not going to be the case. I said that we did not anticipate that there would, necessarily, be additional workload that would require additional staff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, if some facilities felt that they would require additional staff or to redirect staffing requirements, they may do so. It will vary depending on the needs of persons in care and will vary from facility to facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I also said earlier was that this bill of rights builds upon a number of existing protections that exist through the two acts that I've mentioned a number of times already. I've also indicated that it provides, as I say…. Upon building on that, it's not just about bringing all those existing protections together but allows for things such as informing the residents and family members that they have a right to make a complaint, as the member has already indicated. Some people were not aware that that is an important right to have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's about requiring facilities to make families and representatives aware that there is a bill of rights. Again, that's not going to require that much more work — just telling people upon admission that they now have a bill of rights that are available. So for the member to suggest that there are going to be onerous responsibilities that will be required of the staff, that more time will be taken away from the care they provide in order to implement the bill of rights, I think, would be a mischaracterization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I do believe is that if facilities currently are not able to provide this information, they will need to find out how they can, because the bill of rights, as I say, needs to be posted in a prominent location. Residents and family members need to be made aware of what those rights are upon admission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, some of the implementation process here will be different from facility to facility. I'm not going to suggest that every facility is going to have to hire additional staff. But I'm not going to suggest, either, that some facilities are not going to redeploy or find a way to facilitate this in a manner that suits and best meets the needs of their residents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
J. Brar: Has the minister done any assessment to figure out whether to implement this bill of rights will require additional staffing or not? If the minister has done, the minister should present that assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: We have not specifically done any, I guess, assessments and calculations for what the member is suggesting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, in our consultations and in our discussions with the personnel and staff who deliver a variety of the funding programs, in our discussions with the service provider organizations, they have not indicated to us that they would not be able to adhere to the bill of rights or that it would be difficult to meet in any way. We have not heard that this would be a problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member suggests that it would be. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what requirements there would be. But with all the discussions that ministry staff have had with those who are reviewing the bill of rights and how to ensure that family members and residents are aware, they have not indicated that it would be difficult to meet the requirements of the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I would like to put that on the record. The minister hasn't done any consultation with any stakeholders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I said before, I've spoken to the care providers. I've spoken to the staff members. I've spoken to seniors and persons in care. They're all saying one thing: that in order to implement this bill of rights, there will be additional staffing and training required. They're all saying that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister hasn't done any consultation. The minister hasn't done any assessment as to whether there will be a requirement of additional staffing or not. In the absence of both things, the minister still continues to say that there will not be any additional requirement for staff members or any expectation for additional staffing on this one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am saying, on the basis of information I got from the stakeholders and from a commonsense point of view, that this is a huge list of new responsibilities for staff members and that there will be additional staffing required and, probably, additional training for staff members needed. I'm just saying that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
I would like to also read this for the record. "A newly released Statistics Canada report reveals that B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and '08. This came to light when many seniors remained in hospitals waiting for a bed in a residential care home setting as the Liberal government imposed a fee increase on residential care and as health authorities cut many programs in place to support seniors health. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Despite what the Liberals promised our seniors, they have suffered under the regime of this government. In 2007 and '08, B.C. had the lowest rate of paid hours per resident-day in residential care facilities in Canada, at 4.2 hours per day. This is compared to a national average of 4.8 hours per day and much higher rates in other western provinces: 5.5 hours in Alberta, 6.2 hours in Saskatchewan and 5.7 hours in Manitoba. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Clearly, B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and '08. Already they're struggling. This report is a clear indication that the care providers are already struggling. Staff members are already struggling to provide the best care they possibly can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to that shortage of staffing, now they have to look after this new list of responsibilities under the bill of rights, which seems to be a good bill of rights. But in order to implement this completely, effectively, and to make sure it happens, they would need additional staffing. They would need additional staff training as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister will be: what support will the minister provide to care facilities where they need additional staffing or training for a staff member in order to implement this new bill of rights? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I'm sure he did not mean to put on the record incorrect information. He indicated that we have not consulted, and I indicated to him that we have had an extensive consultation on the residential care regulations, which provided us an opportunity to build on some of the protections that exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a result of that extensive consultation, we were able to bring in a bill of rights which, as I say, complements the residential care regulations. So there has been consultation, in fact, with service providers. We have consulted with funding program providers, which I've also just indicated to him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I also indicated is that in those discussions there was an indication that there would not be additional staffing requirements or that it would not be difficult for these facilities to meet the requirements of the bill of rights, which essentially is to ensure that residents and family members are aware of what their rights are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member is referring to another area, and that is the staffing of the long-term care facilities. I think it would be most appropriate if he refers those questions to the Minister of Health Services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Clearly, there are two different kinds of thoughts here. I truly believe, as I said, based on the information I have, which is…. I consulted stakeholders — I listed and will list once again — which include care providers, seniors, their families and other people in care. They're all consistent on one thing — that they would need additional staffing. They are already understaffed. They don't have the capacity to actually provide quality care at this stage with the staffing level they have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister clearly has confirmed before that there was not any specific consultation process for this bill of rights. I would like to ask the minister to at least commit today to consult the stakeholders about a particular thing — the staffing requirement to implement this bill of rights — because the minister has made it very clear that there has not been any specific consultation with any stakeholders on this bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask the minister, based on the information I have after talking to them: will the minister commit today to consult the care providers, the people in care, staff members to make sure they have sufficient level of staffing to implement this bill of rights? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, because of the extensive consultation that took place in the fall of 2004 to early 2005 when we were reviewing the residential care regulations, there had been discussions that took place which allowed us to bring in a bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is not new to the public. As I say, we made it a commitment in our election platform. We also reiterated that in our Speech from the Throne. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've also indicated to the member opposite that if there was an area that was fundamentally missing from the bill of rights, I certainly would be willing to receive that information and ensure that going forward we would be able to accommodate that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To suggest that the bill of rights has not been canvassed — indirectly perhaps; not as direct, as I would admit, that he would say; a direct consultation process about the bill of rights…. To characterize that the components of the bill of rights have not been discussed or canvassed is incorrect, because they have been in a way that has allowed us to bring this forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member makes reference to staffing requirements at long-term care facilities. If he feels that the staffing complement at the long-term care facilities is not adequate and he feels there is a redirection of staff because of the bill of rights, then I would really, again, encourage him to raise that with the Minister of Health Services when he is involved — as I'm sure he will be — in the estimates debates of the Ministry of Health Services. That is the minister who will be responsible for providing a response to the member for staffing at long-term care facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Then will the minister commit today to talk to the Minister of Health if there's any additional funding needed to any care facility to implement this bill of rights? The bill of rights comes from the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport has a responsibility to make sure that they have sufficient resources to implement the bill. Will the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport commit today to talk to the Minister of Health on funding — to make the funding available if there's any need for additional staffing to any care facility? