2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Science Council of B.C. awards

R. Lee

Citizens' assembly

J. Bray

Consultation on Forest Practices Code

P. Bell

Oral Questions

Child care funding

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

J. Kwan

Highway maintenance

K. Krueger

Hon. J. Reid

Auto theft prevention

B. Locke

Hon. G. Collins

Petitions

S. Orr

Second Reading of Bills

Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73)

(continued)

J. Kwan

S. Orr

T. Christensen

V. Anderson

Hon. K. Whittred

Committee of the Whole House

Open Learning Agency Repeal Act (Bill 69)

Hon. S. Bond

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

R. Masi

R. Stewart

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Open Learning Agency Repeal Act (Bill 69)

Second Reading of Bills

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74)

Hon. M. de Jong

[ Page 4305 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Weisbeck: In the gallery today are some very distinguished guests: His

Excellency Kensaku Hogen, Japan's Ambassador to Canada. He is accompanied by

Tochiro Ozawa, the consul general of Japan at Vancouver, and their wives, Takiko

Hogen and Shizuko Ozawa. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It's a great pleasure to welcome in the House today a little

over 40 students from Archibald Blair Elementary School in Richmond, along with

some adults and their vice-principal, Mr. Hoath, who have joined us today to

learn about the B.C. government and the Legislature. May the House please make

them all welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SCIENCE COUNCIL OF B.C. AWARDS

R. Lee:

Last week I had the honour of attending the Science Council of B.C. awards

ceremony. I was very impressed by the eloquent presentation by student

representative Clara Westwell-Roper, a grade 11 student.

After

attending the ceremony, I am more convinced now than ever that B.C. is an

emerging hub for the high-tech industries, home to many science superstars.

[1405]

I'm proud

to say that my own community of Burnaby is home to many of our province's best

and brightest, and one of our finest received the Chairman's Award for Career

Advancement: Dr. Hal Weinberg, founder and director of SFU's brain behaviour

laboratory, whose work has spawned many widely used applications, including MEG,

which can see a baby's brain inside the womb. Dr. Weinberg was also very

instrumental in establishing the Down Syndrome Research Foundation and Resource

Centre in Burnaby. The centre is a shining example of innovation as the only

facility of this type in the world to combine the research facility for leading

researchers, educators and health professionals that specialize in Down

syndrome, while providing a centre for the Down syndrome community at large. In

conjunction with researchers from SFU, UBC and the University of Victoria,

scientists are able to explore previously unexplored aspects of Down syndrome.

Others who

received awards at the Science Council awards ceremony are the New Frontiers in

Research award, Dr. Jeff Young; the Solutions Through Research award, Drs. Julio

Montaner, Michael O'Shaugnessy and Martin Schechter; the Young Innovator award,

SFU professor Dr. Keith Promislow; the Science & Technology Champion of the

Year award, Dr. Denis Connor; and the Industrial Innovation award, Dr. Phillip

Hill.

CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY

J. Bray:

Today I wish to speak about an issue that is very important to all of my

constituents: the citizens' assembly.

The new-era

platform contains commitments to reform how government works from top to bottom.

As part of that promise, the government said it would appoint a citizens'

assembly on electoral reform to assess all possible models for electing MLAs and

would give the citizens' assembly a mandate to hold public hearings throughout

British Columbia. If it recommends changing the electoral system, that option

will be put to a provincewide referendum for the May election of 2005.

The

citizens' assembly is an unprecedented opportunity in Canadian history for the

voters, and not the politicians, to determine how MLAs are to be elected. The

main impetus of the citizens' assembly is that electoral reform should be for

the benefit of the voters and not any benefit for political parties per se. The

government retained Gordon Gibson as a consultant to develop guidelines on how

the citizens' assembly should be set up and to deliver his recommendations to

government by December 15, outlining the following: develop a random selection

for appointing citizens' assembly members; ensure that it is representative of a

cross-section of interests and that it can operate effectively and affordably;

recommend the size of the assembly and how it is to be chaired and staffed;

develop a timetable that would allow a referendum question to accompany the May

2005 general election, should the assembly recommend a change to the model; and

provide guidelines on the wording of referendum questions.

People are

excited about the progress government has made, and they want to participate. My

community wants to be involved. It wants to add input, and I encourage them to

contact Gordon Gibson directly on the Attorney General website.

This is an

opportunity for history to be made, and the authors will be the citizens, not

the politicians. I continue to strongly advocate for the support and formation

and engagement of the citizens' assembly.

CONSULTATION ON

FOREST PRACTICES CODE

P. Bell:

Yesterday marked a new era for forestry in the province of British Columbia with

the introduction of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The act moves the

province to a new level of environment stewardship, one that recognizes the

value of certification, one that recognizes the value of professionals and one

that recognizes our first nations people in a way that has not occurred before.

[ Page 4306 ]

I was part

of the MLA committee that toured this province. We heard from 250 different

presenters in 13 communities. To say that we did not effectively consult is

simply not true. We received presentations from all who wanted to present,

including 46 from different environmental groups and 21 from first nations

organizations.

[1410]

Mr.

Speaker, we went beyond that. We took a balance of opinion from the Association

of B.C. Professional Foresters, the B.C. Trappers and the woodlot owners, and,

yes, we even talked to industry. I would like to read a quote from Joe Foy of

the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Yesterday Joe said: "The

government's job is to protect the public interest, to prevent species from

going extinct and to protect the water."

Well, I

have good news for Joe. That's exactly what this government's doing.

It's time

for people to quit lighting their hair on fire. The Minister of Forests and I

have both tried it, and it doesn't work. Realize that this new code is great.

This new code is great for the environment and great for industry. My

congratulations to the Minister of Forests for achieving this balance.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, His Excellency Mr. Hogen has arrived — our Japanese

guests. I would ask the House to please acknowledge them and make them very

welcome.

Oral Questions

CHILD CARE FUNDING

MacPhail: We know that in seven weeks the Liberals are going to kick tens of

thousands of seniors off Pharmacare. But it's not just seniors that the

government is targeting. They're also targeting the grandchildren of these

seniors, kicking thousands of them out of child care.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: We have information that over 32 of B.C.'s best day cares face the

axe because of Liberal cuts.

To the

minister responsible for child care, the Minister for Women's Equality: can she

explain to parents what they're supposed to do, now that their child care

facilities are closing because of Liberal cuts?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The fact is that the government is making no cuts to child care.

We have maintained our funding for child care spaces. We're going to be

developing our long-term plan that will, in fact, make those spaces much more

stable, much more predictable for parents and for child care providers, and the

details of that will be announced shortly.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: It's appalling how this minister does not know what's going on in

communities. There are cuts happening to 32 centres as we speak. There are child

care providers out there who do not make a lot of money. For that money, they

provide safe, professional child care to thousands of B.C. kids, many with

disabilities. They make about $16 an hour. But these professionals today are

losing their jobs. Thousands of children are losing space in well-run, safe

child care facilities because the government is cutting funding to these centres

that was agreed to in the last round of negotiations.