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member on a number of occasions now, in the discussions we've had with those who have taken a look at the bill of rights…. It certainly has been out there for over a week now, and the indications we have received from people is that they did not see any difficulty in implementing the bill of rights. After all, it is a set of rights that is clarified. It provides transparency and accountability. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A number of facilities, we also believe, are already adhering to a number of these rights. Not all facilities are, which is one of the reasons why we want to introduce a bill of rights — to ensure that there is that consistency amongst those facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have not heard that there would be additional dollars required to implement a bill of rights, because the bill of rights, as I say, is a clarification of a number of expectations that residents and family members are expecting. Again, the member is free to raise this with the Minister of Health Services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Just a quick question. The minister just said that she thought there were some care facilities that were not currently meeting the standard of the bill of rights set in that bill. That's what the minister just said, so I'll give her an opportunity to clarify that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister be more specific? What care facilities aren't meeting that test of these rights — the right to information, the right to decent care, etc? What problem is she trying to solve? What facilities was she referring to when she said that some facilities currently aren't following this bill of rights? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The vast majority of facilities are certainly meeting their requirements. If there are any that are not, that's one of the reasons why we have our licensing officials and the medical health officers as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I'm saying, when I said that the bill of rights not being implemented…. It's about, for example, the posting of what rights are. That's the whole idea here — that the new bill of rights…. It builds upon existing protection. It also means that they have to be prominently displayed in a location. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
There are facilities currently in operation, which I'm sure the members have visited, that don't have anything displayed. Maybe some facilities do have some information displayed, but the bill of rights essentially, as we've introduced it here, does not have facilities displaying them in a prominent location. That's what we're saying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you're looking specifically for violations of the residential care regulations, I'm not saying that's what is taking place. I'm saying the bill of rights does not exist, per se, currently requiring all facilities to display it. After the passage of this, we will have a bill of rights that will require all facilities to display this in a prominent location. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I would caution the Health critic that if he has concerns that he wishes to raise specifically about a care facility, he can certainly do that with the Minister of Health Services. What I'm primarily concerned here in the passage of the bill of rights is to ensure that information is available, that the commitment to care that needs to be clarified is available for all residents and family members upon admission when they enter a care facility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Can the minister provide the details about the complaint process as to how many steps there are, timelines about each step and how the complaint can be made? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I did indicate earlier that the bill of rights is embedded in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, which means that licensing officers would consider the obligations that the bill creates in conjunction with other requirements on facility operators. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Licensing officers have a range of tools that they can use to ensure compliance with the regulations and legislation. They include progressive enforcement ranging from discussion to resolve an issue, to action on the facility operator's licence — such as suspending or cancelling a licence, applying terms or conditions to a licence or, in a severe case, appointing a public administrator. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Contracted facility operators under the Hospital Act are accountable for ensuring compliance with the bill of rights through their service contracts with the health authorities. Health authority owned and operated facilities under the Hospital Act are monitored and inspected through the health authority's specific processes, with authority delegated from the minister under the Hospital Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I hope that clarifies for the member how we interact with the licensing officers and how the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act are adhered to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I just want to know if somebody, either a person in care or somebody representing them, has to make complaint…. It is listed here on page 3 that they can submit a complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to understand how many steps there are, how much time each step can take to complete, and if there are specific guidelines about that complaint process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
Hon. I. Chong: I'm hoping this is what the member is referring to about a complaint. Currently the requirement to inform a resident or a family member on how to make a complaint to an authority outside the facility is relatively simple. I say that just because there is not a whole pile of forms to fill out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If there is a complaint, the individual or the family member is able to phone, fax or even e-mail the patient care quality office, who would then act to follow up on that, or the individual can contact the medical health officer or licensing officer. So there is not a series of forms to fill out, if this is what the member was concerned about — that there are forms and forms to complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then the patient care quality office would make a determination on how to follow up with that complaint. The patient care quality act is under the responsibility of the Minister of Health Services, so I don't have the information about that act and all the details that surround it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, if the member wishes to direct specific questions about the patient care quality board and the act, he will need to canvass that with the Minister of Health Services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I just want to read this subsection to make it clear. The title is: "Complaints that rights have been violated." "In addition to any complaint that may be made under this Act, if a person in care believes that his or her rights have been violated, the person in care or a person acting on his or her behalf may submit a complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This ignored the issue only related to the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. This is to implement this bill of rights and to make sure that if there are any complaints about this bill of rights, these people make complaints. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question was…. Usually, in a complaint process, you make a complaint, and there's a timeline of two weeks or three weeks or four weeks. In that timeline you get the response. Is there a system established by that kind of objective or a transparent complaint process which is accountable to people in care in this situation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Secondly, if there's a step like this, is there an appeal process? I want to know that. Usually, in any complaint process, if the complaint is at first stage, whatever decision is made, people have the right to appeal that decision. So is there an appeal process to follow the complaint process? That's what my question is, if the minister can provide that information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
Hon. I. Chong: To the member: I'm just trying to ensure that I have, I guess, the premise of his question correctly — whether he's referring to a complaint that is made that the bill of rights has not been complied with, or whether it's within the bill of rights, where it says an individual has the ability to complain. Whether that is the basis of his question…. I wasn't entirely clear what kind of complaint he was referencing. I will attempt to provide him an answer for what I think he was asking, and that is with respect to timelines for complaints as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If, in fact, there is a complaint that the bill of rights is not being adhered to, the individual can make a complaint to a licensing officer or a medical health officer who actually makes complaints a priority. My understanding is that they follow up within a relatively short time. Again, it would depend on the medical health officer or licensing officer in that area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the preference for the resident or family member is to make a complaint to the patient care quality office, my understanding is that there is generally a timeline of 30 days on which to follow up. A facility would be very eager, I would expect, to resolve any such complaints and would work to provide good care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I indicated earlier in my answer to another question, licensing officers could, if there was a series of complaints, under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act — CCALA — require a suspension or require some, you know, changes to their licensing ability. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If that's what the member is referring to — whether a person is able to make a complaint — yes, they are. Those are the timelines I have provided. If he's referring to complaints made respecting the quality of care, that goes to the patient care quality office, and those would be areas that would be administered generally through the medical health officer and, of course, through the Ministry of Health Services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I hope I've gotten the, I guess, fundamental question that the member asked. If not, I apologize, and maybe he could rephrase it so that I make sure I get him the answer he's looking for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: My question was of course about the bill of rights, where a person believes that this bill of rights was not adhered to. In that situation, where does that person go to make sure this bill of rights is given to him or her? That was the question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