The

Liberals knew of these costs, and they knew that if they made their high-income

tax cut, it wouldn't pay for itself and they would have to close these child

care centres. Would the Minister for Women's Equality admit — or come clean

— that as a result of the shortsighted and bloated high-income tax cut, she's

now having to throw children out of child care centres around this province?

Hon. L.

Stephens: It's a result of your government's shortsighted Munroe agreement

that many of the child care centres which are currently in negotiations find

themselves…. The agreement that that member's government negotiated was very

clear. The agreement ended March 31, 2003. That agreement is standing, and the

child care centres that are affected are in the process of contract

negotiations. It's up to the centres to do those contract negotiations, and we

are not interfering in any way with free collective bargaining.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

[1415]

MacPhail: These professional child care workers make about $16 an hour. This

government knew full well the costs of providing decent, affordable child care.

None of this came as a surprise to them, even as they announced their massive

tax giveaway for the rich. Now the Minister of State for Women's Equality is

coming clean.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: She does know that centres are having to close as a result of the

cuts of her government. The best day cares in British Columbia are being forced

to close their doors and lay off workers. In Nelson over 500 families are now

looking for new day care spaces

[ Page 4307 ]

because the West Kootenay Child Care Services has been forced to lay off

staff. The same is true at the…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Would the member please put her

question now.

MacPhail: …Kootenay Family Place in Castlegar. It's happening all over the

province.

Will the

minister now stand up and admit that directly because of her government's tax

cuts, she's closing safe, professional child care centres and replacing them

with unlicensed facilities staffed by minimum-wage earners?

Hon. L.

Stephens: It was your government. It was your government's child care plan

that was unsustainable and unfunded. What we are doing, what our government is

doing…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the answer to the question.

Hon. L.

Stephens: …is bringing some stability and some predictability to providers

and to parents around the province. We are funding child care centres. We are

funding child care parents. We are funding child care spaces, and we will

continue to do so. We are introducing our long-term child care plan, and shortly

we will be bringing forward the details of that.

J. Kwan:

It's astounding, because the minister's definition of stability and providing

for child care support is to cut their funding. For over 129 years the Cridge

Centre has been providing child care to parents in Victoria. Without a doubt, it

is one of the best child care services in the province. Because of this

government's cuts, the Cridge Centre faces a $300,000 shortfall. Last week child

care providers at the Cridge were laid off. They were given layoff notices. Can

the minister explain to parents who rely on the Cridge Centre why she's forcing

it to close its child care facilities?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but the

fact is that it was those two members' government that put in place an

unsustainable, unfunded child care model and a unionized model that child care

providers…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. L.

Stephens: …are having to deal with. They were very clear with their union

agreement that that agreement ended March 31, 2003. What our government is

trying to do is facilitate those child care providers to provide those services

to families that need them.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That is what we're going to be doing.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would remind you that we ask questions so that we

may get an answer. Could we please have some order so that we may hear the

questions and the answers.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

The previous government prioritized child care as one of its number one

priorities, and it ensured that child care providers are paid a decent wage.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

It ensured that child care providers are paid a decent wage, unionized or

otherwise. Child care providers at the Cridge Centre are some of the best in the

province. For two years in a row, the child care programs at the Cridge Centre

have been voted the best in Victoria. Now this minister wants to destroy that

record and farm the children out to low-wage, unlicensed facilities.

[1420]

To the

minister once again: why is it too much for parents to ask that their children

be looked after by professional staff who are paid a living wage? Does she think

these kids will fare better if the Cridge Centre closes and the children are

being babysat by minimum-wage workers in unlicensed care facilities?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The Cridge Centre for the Family does provide quality child care,

as do a great many child care centres around the province. Again, these centres

are struggling with those members' unfunded, unstable child care program of

their administration. What we are trying to do is make sure the child care

system today is sustainable, that it is equitable and that it does provide the

services parents and children need in the province. I repeat: we are putting in

place a long-term child care plan, the details of which will be forthcoming

soon.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Krueger: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Road safety is a

key priority of my constituents and every British Columbian who drives on our

roads. The previous government's lack of action allowed

[ Page 4308 ]

the highway system to erode to the point of being unsafe and key projects

like the Preacher Hill curves on Highway 5 to be delayed. In recent months talks

have been underway between the government, the BCGEU and private contractors to

renew the current highway maintenance contracts, which expire in 2003 and 2004.

To the

Minister of Transportation: what is the status of these talks?

Hon. J.

Reid: Safety is of utmost concern on our highway system, and an integral

part of that safety is the maintenance on our roads. The government, in wanting

to hold the costs of those maintenance agreements down, to be able to be

affordable and still have the same delivery of maintenance on the roads and the

same safety standards, has been in discussion. An agreement has been reached

that the government has endorsed between the contractors and their employees,

which will result in a 16 percent labour savings to government. Along with that

comes flexibility in the workplace that's going to be able to meet those

standards and be able to deliver what we all expect here in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary

question.

Krueger: There was considerable angst on the part of both parties in my

constituency when the ministry challenged the maintenance industry and its

workers to come together and find those savings. Sixteen percent is significant,

and I'm really happy to hear it. Over the summer I know that unionized

roadworkers in my constituency, Kamloops–North Thompson, voted in favour of

the proposal to renegotiate their contract and ensure job security in the

future. The last government dropped the ball with its half-baked attempts to

appease allies, and the provincial highway system has deteriorated as a result.

Can the

Minister of Transportation tell us what else the government is doing to ensure

that highway maintenance is carried out in a timely and efficient manner?

Hon. J.

Reid: The maintenance contracts, those agreements…. First of all, there is

excellent cooperation between the workers and the maintenance contractors that I

think just shows a real spirit of being able to meet a goal and being able to

deliver. We're looking at those contracts expiring in the fall of 2003-04, and

what we're doing is starting the tendering process early on in this next year.

That's to accomplish two goals. One is to make sure we have the fullest range of

competition possible to get the best prices possible, and the other is to make

sure we have the new contracts in place by the fall of 2003, once again, to

ensure that safe standard on our roadways.

[1425]

AUTO THEFT PREVENTION

Locke: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Recent statistics show

that Surrey has become the auto theft capital of North America. Many of my

constituents are worried about their safety, with the increasing number of

thefts in and around our local shopping malls.

With the

holiday season fast approaching, can the Minister of Finance tell my

constituents what steps ICBC will be taking to help combat auto theft in Surrey?

Hon. G.

Collins: Well, there's a couple of things that ICBC has been doing already,

and I think members may be familiar with that. They provide discounts on

premiums and deductibles for drivers who use anti-theft devices. They've also

worked with local businesses to provide Lock Out Auto Crime signage, etc., to

try and move that forward. More recently, working with the Surrey RCMP and the

Solicitor General's task force on auto crime, in Surrey they developed the Hot

Wheels program.

We heard

today that they're actually experiencing some very early successes, which I

think is something everybody should be excited about. They have, over the last

couple of weeks, arrested 25 alleged auto thieves — 25 — which I think is a

pretty significant number. They have recovered over 50 vehicles valued at over

$600,000. Those are real, on-the-ground impacts to try and snuff out auto crime,

one of the fastest-growing areas of expense at ICBC as we try and keep those

costs under control.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers has a supplementary question.

Locke: The Surrey Community Crime Prevention Society, a local volunteer

group, has done a great deal of work to help combat auto theft in our city.

Working with the RCMP and local volunteers, they patrol the parking lots of the

malls and provide people with information on what they can do to ensure that

they are not the victims of auto theft.

Can the

Minister of Finance tell us what ICBC is doing to help with the work of these

local volunteers?

Hon. G.

Collins: There's a couple of things that ICBC has been trying to do with

local volunteers. It's clear that the police can't do this themselves, nor can

ICBC do it themselves, so they've been working with volunteer organizations in

communities right across British Columbia. They have donated $820,000, through

50 grants, to community groups from one end of British Columbia to the other to

help minimize auto theft and deal with that from a community base. They have

also worked on a Lock Out Auto Crime project, which has individual volunteers in

communities focus on hot spots of auto crime, vandalism and theft, and try and

get those community groups to do audits and patrols of at-risk parking

facilities.

They also

have provided the Crime Watch structure with a new system whereby they provide

some of those citizen patrols with laptops, and on those laptops they load data

on lost and stolen vehicles. In those high

[ Page 4309 ]

crime areas, those volunteers are able to go in, look at vehicles that

perhaps stay longer than you would normally anticipate, punch in those numbers

and find out if they're lost or stolen vehicles. That, in addition, is helping

to minimize those costs.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

S. Orr:

Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

S. Orr:

I present this petition on behalf of the medical profession here in Victoria. It

is signed predominantly by women physicians concerning the issue of funding for

the Prostitutes Empowerment, Education and Resource Society, known as PEERS.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 73.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY CARE

AND ASSISTED LIVING ACT

(continued)

Kwan: Continuing on from before the lunch break, I was sharing information

with members of this House regarding the issues around long-term care from a

document the HEU put together entitled "A Dramatic Reversal of Policy on

Long Term Care." I had just finished advising the House, from this

document, of the difference in terms of the models with intermediate and

long-term care versus the model of assisted living and whether or not assisted

living is the model to follow.

Information

supplied so far indicates that there are lots of concerns with the model Alberta

has adopted and, of course, the trend it appears that British Columbia is

embarking on. I had stopped just prior to the lunch-hour about what some of the

serious problems are with substituting the model of long-term care with assisted

living. Let me continue from this document. The document goes on to say there

are "a number of very serious problems with the substitution model the

government has adopted."

"Using

housing money for health care means that the 10,000 people currently on

waiting lists for affordable housing — single parents, relatively healthy

seniors and people with disabilities, low-income single people and the

homeless — will have no opportunity to access affordable housing in the

foreseeable future. All of the available funding for affordable housing is

being used to meet the health and housing needs of the frail elderly.

"It

is not clear how many of the 6,000 to 8,000 frail seniors and people with

disabilities who are no longer eligible for publicly funded long-term care are

actually appropriate candidates for assisted living. Nor is it clear if the

money provided through B.C. Housing and the health authorities will be

sufficient to cover the full costs of care. This policy has been adopted

without first putting in place an evidence-based planning process.

"All

of the decisions to date — the reduction in the number of long-term care

beds, the costing for direct care in assisted living, the allocation of

assisted-living units to the regions — have been made without assessing the

actual care needs of residents or wait-lists of seniors and without first

pilot-testing the assisted-living model to determine the full care and support

costs for different populations.

"It

is unclear how care will be provided to an individual in assisted living who

falls ill and requires additional assistance for limited time. Will the health

authority live up to their commitment to provide this support through the

existing home nursing or home support services when these services are already

overburdened and there is no new money for home nursing and home support? Or

will family members be expected to provide this additional care or pay for

care privately? And what will happen to the individual whose health

deteriorates over time? Will they be wait-listed for complex care? How will

they get the extra care they need while they wait? These are questions that

require answers before families and seniors can feel secure that this model

will meet their needs.

"Assisted

living is defined as housing and not facility care. This means that it is not

licensed and regulated in the same way as long-term care. Currently, there are

no regulations in place to protect the residents of assisted living and ensure

that a high quality of care is maintained. The health authorities and

provincial government are talking about developing standards of care, but they

are equally clear that these standards will not translate into regulations or

be enforced through a provincial/regional monitoring — i.e., inspection —

process. It is unclear how standards, without an enforcement mechanism, can

provide frail seniors living in assisted living with the protection they

require."

[1435]

I touched

earlier, just digressing from the document for one moment, on one sentence in

this new bill, Bill 73, about the standard of care — a

motherhood-and-apple-pie statement about health promotion, respect and dignity.

There are no minimum standards attached to it. Then you go to the

section that

talks about inspection. A change has been made for Bill 73. Instead of requiring

that inspection must be carried out, now the language has been changed to say

that the inspection may be carried out. The enforcement issue raised in this

article is absolutely central to the bill we're debating today.

Carrying on

with the document.

"In

facilities drug costs are paid; in assisted living, these costs will fall on

the individual. In non-profit, long-term care, the costs of medical supplies,

medical equipment and recreational activities are usually covered; in assisted

living, these costs will be the responsibility of the individual.

"Three-quarters

of the current residents in long-term care — the future tenants in

subsidized assisted living — are low income — i.e., they have annual

incomes of less than $20,000 a year. It is unclear what the full costs of

accommodation will be for individuals in subsidized

[ Page 4310 ]

assisted living — i.e., for rent and support services such

as meals and laundry. Even assuming these costs are affordable for low-income

seniors, it is not at all clear that there will be enough left over to cover

the costs of drugs, medical supplies and equipment, recreation and

entertainment, personal needs, clothing and/or the extra care they may require

if they become ill.

"Problems

related to appropriateness, affordability and quality have not been addressed,

and yet the government has announced the program as a fait accompli. As a

consequence, 19 seniors, health and housing groups in B.C. have come out in

opposition to the plan. All of these groups are supportive of the concept of

assisted living as part of the continuum of care and a positive alternative

for people with limited care needs. They do not, however, see it as an

effective substitute for long-term care or as an appropriate use of affordable

housing dollars."

"The

impact of these changes on frail seniors, their families and the community at

large. With the anticipated growth in the seniors population and the closure

of more than 3,000 publicly funded long-term care beds, it is highly unlikely

that the number of subsidized assisted-living units and publicly funded

long-term care beds will be sufficient to meet the residential care needs of

frail seniors and people with disabilities either now or five to ten years

down the road.

"In

desperation, more and more seniors and people with disabilities will turn to

the private sector. Yet the costs of private care — $3,000 to $5,000 for

long-term care and $2,000 to $3,000 for supportive housing — are well beyond

the means of the most moderate and low-income seniors. According to the 1996

census, 66 percent of seniors had annual incomes of $20,000 or less.

"The

consequence? Over time, more and more low-income seniors and people with

disabilities will be left on their own or with their families to cope as best

they can until a health crisis takes them into emergency and/or acute care. It

is widely acknowledged by health care experts that once a person is in crisis,

the cost of care escalates and the potential of positive health outcomes

diminish.