The second question was: I understand this is level one, but is there any appeal process? That was my question, and the minister didn't respond to that one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would appreciate it if the minister could tell us: will there be an appeal process or not? Will there be that option available to people after, you know, the complaint is made, seeing it's made at the first level? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would also like to ask the minister…. The Leader of the Opposition proposed to have an independent officer to oversee the quality of care of seniors. I think that was a good idea. Was there any consideration given by the minister to have an independent officer? We are talking about the quality of care for the seniors as well as other residents in care facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: To the member — wanting, again, to make sure I have his response: if there is a complaint about the bill of rights, the complaint can be made through, as I said, phone, fax or e-mail, generally to the medical health officer, who then can take action. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of the appeal process, there are two. If in fact the medical health officer does take action and attaches conditions to the licensee or the operator, then the appeal process for that licensee or operator would be to the licensing board. If the complainant would like to appeal the decision that is made by the medical health officer, they can appeal that to the patient quality review board. There is an appeal process for the licensee and an appeal process for the complainant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the question that the member poses regarding the Leader of the Opposition's request for a seniors advocate, there had been an advisory group for the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues that had been established, and a number of recommendations were made to improve the care of seniors throughout the province. Those recommendations did not advise or include an appointment of a seniors advocate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
A. Dix: I'm surprised to hear the minister raise the work of the advisory council, because so many of the recommendations have, in fact, not been adopted by the government on so many areas. I mean, Dr. Patricia Baird put forward an outstanding report. In general, the recommendations have been ignored by the government. So I'm surprised to hear that used as an argument against having an independent seniors officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Surely, one of the issues in the exercise of rights is confidence in the system. If you're a senior in the one lone long-term-care home in your community, as you might be in Williams Lake, the practical exercise of rights in a process that may or may not be seen as independent is an important element. That's why having an independent seniors commissioner who can make investigations independent of the funding agencies is a really good idea, and I recommend it to the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have a couple of short questions to the minister about, first of all, the rights themselves. I just want to clarify this, because I know when legislation is brought forward to cabinet committees, cost elements are brought forward. You have the costs of legislation, potential costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is the minister saying that when this bill was brought forward to cabinet, the analysis of staff — whether it was Treasury Board staff or Healthy Living staff or whatever it was — was that it would have no additional costs to the government and no additional costs to the care homes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I indicated that in the discussions we had with a number of funding programs that were being provided and some service providers, they did not feel there would necessarily be additional costs. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that there will necessarily be additional costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's not to say that a facility, if it decided to embellish some of the rights and provide even more standards in their facility and wished to hire additional staff to do so…. That's not to suggest they cannot do that. What we're saying is that in our discussions we did not anticipate there would be additional costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Well, we currently have the lowest care standards in the country, according to Statistics Canada, so that might be a desirable goal. If there's no ability to improve those care standards in this legislation, then I guess that is unlikely to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
The question is this. Many care homes receive the overwhelming portion of their beds…. Almost all their beds, in most cases, are essentially subsidized beds, health authority beds. They buy the beds. There are usually a few beds on the edge that are market-rate beds, but essentially many of the care homes are virtually 100 percent publicly funded, whether they're private or non-profit or public, and they're paid at a certain level. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since the minister did not consult the B.C. Care Providers Association in advance of bringing in this legislation, I'm not sure how she would know that. But if it's the case that this did have costs, then those costs would actually be paid for out of the very care standards that are already the lowest in the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess that's the question I have. Is it the opinion of the government that there will be additional cost imposed on the government or on care homes or on others as a result of this legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, welcome back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I've indicated to the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, the new bill of rights builds upon existing protections for residents of facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act. The member acknowledges that, I see, with his shaking of the head. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
What we're doing, as I say, is providing additional requirements, which are things like articulating government's commitment to care and to individualized care plans. Now, these individualized care plans are existing in some facilities — in fact, I believe, the vast majority of facilities — but it just provides that more clear articulation. It enshrines a right of participation. That, too, does not necessarily mean that the development of a plan is already not providing a right of participation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is, again, about ensuring that residents and their family members are aware of that right. It's about promoting accountability to residents and family members by requiring the posting of the most routine inspection report. If there is a routine inspection report that previously had been filed away, this now requires that it be posted in a way that a family member or a resident is made aware. Again, I don't believe you need to hire an additional staff person to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It means informing residents and family members, as the member for Surrey-Fleetwood had asked about, the right to make a complaint. That could be providing them information. It could be referring them to a website to let them know how they can make a complaint. It can even be a facility having a binder of information available that the member or a family member can look through to determine what those steps are to make a complaint. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are a number of areas here that, again, provide for and build upon the existing protections that do exist but don't necessarily require additional staff to do them. If the member is concerned, in particular — and it sounds like he is — about the commitment of long-term-care hours and that was being provided, then again I would ask that he refer those to the Ministry of Health Services when he, I'm sure, will debate those in those budget debates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: The minister doesn't include in her discussion, too, the set of rights here that seem pretty important to me and presumably to the seniors. It's of course 2(a): "to be treated in a manner, and to live in an environment, that promotes his or her health, safety and dignity." The issue here is with respect to the cost of the legislation — because that would presumably come out of care hours — and whether, in fact, the lowest care standards in the country meet the test that the government is applying to those rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are other questions — presumably, to receive and communicate with visitors in private. There are other provisions that may have cost implications, but let's be clear. When you're 12.5 percent below the national average on care hours and you're 25 percent below the average in western Canada, clearly other jurisdictions have a different view as to what constitutes the health, safety and dignity of those in care homes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is the issue we're canvassing here. Whether the minister believes that with the lowest care standards in the country, established by Statistics Canada, based on information provided by the government of British Columbia…. It didn't come from Mars or even a left-wing think tank. It came from the government of British Columbia — this information. It absolutely came from them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Clearly, Alberta doesn't believe that. They have higher standards. Clearly, Saskatchewan doesn't believe that. They have higher standards. Clearly, Manitoba doesn't believe that. They have higher standards. I could list off the remaining provinces, but you get the idea. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question is: does the minister believe that clause 2(a), given the care standards in British Columbia, is being met presently in care homes, based on the level of care hours provided? This is something, by the way, mentioned by Dr. Patricia Baird in her report to the Premier — whether that issue of direct hours of care has an impact on the rights contained in 2(a). [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: If the member wishes to continue to canvass care hours, again I would refer him to the Minister of Health Services in the budget estimates debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