"The

shift away from this type of crisis orientation has been the goal of health

care reform in B.C. since the publication of the Seaton commission report Closer

to Home in the early 1990s. The argument presented in the report is quite

simple: the sustainability of our public health care system depends on the

development of early intervention and prevention strategies and sufficient

resources in the community and residential care to support the implementation

of these strategies with specific populations.

[1440]

"The

Liberal government's policies move health care quite clearly in a different

direction — limited government funding, more responsibility shifting to

individuals and families, access increasingly based on the ability to pay. It

would appear that for the Liberals, sustainability of the public system is not

a primary objective."

An Hon.

Member: It's exactly the primary objective.

J. Kwan:

This is a good document, I think — a very valuable document.

The members

like to heckle. It's their prerogative to do that in this House from time to

time. One member heckled me just now, when the member said that it's exactly the

prerogative of this government to ensure sustainability.

You know

what sustainability means for this government? It means ability to pay. Let's be

very clear about it. For seniors who need health care services, who need

long-term care support, who need home care support, they'll get it if they have

the ability to pay. That is the model to which we're moving.

It's not

just seniors who are getting hurt, not just seniors across British Columbia. We

just finished question period, in which I asked a question of the Minister of

State for Women's Equality responsible for child care. The government has cut

child care funding. Let's be very clear about that. As a result of that, child

care centres — some of the best in British Columbia right here in Victoria —

are faced with a funding shortfall. They've had to lay off staff. Parents will

no longer have access to these facilities for their children.

Why?

Because the government says they cannot afford to pay. They think that paying

child care workers a fair working wage — $16 per hour for child care workers,

unionized or otherwise, through the Munroe report — to ensure that children

are provided the best opportunities for growth and development in their early

years is too much to pay and that somehow it is unsustainable.

Yet the

government, before they came in to even look at the books after the election,

made a determination to give tax breaks — the largest tax breaks to the

wealthiest British Columbians, the biggest corporations. They say that they

could afford to do that. The policy was that tax breaks would pay for

themselves. Well, it's been nearly two years since this policy, and tax cuts are

not paying for themselves. Who's paying for this failed economic policy of the

Finance minister and the Liberal government? The seniors, the children, the

families, the students. British Columbians who have always had the services and

depend on those services will no longer get access to them.

The

question: is it about affordability and ability to pay, or is it misplaced

priorities of government and failed policies of government? Did this government

all of sudden wake up one day — this Liberal government, this minister — and

decide that seniors are dispensable, that they don't need long-term care

facilities anymore, that they don't need health care support anymore? Well,

they'll get it if they're able to pay.

Is that why

we see a bill before us, Bill 73, that takes away one of the most important

components that ought to be central to this bill? It's the standard of care for

seniors — those who've paid into the system, who've worked all their lives. In

their senior years they now find themselves evicted from their homes and having

to be dislocated.

Hon. G.

Cheema: That's not true.

[1445]

J. Kwan:

It's absolutely true. The Minister of State for Mental Health says it's not

true. Well, you come

[ Page 4311 ]

and tell the senior in my riding, a 105-year-old woman who's just been

evicted from Cooper Place, a long-term intermediate care facility in my very own

riding…. She's been displaced, dislocated from her home. You tell that to this

woman: "Oh, we're not really evicting you from your home. We're just moving

you somewhere else." Somewhere else where nobody now knows where this woman

has gone, and people are very concerned in the community.

Stewart: Nobody? Nobody knows? That's odd.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville feels that this is all very normal.

So what? So what if seniors get moved out of their homes? So what if the

government plans to shut down over 3,000 units of long-term care facilities?

What does that matter? So what if the Minister of State for Mental Health says

that mental health facilities are shutting down across the province, but we're

funding it?

He somehow,

it seems, in his own mind, thinks that he's funding it. He makes this argument

in the House all the time. All the time he makes those arguments when questions

are put to him. He says: "Of course they're being funded." Yet when

you walk out into the community, you see outreach workers being laid off,

community living rooms for people with mental illness being shut down and

facilities no longer available, and people are stressed to the max. Service

providers and consumers alike are stressed to the max, and somehow the

government — this government, the Liberal government, these so-called cabinet

ministers, these so-called government backbench MLAs — sits back and says:

"We're doing our job, and we're doing a very good job, darn it. Don't you

accuse us."

Yet when

you go and talk to the real people…. If the government members would simply

step out of their offices and talk to people, they might actually find out that

the story is something else. It's slightly different than what they like to

believe in their own imaginations, because the real world tells you something

else. When you talk to the people who have been impacted by these cuts and their

families, it is a completely different story, and these stories break your

heart.

I was in

Trail not a long while ago, and I visited a facility that this government at the

time was planning on shutting down, which now has shut down. I spoke with the

seniors, and they were scared. They were worried. They had no idea at that time

what was going to happen to them. They were fighting. They wanted to fight to

keep their homes. They didn't know where to begin. The local MLA was not

available to meet with them, and they were very concerned, so I went up there

and chatted with them and talked to them. I registered their concerns and

brought them back to this House.

One of the

seniors, actually, was on a home oxygen program. She was assessed by a nurse, by

a health care professional, some years ago, and it was determined that she could

live independently with some support, but part of her health care needs meant

she needed an oxygen tank which she could carry with her wherever she goes.

She's had it for a number of years. It sustained her. Quite frankly, as she told

me, in her view it kept her alive.

Well, when

I was visiting there, she was just told by the health authorities that they're

no longer going to fund the home oxygen program for her, that she did not need

the oxygen and that if she wanted it, she would have to pay for it herself.

That's what the government told her, and she was beside herself. She was in

tears, and she simply said this to me: if she did not get her oxygen, she could

not breathe and she would die. Those were her thoughts, not my thoughts. She

told me that. This is the reality.

[1450]

this transition into better health care, supposedly, for the seniors from this

minister…. In this scenario of a person who needs extra health support, who

has been moved from intermediate and long-term care facilities into these

so-called assisted-living facilities, will she have to pay for extra health care

supports? Already we see the trend is moving in that direction. That's exactly

what the government is doing, and somehow this government justifies it. They say

that they are providing health care to the seniors. They say that this is

sustainable health care support for the seniors. I say that this is simply just

a bottom-line approach from the government, and they do not care, nor do they

know, what the needs are in the broader public.

There

has been no assessment done on what the greater needs are, but all is driven by

one agenda and one agenda only: cut the programs that are needed by British

Columbians. Take that money so that it can fill in for the tax cuts for the

wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations. The failed economic

policy of the Liberals…. That's what is happening.

long-term care, I mentioned earlier that what we need is a continuum of care,

not just one element within that continuum. What the government has done is cut

and eliminated social housing programs. There have been no new social housing

programs from the Liberal government since they took office. Let's be very clear

about that.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

You know what? The member says that there was one opened up in my riding. You

know where that came from? It was the previous government who initiated those

initiatives, who actually budgeted for it. It was budgeted and construction had

begun.

I wish that

the members would actually get the information and learn the truth, because from

the way it sounds with these government members, including the Minister of State

for Mental Health…. He would not know — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

minister — what truth is if it hit him squarely between the eyes. Let me tell

you, none of the government members know the difference. That is the truth.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, let's keep our remarks parliamentary, please.

[ Page 4312 ]

J. Kwan:

I would simply like to speak the truth in this House. Let me tell you, we can

— as many Liberal MLAs like to do — walk with our eyes closed, with our ears

shut, and pretend that somehow people are not getting hurt by these government

cuts. But if you stop for one moment and open up your eyes, take a look around

you and open up your ears, you will see something drastically different than

what is happening in the imagination of this Liberal government's mind. The

reality of what is and what they think is simply not matched.

No new

housing initiatives under the Liberal government. They've all been cancelled.

Intermediate and long-term care facilities are being shut down across the

province. Seniors are being evicted from their homes. Health care dollars are

being eliminated and cut back for seniors. In fact, effective in January,

Pharmacare costs are going to increase for seniors. MSP premiums have already

gone up. Health services have already been delisted, and more is to come. You

just wait and see. More is to come.

[1455]

Then the

supposed assisted-living initiatives that are supposed to be built by this

government…. Few have been built. The majority are nonexistent, and the

dollars that are being used to build the assisted living are being stolen from

housing. A long fought-for set of moneys from the federal government that was

dedicated for housing — that money has now been stolen from the housing

portfolio and put into these assisted-living initiatives. That is the reality.

The record is there; the facts are there. I invite the MLAs to check it out and

get the facts for themselves.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Minister of State for Mental Health is just reminding me: "Don't forget

about the PST." Yes, the Liberal government also increased your PST 6.5

percent. That's absolutely true. The Liberal government has just increased the

PST, so standard-of-living costs are also increasing for this government…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members.

J. Kwan:

…and for British Columbians. It's not misinformation. If the Minister of State

for Mental Health would actually look at the budget, look at his own

government's budget, he'll realize that the PST has been increased by this

government. The provincial sales tax has been increased across the board for

every single British Columbian. Who brought that to you? The Liberal government.

Yes, the cost of living is increasing all over the place. There is no doubt

about that.

From this

bill, aside from the issues around long-term care, other issues need to be

raised. What about residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities? I

understand that many municipalities are very concerned that they will now not be

under this act. How does Bill 73 address these concerns?

Expressions

of concern have been brought to the minister's attention. Again, I refer to the

letter from the greater Vancouver regional district. The GVRD has written to the

minister. I will share with you now the part relating to alcohol and drug

issues:

"Furthermore,

some facilities that currently require a CCF licence, such as alcohol and

drug recovery homes, may no longer require licensing under this new act.

Under the existing act, local governments, recognizing the need for such

facilities within their communities, have approved these facilities and

integrated them into communities, with considerable comfort that provincial

standards have been applied and met.

"If

such facilities are excluded under the proposed act, functionally, local

governments would be required to determine the merits of such unlicensed

facilities and to evaluate the services or support/treatment programs

provided by them.

"Not

only do local governments feel they lack the resources or experience to

evaluate such facilities, but that their evaluation would be constrained to

land use regulations, the size and design of the facility, and a maximum

number of persons to be accommodated in the facility."

That's just a letter from the GVRD to the minister raising the concerns

relating to alcohol and drug issues.

This

legislation appears to be not about providing better care but about off-loading

costs. Who do the costs go to? In the case of converting residential care beds

to assisted-living beds, studies show that although the beds are 20 percent less

costly to provide, those costs and more have been made up by the seniors and

their families. It may be a low cost to government. To the Liberal government,

they may think this is more sustainable. What it translates to is increased

costs for the people who need the care. It's as simple as that.

The Alberta

model that I put on the record earlier today illustrates all of those points.

For every meal you get, you have to pay additional dollars — lunch, breakfast

or dinner. If you need someone to assist you to go from your room to the front

door, it costs you 20 bucks to have someone wheel you in a wheelchair over

there. If you need some personal care, depending on what it is, each component

of care comes with an extra cost. That is what is happening. That's the Alberta

model, and I predict that is what's coming to British Columbia.

[1500]

I now want

to turn to address the child care issues. There's only one

section that

specifically addresses early childhood educators in this bill. What does it say

under

section 8, "Certification of educators of children"?

(1) A certificate may be issued to a person in accordance with the regulations

stating that the person has the qualifications required by the regulations for

certification as an educator of children, or as an educator in the manner

specified in the certificate respecting children, at a community care

facility.

"

(2) A certificate issued under subsection (1) or under

section 9 of the Community

[ Page 4313 ]

attached to it, following a hearing established and

conducted in accordance with the regulations."

Essentially it is waiting for regulations. It will all be defined in the

regulations.

Wouldn't it

be helpful for the public, for British Columbians, for the opposition to know

these details before debating and voting on a bill that could dramatically

change the way child care is delivered in this province? How do we know what the

ratio of children to caregivers will be set at? How do we know what training

will be required under these new regulations? How do we know how many infants

one child care giver will be allowed to have? The uncertainty around these kinds

of regulations creates huge anxiety for parents and caregivers alike.

Of course,

the issues around child care that I'm raising are not raised by me alone. Others

have thoughts around this as well. I refer you to another document that's been

put forward, titled "Child Care Standards," by David Schreck.

"The

elimination of universal child care was one of the first cuts made by the

Campbell government. That was followed by making it harder to qualify for

child care subsidies. Now the government is changing the framework for

regulating child care facilities, but it is refusing to provide any

information on the changes it is considering.

"The

child care licensing regulation sets the rules for all forms of child care,

from family care through various types of group care — for example, family

child care. The provision in a licensee's home of care to children is limited

to providing care to no more than seven children, only one of which can be

under 12 months old. A lot of the capital costs associated with setting up

organized group child care are due to requirements under the regulation. Many

would argue that the quality, including the safety, of child care has improved

because of those requirements."

The

document then goes on to talk about a lot of the other issues relating to child

care in these regulations. I would refer the members to the website to look at

some of these issues. The child care issue is significant. The standards of care

are unclear. Regulations are not available. Affordability is not regulated for

assisted living. These are just some of the concerns. I, of course, have a lot

of other concerns as we engage in debate in committee on this bill. I hope the

minister will listen to these comments from the broader community, take them

into consideration and make adjustments to the bill as is required.

[1505]

S. Orr:

First of all, I will start by saying that I am going to speak in support of Bill

73, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. I first want to say that when

the opposition stands and speaks — or the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant — and talks against this bill, parliamentary process is that the

opposition speaks to oppose. What I do find hard is the continual scolding that

— and I'll talk about myself — I have not done my research, done my homework

or worked with my constituents to know the issues; in other words, I am not

keeping in touch with what's going on. Well, that is furthest from the truth.

First of

all, I don't read a lot of union reports and get the information from them. I do

know my constituents. I go out and work with them and talk to them, and I do

have a really good understanding. I certainly have a good understanding on this.

I really feel it's important to get that out. I'm not a confrontational person,

but I'm very much a free and independent thinker. I'm going to speak to this

bill from my point of view as an independent thinker.

I want to

start by commending the minister on the consultation process. I know that this

has happened. We received Bill 16, which was the exposure bill. I read it, and I

felt it was a little light. I was a bit concerned, but this minister went out,

and she consulted. Through the summer she had 11 sessions in six communities.