What I said earlier in response to some questions was that there is a requirement that individualized care plans are developed for each resident and that each resident and/or family member be provided an opportunity to help develop those plans. Because each of these plans will differ, perhaps, from resident to resident, facility to facility, once having that plan developed, it would require that facility and the staff in that facility to implement that, provide for that. Based on the direction of that care plan, the staff would have to provide that level of care as required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bill of rights ensures that family members and residents are aware that they are allowed to have individualized care plans for each resident, and those will have to be developed in cooperation and collaboration with that particular resident and with the family members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: I wanted to canvass a little bit the issue of the rights to transparency and accountability, which is in clause 4 of this section. In particular, as the minister will know as we list off the rights contained here, they are the right of access to certain information; copies of the law; the inspection record — the minister has canvassed that; direct fees and other amounts that he or she must pay for accommodation; if the cost of the accommodation is prepaid, to "receive at the time of prepayment a written statement setting out the terms and conditions"; and "to have his or her family or representative informed of the matters described in this clause." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What isn't contained here — and I just want to canvass it briefly with the minister…. As the minister will know, there are dramatically different per-diem rates for care homes. You could be a senior in the Fraser Health Authority — people may find this hard to believe — and you could be in a care home with essentially the same level of care needs as someone else and get a dramatically lower combined government and personal subsidy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I was wondering why the minister didn't include in this section the right of people to have access to information about per diem rates, about changes in per diem rates, about differences between per diem rates in different institutions — if in fact one would be able to choose between institutions, which I think is in an age of a shortage of long-term-care beds brought about in part by the failure of government to meet its own promises in this regard…. I think the poor Minister of Health said they built something like 800 more long-term-care beds in this time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You would have access to that kind of detailed information about what the level of government subsidy is, whether it be a public care home, a non-profit care home or a private care home. So we get access to transparency around the share of the costs — which has just, of course, grown dramatically by $54 million — that are paid for by the individuals but not the same level of access and transparency to the rates provided by the health authorities on behalf of that individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm wondering why that kind of information on the cost of care wasn't included as part of this right to transparency and accountability. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: We wanted to ensure, in terms of rights to transparency and accountability with respect to the residents bill of rights, that residents were to be informed in advance of all charges, all fees and payments that the resident must pay for accommodation and services received through that facility, so that they can make choices if they wish to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to per diem rates, those are issues that pertain to the Ministry of Health Services, and I would refer the member to the Ministry of Health Services in those estimates debates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: But they're not. They're directly relevant to an individual's…. I'm just quoting from the bill here. "An adult person in care has the right to transparency and accountability, including…." I presume this doesn't exclude…. What I'm canvassing is that right to transparency and accountability, which seems to me to include information with respect to not just the individual's share but the government's share of contribution. That would be very useful and important information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
I didn't understand the term. I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly. Fortunately, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is here to correct me. The opacity — is that right? — with which the health authorities treat this information…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you were staying at, say, New Haven care home in Burnaby, and you want to know what the rates are, what your per diem support rate is at New Haven — which has acuity levels almost as high as anywhere else in the Fraser Health Authority— and you wanted to know what one of those new, fancy, private care homes is getting as their per diem rate, isn't that a reasonable thing to know? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Aren't those reasonable things, at least for your own care home, that you should have access to? What is the level of the per diem for me, and how does that compare with the per diem for other people in other care homes? Doesn't that seem consistent with a right to transparency and accountability? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand that there are estimates questions I can ask the Minister of Health Services, but we're talking about the rights to transparency and accountability. I'm asking, and I want to know, why the minister decided that the right to transparency and accountability stopped at the door of the government. Why isn't the government prepared to be transparent and accountable and clear with residents about per diem rates? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The transparency is with respect to the amount that the resident must pay. Again, the member knows per diems are under the responsibility of the Minister of Health Services, and I expect he will be canvassing those with that minister. You know, there may also be issues of confidentiality. With this residents bill of rights we are dealing with transparency with respect to the amount the resident must pay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: The minister referred to issues of confidentiality. I fail to see what those would be. Why would it be the case that a person in a government-subsidized bed in a private care home doesn't have a right to know what the per diem is and how that compares to, say, the average per diem in other care homes in the health authority? I mean, shouldn't that be included? Maybe it's an oversight. That's why I'm bringing it to the attention of the minister. Maybe it's an oversight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why do they have only the right…? This affects them. This is the subsidy for their care. It's not the subsidy for somebody else. This is the direct per diem subsidy for their care, and it actually does affect it because changes in that per diem subsidy can have long-term impact on the amount they pay. But that doesn't matter. They should know this. They should have the right to know this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People in a care home should have the right to know what the per diem rates are and when they change, and the government should have the same obligation of transparency and accountability to those residents that the care provider has. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm perplexed. I'm perplexed as to why it would be that the government would like the care homes to have all of this transparency and accountability…. That all seems fair, and I think most care homes will tell you that they won't have too many problems with these particular provisions of section 3(4). [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But it seems to me that the government has an issue with it, because the government is saying to the care homes and to residents in care homes: "Oh sure, you can find out what they're charging you." But the per diem rates and the arcane rules that seem to define the per diem rates — they don't have…. Why, in a bill that's supposed to enshrine a residents bill of rights, shouldn't the resident have access to that information which is directly and intrinsically linked to their care? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I will caution the member on the repetitive nature of that particular question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: The member's comments that all residential or…. I don't know if he meant to say all residential care facilities were government-owned and -operated. That's, again, not the situation. Well, the mention of government facilities…. What we're referring to here is a residents bill of rights that is applied to all those residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act, which includes private hospitals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
What the bill of rights will enable the residents and family members to have in terms of transparency is to be informed in advance of all charges, fees and payments that the resident must pay. That's the transparency and accountability that is required of these facilities so the residents who must pay these fees for accommodation and services they receive through the facility are made aware of them; and further, if any part of the cost of accommodation or services is prepaid, to also receive at the time of prepayment a written statement setting out terms and conditions under which a refund may be made. These are about those costs that a resident must pay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, the member refers to other funding issues. Again, I would ask that he refer those to the Minister of Health Services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: I'm not referring to funding issues. I could refer to funding issues, but I'm not referring to funding issues. I'm referring to people's right to know what the per diem rates are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand the distinction. The distinction is that if I want to ask the government to change the fact that we have lower care standards than New Brunswick — and maybe the Minister of Health will say our economy can't sustain those — those would be appropriate issues for the Health estimates. I understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here what we're saying is simply that the information itself should be available to individuals in care — basic information, the information that would allow them to make assessments as to the quality of their care. If you just know your share, but you don't know the total share, it's sometimes very difficult to make those kind of judgments both for residents and for their families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is the point I'm making. It's not a point I'm making alone. In fact, it's a point that many involved in the sector have made before. Surely had the minister done what the member for Surrey-Fleetwood suggested, which is consult before tabling — consult then table rather than table and say that one week is a long time…. It's been in the House a long time, so people can bring forward their issues. Then she might know there is actually quite a bit of concern about the transparency around per diem rates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The final question I wanted to ask is…. The minister, I guess, is determined that the transparency and accountability rights established by this law do not apply to the government or the health authorities. We're stuck on this point. Far be it for me to continue to belabour a point where the minister clearly is not prepared to apply the same standards to the government that the government wishes to apply to other people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to ask about the issue of complaints themselves. I mean, it's a practical challenge, and the minister will know this. The minister referred to the independence issue and sort of dismissed it by referring to a report that the government almost entirely hasn't adopted. In any case, the independence issue becomes important here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why is it important frequently? Why was it important, in our view and eventually in the government's view…? That's why I'm going to make this case to the minister now, in hopes of changing her mind. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why was it important, in this House's view ultimately, that there be an independent child representative? It was important because the power relationships…. In order to have rights, you have to have the means to exercise that right. It can't just be a poster on a wall. As important as section 1 of this act may be, it's not important…. It is important, I guess, that rights are posted, but it's more important that rights exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For rights to exist, you have to have a practical means and confidence in what is a very important section, which is the subsection that follows, subsection (3), which suggests that an individual can't be discriminated against by bringing forward a complaint. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, we all know the practical realities. I'll tell you — and the minister will know this, because she does casework just as I do casework — that people are frequently afraid. I mean, they're told there's not very much room. They've got one care home they've got to be in. It's your home. You're dependent extraordinarily on the care home. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
Then you're told that the law says that you're protected. But without the independence and the confidentiality…. If there was independence and confidentiality, in fact, you could have an independent seniors representative bringing forward the complaints. They could get complaints in confidence, investigate in confidence and frequently protect the confidentiality of the individuals making the complaint by making an investigation of a care home, be it public, private or non-profit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you have a circumstance — and we've had, as you know, hon. Chair, some serious issues at different care homes — where the perception is that the agencies that are supposed to enforce the act are also the agencies that are, in effect, responsible for the provision of the care, especially when we're talking about largely publicly funded, whether privately, non-profit or publicly delivered care…. The question is, I guess: why not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister referred to Dr. Baird's report, but I don't know. We'd have to ask Dr. Baird what her opinion would be now on the question of an independent seniors representative. Why not an independent process, an independent place where people can go to exercise their rights in addition to the patient care quality review board that exists now? Why not provide that in an area where, clearly, the level of the power relationships is difficult and different? I think the minister will agree. It is one thing to say that everyone has access to the courts, when one person can afford a distinguished lawyer and another person can't. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Similarly in this case, why isn't it the case that, in addition to the provisions of the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act — which we debated last year in this Legislature or the year before last, I believe, in 2007…? Why not add, in addition to that, an independent process so that seniors and residents in care…? It isn't the only issue at a time where seniors rights are affected. Why not add an independent right in this case, an independent process in this case? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I'll try to again advise the member that introducing a residents bill of rights was certainly about providing clarity to residents as well as their family members as to what they can expect when they enter a care facility, which will then become their primary home, and for their family members to be made aware of what they can expect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of rights to transparency and accountability, certainly the resident and the family members have a right to know and to be informed in advance of those changes that they are required to pay. That's what we're talking about — for the residents to know what the charges, fees and payments are that they must pay for accommodations and services received through that facility. Issues of funding will still be those of the Minister of Health Services, and again I'm sure the member will canvass those. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also want to remind the member, as I've said earlier today in committee debate, that we do have officers or individuals who do look at complaints or investigate complaints. That's a medical health officer, who is an independent statutory decision-maker with the ability to investigate complaints, as well as the patient care quality office, who can also take complaints. There are avenues through which residents or family members who wish to make complaints can do so through those two independent offices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Well, now I'm very interested in that. The minister keeps prolonging the debate for some reason. I'm very interested in that. How many residents' complaints have the medical officers of health investigated in the last year? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: With respect, the debate we're having today is with respect to the bill of rights. Of course, with the bill of rights having not yet been passed, we don't have a series of complaints that I can refer to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: You see, it all comes back to Samuel Beckett. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
The minister just said that the reason they don't have an independent provision here — the creation of an independent seniors officer — as an additional place of complaint to which people can go to ensure that their rights…. We're not talking about small rights here. I'll just read from the bill, which purports to define those rights. It's the right to health, safety and dignity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our suggestion is that it's very difficult, often — in the circumstances of a health care system where people don't have a lot of choices and don't have a lot of power — to make such complaints. So the minister said in response: "Well, you know, there are independent means." That was her response to the last question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just simply curious to know: outside of the health authority process, which clearly isn't independent, how many complaints have been investigated? We know that there was a role at Beacon Hill Villa. We know that. But how many other complaints have been independently investigated in the last year? That's a reasonable question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It applies directly to the issue of existing capacity to enforce rights. The capacity to enforce these rights is being handed over, in this case, simply to the patient care quality review board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the case of this residents bill of rights, the question I guess I have is whether that's sufficient and whether there isn't a need, given that power imbalance is frequently felt, not just between the individuals and the homes — because I think everyone is trying to work in the best interests of everyone else in general — but between individuals and the government, as well, around their care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just asking the minister, then. She has referred to these independent processes in response to a direct question about why this provision is this way. So it's a direct question about the bill: how many complaints have been investigated? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: I'm not trying to frustrate where I think he is trying to go. Because this is new legislation and not yet passed — until we do so later today, I hope — we don't have a list of complaints as pertains to the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, if he is wanting to pursue the area of complaints, as he has indicated, he may wish to pursue that through the Ministry of Health Services. What I'm talking about today here, about the bill of rights, which is still being debated and not yet passed…. For obvious reasons, we don't have any persons complaining against the bill of rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: If the minister may take us through the final two subsections here. A person raises a complaint to the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, makes a complaint about — I don't know — whatever the institution may be they're complaining against. Say it's a care home. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They raise the complaint, and then they believe, for whatever reason, that the "Protection for person in care" provision here has been violated. I don't know. Say they make a complaint that they aren't given access to a particular service that they believe they need, and then something happens, and the person believes they're effectively being punished. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister, maybe…. Take us through that process of what they would have to do, and let's use in our example a resident who doesn't have a family member around. So they've made a complaint, which would be a very courageous thing to do under this process. One can only imagine the courage it would take a make a complaint, bill of rights or no bill of rights. They make a complaint, and they feel that the fact of that complaint negatively affects their care. What happens next? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I can provide clarification to the member in this way. Section 2 of the schedule ensures that any complaint related to the residents bill of rights can be submitted as a care quality complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, a care quality complaint includes a complaint: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"(a) respecting one or more of the following: (i) the delivery of, or the failure to deliver, health care; (ii) the quality of health care delivered; (iii) the delivery of, or the failure to deliver, a service relating to health care; (iv) the quality of any service relating to health care, and (b) made by or on behalf of the individual to whom the health care or service was delivered or not delivered."