She's got websites. There was website consultation; there were written

submissions. I'm an old municipal councillor, and I believe in consulting with

my constituents. This was a good consultative process, and I think it was done

extremely well. The bill is clear, and it is concise. Obviously, what the

community said in this consultation process has been very much taken into

account, and it is in this bill.

Now, what I

really want — and I'm going to stay very focused on second reading of this

bill and not go off on a whole myriad of stuff that isn't relevant to this —

is to talk about standards. We now have standards under this assisted living

which will protect our frail and elderly and certainly other vulnerable

citizens. It also means they can stay at home longer. It means that seniors who

in the past were in their homes and had to be moved over to either…. They were

in supportive housing, and then the next move was directly into intermediate and

extended care.

I just want

to talk about a senior citizen who is in supportive housing, and they're happy

in their home. They've got their pictures of their family on the wall. They have

the television they're used to and the bed they're used to sleeping in. They

have their routine. They're comfortable; they're happy. As it was before, if

those people were unable to do certain things for themselves, they were moved

into intermediate and extended care. That's really, really hard on seniors.

It's going

to happen to all of us eventually. Things are going to break down. We're going

to lose our eyesight. We're maybe going to get a little deaf. Things are going

to happen to us, but an awful lot of seniors I know are bright as tacks, and

they don't want to move. What we have now is assisted living in supportive

housing — supportive living that's registered. This is a really good thing for

seniors.

[1510]

The other

really good piece that I like is under

section 22. This is what I call the

whistle-blower protection. It actually is titled "Protection for persons

who report," but it's whistle-blower protection. It's a good thing — a

very good thing. It enables family members

[ Page 4314 ]

or staff or patients. It gives them the confidence that they have an avenue

of recourse if they feel it is necessary to report abuse. Currently, you know,

some people do get concerned. Senior citizens don't like to rock the boat. They

don't like to complain. This is going to give them an avenue where they can

report abuse, and there's going to be no recourse on the family members, the

staff or the patients. Nothing will happen. That's very important. That's a

protection to make them feel comfortable.

Everything

in this bill that I can see really protects the elderly. It really has taken

into consideration how they feel, what they want and how comfortable they are. I

think that is paramount in this bill. It's coming out, and it's going to really

make seniors feel much more comfortable about where they are and what they're

doing. As I say, they will be more protected, as far as I'm concerned.

Part 3 of

this bill, "Assisted Living Residences," is even more protection, as

far as I'm concerned, for valued seniors.

I'm not

going to prolong what I have to say. I think I've made it very clear. I think

that when Bill 16 was introduced and the minister went out and did her

consultations, she came back with something that was good and sound and solid. I

think she's done an admirable job, and I'm very, very pleased. I certainly know

that the seniors in my riding will be happy. Again, I have to say that where our

senior citizens come from…. They're different from youth. They've worked hard.

They'd like to live comfortably now. They want to feel secure, and there are so

many parts of this bill that take care of that.

I'm going

to just say that I think this is a very good act. I certainly support it, and I

think that the minister and her staff have done an extremely good job in putting

it together.

Christensen: It's my pleasure to rise today in the House and speak in

respect of Bill 73, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. As members know,

this does replace Bill 16, which was introduced and debated at second reading

back in April. At that time I was happy to have the opportunity to comment quite

extensively on the general direction that Bill 16 was taking this very important

area of public policy. We do need to recognize that this is very significant and

important legislation. It has a very direct impact on care for individuals

around the province, individuals that are amongst our most vulnerable citizens.

It does, in

fact, provide for regulation of a broad range of care facilities. I think that

sometimes in the discussion of this legislation, we tend to focus on the impact

on our seniors. I'm sure that in my comments today I will be guilty of that

focus as well, but it's important that we recognize that Bill 73 does have

impacts for group child care. It does have impacts for group homes, where many

individuals that have developmental disabilities reside. It certainly does have

impact for complex care facilities for seniors who need a high level of care,

and the introduction of this bill will certainly have impacts on the

assisted-living sector.

It also

plays an important role for the rest of us, those of us that may not need those

particular facilities ourselves. This legislation provides a foundation of

comfort for those of us who may have family members, friends or relatives that

do need that level of care or do need a level of care in those types of

facilities at one time or another. I suspect many of us at some point in our

lives will end up relying on the care provided by either an assisted-living

facility or a continuing care facility.

[1515]

I think it

goes without saying — but as many say, it always goes better with saying —

that the changes in respect of this area of policy and this legislation are long

overdue. The minister commented in her opening remarks that the existing

Community Care Facility Act dates back to 1969, and we've seen significant

changes in the makeup of our population since that time. Certainly, in the late

sixties and early seventies, while we had a few folks that were making it into

their eighties and nineties, it wasn't near the demographic challenge that it is

now.

We have

many people who are living longer and longer and are quite able to take care of

themselves longer and longer, but as they get into those later years, in many

cases they do need some level of assistance — but a broad range of levels of

assistance.

It was also

prior to the movement to deinstitutionalize people who were developmentally

disabled. That has certainly been a progressive step in society over the last 30

years, but it's not one that was necessarily contemplated by legislation that

was essentially drafted back in 1969. So, again, the current act doesn't look

forward in terms of meeting today's needs.

It's also

prior, in fact, to the greatly expanded need for child care. Back in 1969, when

I was just a little tyke, most of the other little tykes that I ran around with

had one parent at home — typically their mom — and child care was not a huge

issue. Now, certainly, we have many more single-parent families, and we have

many dual-income families, so child care is really an economic necessity for

many families in terms of being able to meet their daily needs.

Back in

April I commented at some length about how the current Community Care Facility

Act had evolved into what I and many others considered to be an overly

bureaucratic and prescriptive regulatory scheme for ensuring quality and safety

in these facilities. I'm going to spare members a repeat of those points, except

to say that I believe that Bill 16, which we were debating in April, did an

admirable job of addressing the concerns I had with the current Community Care

Facility Act and its bureaucratic and prescriptive nature. In fact, Bill 73,

which is before us today, is a significant improvement over Bill 16.

The purpose

of introducing Bill 16 in April was to allow for public consultation through the

summer. The minister has indicated that she received input from over 500 people

and groups through meetings in communities around the province as well as

written submissions. That consultation has resulted in some sig-

[ Page 4315 ]

nificant changes that are included in Bill 73 and make for a stronger

foundation for us to move ahead in this very important area of public policy.

I'm going

to comment just briefly on this whole concept of consultation generally. Because

there's always so much happening in the province, there are many opportunities

for consultation input, and people don't necessarily know about them or take

advantage of them. Bill 16 really is one of many bills that were introduced in

the spring session and left on the order paper to allow for consultation through

the summer.

I know that

in my own constituency of Okanagan-Vernon, I invited my constituents to provide

comment on Bill 16 as well as on the Transportation Investment Act, the Human

Rights Code Amendment Act and the Business Corporations Act, all of which were

introduced in the spring and left for consultation.

Beyond

those actual legislative bills that had been put before the House, the summer

was also busy with consultation on the discussion drafts of the community

charter as well as the results-based Forest Practices Code. I invited input from

my constituents on those initiatives, as well, and was very pleased in every

case to receive their input. As one would expect, you do receive a wide variety

of input.

As we

headed towards our return to the Legislature in October, the government

continued its efforts to provide British Columbians with the recommendations of

independent panels like the recreation stewardship panel and to invite further

comment. As well — and I think this needs to be emphasized — one of the very

innovative initiatives that the Premier has introduced is monthly open cabinet

meetings. I've found that those provide a long-overdue opportunity for citizens

of the province to listen in and get some idea of the policy challenges that the

government and, in fact, all British Columbians face and some idea of how the

government may be looking at addressing a particular challenge.

For

example, the September open cabinet meeting included a presentation from the

Minister of Education about a proposal to revise the graduation requirements.

That was based on recommendations of a panel established in the fall of 2001.

That proposal is now out there for interested British Columbians to look at and

to provide comment.

[1520]

September's

open cabinet meeting also provided an opportunity for the Minister of Health

Services to present to the public in a forum that anybody can tune into on their

television and check out — or tune into on the website and check out if they

missed it on the TV — the challenges facing Pharmacare. Those are significant

challenges, and it's important that some of the underlying information gets out

there so that the public can look at it and can comment. Government can listen

to the comments and hopefully move forward in a progressive manner that is going

to assist us in solving some of the very significant challenges we all face.

I've certainly been happy to bring those opportunities to light for my

constituents in my biweekly MLA report in the newspaper and to hear from them on

these important issues.

My point is

that there's plenty of opportunity out there for those who are interested in

seeing what government is working on and to provide comment. In respect of Bill

73 in particular, it clearly reflects the value of this consultation with

British Columbians. In comparing Bill 73 to the earlier Bill 16, you can quickly

see that there have been significant additions to the bill to address concerns

that were raised during the consultation period.

The intent

of Bill 16 as it applies to community care facilities remains essentially the

same, and Bill 16 did an admirable job in accomplishing a number of objectives.

It did a good job of focusing on the protection of vulnerable and dependent

persons in care. It did a good job of clarifying the roles of provincial and

local authorities and simplifying decision-making. It did a good job of

providing greater local authority but allowing for very concrete provincial

standards and consistency of those standards across the province. It also

created a framework that permits innovative responses to trends in community

care, and I think that's critically important.

Certainly,

those objectives, as I've indicated, are maintained in Bill 73. I understand

that the minister generally received very positive feedback over the

consultation process in respect of that general direction and the objectives

that were set out in Bill 16. Those continue to be set out in

part 2 of Bill 73,

which deals specifically with community care facilities, but Bill 73 also

addresses two primary concerns raised during the consultation process.

First,

there was the need — and a number of submissions were received about this —

to maintain early childhood education certification, and that has been

maintained in Bill 73 through the inclusion of

section 8. It is an important

inclusion to recognize the importance of those child care professionals and the

very important work they do. The second primary concern that was raised during

the consultation, which has been addressed in

part 3 of the act, was the need to

include assisted living within the scope of the act.

What Bill

73 does is effectively retain the focus for licensing of community care

facilities but broaden the scope of the legislation to reflect the continuum of

care that is necessary to meet the needs of British Columbians and their broad

range of care needs. The addition of

part 3 to deal with assisted living

provides for the registration of assisted-living residences and allows for a

needed measure of consumer protection and assurance that health and safety

concerns will be met. But it reflects the fact that those persons who are

anticipated to be residing in assisted-living facilities do have a greater

degree of independence than those who will need the higher degree of care

provided by community care facilities.

By adding

part 3 to deal with assisted living, Bill 73 also provides the opportunity to

contrast what constitutes an assisted-living facility in comparison to a

community care facility or supportive housing. I think

[ Page 4316 ]

this is a major benefit in our ability to focus the discussion of seniors

health care and housing around different options for care. We've certainly often

heard of the need for a broad range of housing and care options for our aging

population, because we have citizens with a wide range of abilities and needs.

[1525]

The current

act is certainly too broad in that it captures living arrangements based on the

number of people sharing a particular living arrangement rather than on the

level of independence that the person is able to maintain. Bill 73 clearly

defines community care facilities to be facilities where care is provided to

three or more vulnerable and dependent people who require three or more

prescribed services. Those prescribed services will be set out in regulation and

will play a very important

part in the distinction between what is a community

care facility, what is an assisted-living facility and what in fact is neither

of those but may be supportive housing or some other type of facility.

In contrast

to that definition of a community care facility, an assisted-living facility is

one where an individual is housed and receives hospitality services such as

meals, housekeeping and laundry services, and has access to a 24-hour emergency

response system. It also receives one but not more than two of the prescribed

services. I'm sure — in fact, I can guarantee you — that this whole concept

of what will be prescribed services will be explored further at committee stage.

Obviously, the key to the distinction will be those prescribed services which I

anticipate will include services that we tend to consider to be of a medical or

a health care nature, such as administering medications and carrying out

therapies.

listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, my impression, at least,

is that she would like to leave those who are watching these proceedings with

the impression that assisted living doesn't really have anything to do with

health care. I think that's certainly a false impression.

I think the

opposition also would like us to believe that there's going to be this great

void in terms of the options and the levels of care that people need. In fact,

what this legislation does is fill that void by providing for that broad range

of options.

Supportive

housing, which will not be covered by this legislation, certainly encompasses a

broad range of combined housing and service options that meet the needs of those

citizens who need some assistance in their daily living activities but who don't

need the types of services that will be prescribed under Bill 73. As such, the

broad range of supportive housing options will remain outside the scope of Bill

73, which is wholly appropriate as those housing options are not of a health

care nature. They are certainly an important component and meet a definite need

in terms of the range of housing options that are available to citizens of the

province. But they are not of a health care nature and are therefore not rightly

included in this type of legislation, which is specifically intended to deal

with those higher levels of care for our adult population.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Bill 73 is

an important step in moving from an overly prescriptive model of licensing care

facilities to a model that sets strong standards but allows more local autonomy

and, quite frankly, the application of common sense by the medical health

officer in ensuring that a particular facility meets the needs of the people who

are going to use the facility. I am confident that when Bill 73 is enacted and

complemented by appropriate regulation, it's going to bring clarity to the range

of care options that will be available for our citizens who need varying degrees

of assistance and health care services.

Bill 73 is

an important step in the government's road to fulfilling the new-era commitment

to work with non-profit societies to build and operate an additional 5,000 new

intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. It's also an important step in

fulfilling the new-era commitment to develop an intermediate and long-term care

facilities plan that addresses the needs of our aging population and frees up

existing acute care beds.

[1530]

I think all

of us that have to struggle with these very difficult issues would like to be

able to just snap our fingers and instantly have all the assisted-living and

community care facilities that are needed. Unfortunately, as we quickly learn in

this place, it doesn't work that way. It's going to take some time to meet those

needs, because there are big challenges. Those challenges remain,

notwithstanding that in this province we've actually increased health care

spending by over $1 billion in the last year.