[1735]
So although most issues related to the residents bill of rights would already be construed as a care quality complaint under the act, the addition of this provision ensures that a complaint about any aspect of the residents bill of rights will be considered under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The addition of the provisions related to the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act provides residents and their family members and representatives with another venue for resolving issues over and above those afforded under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Well, yes. That, of course, isn't an answer to this question which is related to subsection (3). What I am saying is the complaint has been lodged — right? I know this thing has been lodged with the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. The complainant believes that, as a consequence of having complained about the institution, they are, in effect, being in some fashion penalized. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what this provision says: "Protection for persons in care." I think what the section says very clearly is that if someone makes a complaint, you'd better not, I don't know, take away any of their rights in sort of retaliation. That's one of the things. It's supposed to protect the complainant in this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just asking a really simple question. It couldn't be more simple. Like, what happens? Say I'm in care. I make a complaint. My specific rights under the act have been violated. They haven't told me about a fee for cable television or whatever. Okay? And then they retaliate. I feel they're retaliating against me. What do I do at that point? How do I, in fact, realize the protection that's suggested here? That's all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Thank you to the member for giving an example, because I guess what he's referring to is the case of a reprisal and retaliation. Section 3 of the schedule is intended to ensure that there is no possibility of reprisal by an operator should a resident or their family member make a complaint regarding their rights under this act or the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. That is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If that were to take place, again, the ability for the complainant to go to the licensing officer or the medical health officer to make them aware would allow the licensing officer to attend the facility and take a look at that complaint and determine whether or not that licensee needs to have its licence suspended or otherwise have conditions placed on it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the reasons why — and I appreciate the member raising it — we've included this section is in fact to ensure that a person is entitled to make a complaint without reprisal, without retaliation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: So the process is that a person makes a complaint under the act. Then, if some sort of reprisal takes place…. And we would hope that would never happen, but it could conceivably happen. In fact, the minister can conceive that it could happen because the minister has included in the bill this particular provision which envisions it happening. You see, we're getting back to Beckett. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
This is the argument for an independence of process. What you're asking a person to do…. Say you are living in a care home, which means in this day and age that the acuity of your health needs can be fairly high. It is. That's the reality. Every care home operator in the province will tell you that the level of health issues faced by patients in their care home has grown dramatically in recent years. Every single one of them will provide that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So you have these issues. You're alone in the care home. You make a complaint about the patients bill of rights. You feel you're being negatively affected by that. Then you have to make a complaint to the licensing officer who works for the health authority that funds the care home that you're complaining about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I'm saying is that, in my view anyway, that's an argument for an independent seniors representative — a place where people can go other than that. If it has reached that point, in fact, where you're alone in the care home, you make a complaint, and in fact you are being penalized in some fashion for having made the complaint, then you're a long way down the road. So the importance in particular cases of having that option seems to me to be real. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A final question. I just want a clarification on the right to sue. These rights are sufficient to get you before the patient quality review board. But maybe the minister can explain why this provision exists. She may have done this before. I apologize. I don't think she has. I presume that this is maybe a contribution of the Ministry of Attorney General, not of the Ministry of Healthy Living, but in any event, maybe the minister can explain why this provision exists, in terms of these rights under the act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: Because we are talking about a residents bill of rights, section 4 rules out the possibility of anyone taking civil action against an operator solely on the basis that a right has been violated under this act. There is an expectation, and that is that matters can be resolved through the existing remedies under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or the Hospital Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: So just to be clear, what the minister is attempting to do is keep people within the process envisioned by the Patient Care Quality Review Act. These rights, as fundamental as they may be, are not rights that people should be allowed to take to civil court. Is that really the intent here? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What you're attempting to do is presumably guide the process. You don't want to create a whole bunch of litigation here. You want to create dispute settlement mechanisms. They may not end up being dispute settlement mechanisms, but the purpose of limiting the right to sue based on this would be just that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Chong: What we're saying is that a resident cannot sue the operator solely on the basis of a violation of the bill of rights. Persons are still able to sue regarding other matters such as breach of contract. This is solely about a violation of the bill of rights, where they are not able to sue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
A. Dix: I know that, unlike some pieces of legislation which very few people see, this is a piece of legislation that the minister will want people to use and see. I just want to give the minister the opportunity to explain these particular changes and to explain clearly who the act applies to, why those selections were made, if there were any other institutions beyond the section 4 Hospital Act that the minister has envisioned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just wanted the minister maybe just to explain these provisions, which I think are consistent with the schedule in other acts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
Hon. I. Chong: I had previously answered this to the member for Surrey-Fleetwood. The bill of rights will apply to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, including long-term care, mental health and substance abuse, community living, hospice, acquired injury. It will also apply to residential care facilities regulated under the Hospital Act, typically referred to as private hospitals and extended care facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the member also was wondering…. In this section it says "an adult patient." Previously there was some discussion that this would just be a seniors bill of rights — those 65 and over. Obviously, it was clear that if you're a resident in a residential care facility as licensed under these two acts, you may not yet be 65, so we wanted to include the words "all adults" in these facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. I. Chong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 17 — HEALTH STATUTES
(RESIDENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009
Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage on Bill 19. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 19 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 5:49 p.m.
On section 1.
L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, we are dealing only with that part that amends by adding the following before section 1 — the heading. Nothing cute. We're not getting on to the meat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. The section adds a heading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
While I'm on my feet, if I might introduce, to my right, Carol Anne Rolf, and to my left, Carly Macoun, here to participate with us in the committee stage debate on the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
L. Krog: I would ask the Attorney General to just explain why the change of the definition, adding a definition of "in-house lobbyist." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
Hon. M. de Jong: The term "in-house lobbyist," I think the member knows, existed in the previous provisions. This does streamline to create one form of in-house lobbyist, which, when coupled with a consultant lobbyist, represents the sum total of the two types of lobbyists that are now covered. But the term itself did previously exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I note that it refers to at least 100 hours annually. Is there any precedent for that in other legislation? How does the government come up with the figure of 100 hours? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Two-part answer. It does exist in the Alberta provisions, so there is legislative precedent elsewhere in the Canadian jurisdiction, and we were satisfied that that represented a significant, substantial enough number of hours to warrant coverage under the definition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: This is where it gets fairly difficult. What does the 100 hours mean? Do we refer it to the definition of "lobby," and if so, does that hundred hours include going out to lunch? Does it include preparation for meeting with the minister? What does it mean when you talk about those hundred hours? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a fair question. I've just confirmed that, first of all, the regulatory authority exists under the terms of the act to allow for providing additional guidance. In fact, that is something that the registrar, Mr. Loukidelis, has already signalled might be helpful in terms of…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm thinking of the example the member offered up. Does preparatory time get included, or is it face time with the public official that is used to calculate the 100 hours? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The notion, by the way, of going from the previous subjective test to the 100-hour test — which, once one knows with certainty what's captured, is more objective — was to have a specific figure. But the likelihood of regulatory specifics around how to define those 100 hours is very real. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: As I understand the Attorney General's answer, what he's saying is: "We appreciate there's a problem with the language talking about a hundred hours of lobbying. We understand that it's not defined, so it can include preparation time. Does it include travel time? Does it include face time? What does it include? We're going to do that by regulation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess that begs the question — and I've made this point before around various pieces of legislation…. Surely that should be part of the bill. That is not something we should be defining by regulation. That is something that should be defined in the body of the bill. That's the point of an interpretation section — to provide the definition so that people can clearly read and understand what it means. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
By defining it by regulation…. I'm not sure that that actually even makes sense in these circumstances, unless you actually define it in the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I also appreciate the challenge or the balance between embedding something in the body of legislation versus creating the guidelines in regulations that are admittedly more easily changed insofar as they don't require returning to the floor of the Legislature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell the member that the same issue was confronted by legislators in Alberta, and they opted to provide the guidance the member is referring to in regulation. In fact, I can provide the Alberta regulation which they purport to rely upon to the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The challenge, as the member knows, in embedding the specific details on matters such as this in the legislation is the possibility that we won't properly contemplate all of the variables or all of the circumstances. But I understand the frustration the member expresses. It is, when we are debating the bill, nice to have that measure of detail in the bill in front of legislators. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this case, the decision was made, as it had been in Alberta previously, to place the additional defining characteristics in regulation as opposed to the legislation itself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I'm thinking quite specifically of the situation where you have a non-profit organization, which is not exempted under this legislation. You might recall that the bill proposed by the official opposition included exempting that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many of those organizations spend a great deal of time, or have someone designated, writing applications for grants. That's become the new growth industry in the non-profit sector — somebody who actually knows how to slide something into government, provincial or federal, that actually gets you some money. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It strikes me that that, arguably speaking, is covered by the legislation. Would the Attorney General agree that if I'm spending my time preparing grant applications to get money out of government, in fact, I would be covered by this legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure it does. I mean, I have the member's point that one could argue. I would, though, perhaps make the argument that someone in their office dealing with an application form that has been prepared by government for general application or general availability, someone that is merely completing that application form, isn't engaged in an activity that falls within the ambit of the law — of this law, at least. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: When you go to the definition of "lobby" in this bill, it talks about: "…the awarding, amendment or termination of any contract, grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity." It seems to me, on the plain reading of it, that if I'm preparing that grant application and I take that grant application to government and meet with somebody and ask for the money, so to speak, that's lobbying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, that may well be. I think, in fairness, the member's first question left me with the impression that we were talking about someone in their office at a non-profit organization filling out an application form. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the next step is taken and the decision is made to pursue that application by engaging in meetings with those officials who may be responsible for deciding upon that application, I think the member's argument is perhaps much stronger that that is an activity that would be captured by these provisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I think the Attorney General has my point. I'm coming back to the non-profit and my previous questions around the issue of how much time is involved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It seems to me — based on what I know about the non-profit sector, having been involved in it myself as a director of various organizations before I got to this place — that there are very few non-profits operating in our communities today in British Columbia that won't be caught — I emphasize "won't be caught" — by this legislation. If the regulations that the government passes that define, essentially, what constitutes those 100 hours of lobbying, I would think that there are people spending…. Literally, that's a position or a half-time position in any given non-profit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the end result is to get it in front of government and ask for money, and the definition of "lobbying" at 100 hours includes that preparation application time that results in the presentation, then this bill is going to essentially impact on every non-profit. I want to hear the Attorney General's response to the point I'm trying to make. I've perhaps been a bit obtuse, but I think he's getting it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think where there may be a difference of opinion is my own view that that preparatory work is not, on the face of the legislation, captured. Beyond that, I am not of the view that regulations defining the 100 hours would or should capture that preparatory work. The objective here is to capture the act of communicating for the purpose of influencing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I should say, as well, because the member has raised it, that there was a purposeful decision to include or, by virtue of what other jurisdictions have done, not exempt non-profit organizations, non-profit societies. The concern, quite frankly, was that there are perhaps inventive ways by which some agencies may try to shield or avoid the provisions of this act by utilizing the auspices of a non-profit organization to lobby on their behalf. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it was a specific public policy decision. The member is correct. We opted in favour of not exempting non-profit organizations, which is what some jurisdictions have done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Two points arising from what the Attorney General has had to say. Firstly, by regulation, Alberta — which I presume from the Attorney General's remarks we're going to rely on as the basis for regulation in British Columbia…. What does that cover? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Secondly, is the Attorney General driving at, for instance, the point that the Fraser Institute is an example of what he was thinking about when he talked about not-for-profit organizations that would be lobbying government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I'll maybe deal with them in reverse. I didn't have a specific example in my mind. I'd like to think about the one that the member offers up before I either accept or reject it as applicable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