Certainly

money is being placed into health care, but those challenges still remain there,

and those challenges require long-term plans. We're dealing here with ten years

of neglect and a lack of planning for our aging population. We're not going to

fix that overnight. We're going to have to look at long-term planning to build

the facilities and facilitate the construction of those facilities to meet our

longer term needs. If we don't plan for those needs, develop strategy to meet

needs, think in that longer term and have a strong strategy that you follow step

by step to get to your end goal…. If you just come up with the quick-fix

solution and throw a bunch of money at it, what you end up with are white

elephants — things that don't meet your needs. In this province we should

probably call them fast ferries.

I listened

with interest to the comments of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant this

morning and earlier this afternoon. Certainly, the member is very heavy on

pointing out the problems that may be out there and the needs of some of our

vulnerable citizens. But unfortunately, she's quite silent on any solutions to

those problems. That really shouldn't come as any surprise, I don't think. If

you look at the ten years that that party was in government, they didn't have a

bunch of solutions then either. We shouldn't expect anything different while

they're in opposition.

[ Page 4317 ]

The member

did raise some good points around affordability of housing options for seniors,

and affordability of housing options that include appropriate levels of support

for housekeeping and other services, as well as health care services when

needed. These are all residential options that are needed for our aging

population, but they are all distinct from one another. The challenge and goal

is to encourage and support the development of a full range of housing options

for seniors. We need affordable seniors housing that provides some meal

preparation and housekeeping assistance. That may be enough. But we also need

affordable accommodation that adds to that level of service and includes some

health care services and a greater degree of supervision.

Beyond that

we also need facilities that provide complex levels of care. Each of these types

of facilities is unique and distinct. They don't all require the same extent of

regulation. Bill 73 ensures that they will be treated differently, which will

remove many of the impediments to developing more of these options for our

seniors.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant went on at some length this morning about closing

facilities. That's a great line if you want to get people up in arms and paint a

picture of patients wandering the streets, but it's not terribly accurate; nor

is it fair to seniors or to British Columbians. Yes, anybody who's watched

health care in this province over the last number of months knows that health

authorities have announced that some facilities will close, but let's go beyond

that simple announcement and ask why. What we find is that we have aging

facilities that cannot be used to meet the care needs of today's aging

population. You've got doorways that you can't fit a walker through. You've got

hallways that you may not be able to get a wheelchair or a walker down safely.

You've got ceiling infrastructures in buildings that were built 30, 40 or 50

years ago, which can't support patient lifts. These facilities need to be

remodelled or closed and replaced with newer facilities.

[1535]

The

commitment of the government is abundantly clear. We're committed to adding

5,000 additional spaces by 2006. Bill 73, by initiating a regulatory framework

within which that path towards that goal can be followed, is a critical first

step. We could, of course, have simply followed the NDP's failed policy of the

1990s, which seemed to be to do nothing, hope that people will quit aging or

that we may find a cure for it, but I don't personally think that's a terribly

effective way to tackle the challenges that we face in the province. I certainly

commend the minister for embarking on her consultations with British Columbians

since the introduction of Bill 16 in the spring and for now coming back to the

Legislature with a stronger bill, Bill 73, that reflects those consultations.

I know that

in my own constituency of Okanagan-Vernon, we're ahead of the demographic curve

in that we already have a higher than average number of seniors and that

addressing the need to care for those of our seniors and other members of our

population who are vulnerable and dependent is critical, as is the need to

develop alternative housing and care arrangements for seniors who are still

relatively independent. The point is that in my constituency, even though we may

be ahead of the demographic curve, we're not any different than any other

constituency in that we need a variety of seniors housing options in each

community in my constituency.

Bill 73, I

am confident, is going to facilitate those options. I know it is good news to

the non-profit groups and others in Vernon and Lumby, who have been looking at

opportunities to improve the availability of affordable housing options for

seniors both with a health care component and without a health care component.

Bill 73 is

a very good start. I look forward to working with the minister of state over the

next number of months, as well as the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services, who is responsible for B.C. Housing, to ensure that we have a

broad range of effective and affordable housing options as well as health care

options for our valued seniors population.

Anderson: Bill 73, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, is a vision

which has been developing for a long time in the province of British Columbia

and all across Canada, for that matter. It's the opportunity for us to do

planning in our communities for the people who live in our communities and would

like to live their full life span within our communities. Many people, as they

have grown up in years, have found that they have had to move from their local

community because there were no facilities there that suited their changing

needs.

I've had

the privilege in my life as a minister to spend a great deal of time visiting in

communities where seniors have lived in all stages of their lives. I've also had

the personal experience of, in another province, following the path of my mother

as she went through the years in the different kinds of facilities that were

available to her, which enriched her life and gave her the support she needed

and the opportunities for family and friends and community to continue to

participate with her, and her with them, in those changes that took place.

Many

factors are involved in that. It's not only housing but also transportation.

Over the years we've developed the bunny buses, as we've called them — or have

other names for them — so that people in their senior years who no longer

drive or, for that matter, are not able to walk that much have a means of

getting from here to there for their medical appointments, for their shopping,

for their entertainment and just to visit their friends.

These are

all important aspects of the vision that we're trying to portray and develop

here in this presentation of this bill. We're trying to prepare ourselves —

and in my case, it may come sooner than for others —

[ Page 4318 ]

to have the opportunity of using these facilities not as a visitor but as one

who's living within them.

This is a

vision not just of the government; it's a vision of a community. It takes a

community, as we say, to care for a child, but it also takes a community to care

for each other at whatever age we may be at in our life span. It takes a

community to care for those who have disabilities. It takes a community to care

for those who, in their elder years, are no longer as vital and as energetic as

they were at one time.

[1540]

I remember

my mother putting it in perspective very well when she was 95 years of age.

Operating out of a wheelchair and having people come into her room and care for

her in one of the care homes, she said, with a smile upon her face:

"Getting old is very inconvenient."

Part of the

reality is that it is inconvenient to get old in many ways. Your mind may be

sharp, but your body may be dulled. Sometimes it's the reverse, so it's

important to have people to share with us in those changes that come in our

lives.

Again from

my mother I had another comment, which was extremely important. It highlights a

part of this discussion that I'd like to highlight this afternoon. She had been

having some difficulty. The nurses were busy and came in and helped her out in

the care home in which she was living at that particular time. After they left,

she turned to me and said: "I would never have the kind of patience with me

that they have with me." She appreciated that it wasn't just the home or

the facilities that was important, but extremely importantly — even, perhaps,

in many ways more importantly — it was the staff and the people that worked in

those facilities. It's a very exceptional group of people who take their time

and their interest to care initially for persons who are strangers in their

lives, but who in due course become very close friends. It's these persons that

make a facility important.

When we're

talking about Bill 73 — which is setting out the legal framework, if you like,

to enable communities to develop places which are home for their members

throughout the whole of their lives — it's more than the legal framework. It's

more than the building. It's more than the health care. It's more than the

prescriptions. It's the opportunity to sit at a table and to visit. It's the

opportunity to have your family and your friends come in when you can no longer

entertain them at home, but you can entertain them within your place of living

as they, too, are invited for tea