I'm happy to send it over to the member. The Alberta regulation, under a heading "Time Spent Lobbying," refers to the 100 hours annually. It then goes further and says that "time spent lobbying is indicated by the time spent communicating with a public office holder but does not include time spent preparing for the communication." I'm not sure we'll mirror that, specifically, but it's an indication of what Alberta has opted for in terms of further refining the definition of the hundred hours. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Let's have an example where someone is hired to do lobbying for government, so they engage in a significant advertising campaign. It may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But they spend two hours in front of the minister lobbying for the object of that advertising campaign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I understand this correctly, and having listened to the readout on the regulations then, those two hours…. I don't constitute an in-house lobbyist, notwithstanding the amount of money that's been spent on the campaign designed to get government to do something. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think this is a complete answer to the member's question, but I did want to make the point at the outset that I am not of the view that a general and widespread advertising campaign or any of the work that goes into preparing such a campaign is captured by these provisions. One can imagine that in those circumstances, the objective is to create a general public sense of support or a general public pressure on the government. But it is something different than a direct communication with government aimed at influencing public policy in that direct way. It aims, I suppose, to influence broader public opinion as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That, I'm fairly certain, doesn't answer the member's question, but it lets him know how I am thinking about his example that incorporates a general advertising campaign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I won't use an existing example, lest any institute take some umbrage at my remarks. A non-profit society has been formed. It's like a think tank. It doesn't meet with government on a regular basis. It draws funds by contributions. Maybe it's a labour organization. Maybe it's a business organization. It draws funds in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It has a specific goal of increasing the minimum wage on one hand or reducing the level of corporate taxation on the other. It spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on an advertising campaign pressuring, raising the public awareness of the issue, but the "director" — let's use the language of the bill — an officer, the president, the CEO of that organization spends two hours in front of the Minister of Finance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My reading of this act is that they wouldn't have to register because, in a given year, if that's all they did, notwithstanding this enormous advertising campaign which most of the public would see as a lobbying effort in the big-L use of the word, that would not constitute lobbying under this statute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
Hon. M. de Jong: With this caveat, and we're dealing in examples, so I trust the member…. In any example there may be circumstances that we haven't thought of, but two things. It would be the cumulative total. So it may be the CEO or the president of the organization is two hours. It may be that there are others within the organization that are also communicating directly with government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I think the essence of the hon. member's point is this. Does this act, this bill and the provisions within the bill, purport at this stage to regulate a widespread advertising campaign that is designed to influence the opinion of the public and therefore ultimately influence the actions of government? I think the short answer at this point is no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Dealing with the specific reference to lobby, the language has been maintained that it has to be to "'lobby,' subject to section 2(2), means, (a) in relation to a lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence" and then gives a long list. That wasn't the recommendation of Mr. Loukidelis following the Dobell example, and it's not the practice in other jurisdictions as I understand it. Why has the government retained that language? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the member has zeroed in correctly on, I think, an important point and one that arises as a result of a purposeful decision on the part of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Government's objective in terms of the act and its amendments is not to endeavour to regulate every single form of communication that takes place with a citizen or organization and government. It is to endeavour to regulate and make transparent, for the purpose of the public, communication that takes place between citizens and societal organizations and government for the purpose of influencing or deriving a certain result or influencing the behaviour of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is an admittedly narrower definition than it would be were it not for the inclusion of that phrase that the member has correctly identified: "in an attempt to influence." We have opted for a similar approach to the definition as that which exists in the Alberta legislation for the reasons I have just mentioned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: It also, that section, expands the definition to add "provincial entity" to several subsections that expand beyond the terms "government of B.C." and "Member of the Legislative Assembly." Can the minister explain the purpose of that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1815]
Hon. M. de Jong: The mechanism here is the same — that is, to list which organizations are covered. Under the previous terminology, the reference was to government corporations. I think the member realizes and actually would welcome the fact that the broader language here would allow a broader range of governmental organizations and "entities" to be covered than merely those which exist as corporations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just provide an example of what he sees as a provincial entity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I should send this over to the member so I'm not referring to a document that I have and he doesn't. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Alberta regulation refers to an apprenticeship training board, for example, as representing an entity. Madam Chair, if I can table that or even send it over to the hon. member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I take it, then, that we don't have a definition of "provincial entity." There's nothing in the Interpretation Act — nothing that statutorily defines the term "provincial entity." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I appreciate it. It's a lovely piece of language, but I'm looking for an example that I could go home to Ma and Pa Kettle in Nanaimo and say: "This is a provincial entity. We wouldn't have thought that, but that's what it is." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Regrettably, no. It can be captured — different organizations, entities — depending on the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I am appreciative of the Attorney General providing me with a copy of the Alberta regulations. I note that for the purposes of that act, provincial entities referred to in schedule 1 are "prescribed" provincial entities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They refer to some in schedule 2 that aren't prescribed, but schedule 1 includes an incredible list. It appears that every institution of advanced education, divided into various sections…. It even includes Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Interpretive Centre, which is a wonderful place. I recommend that all members attend and visit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is it the government's intention to provide a list by way of regulation, at some point, similar to the Alberta legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1820]
Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that would be the intention. In fact, I think it's necessary the way the act is constructed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: In the section where it relates to the definition of "lobby," it talks about grants. That's included in "(v) the awarding, amendment or termination of any contract, grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity." I take it that that would extend, then…. Does it extend to gaming grants, for instance, to charitable organizations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: My best guess at this point is that it would. I think the member is referring to a gaming grant of the sort that we have been discussing in this chamber. I think it probably would be captured by the definition of "grant," as it appears there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada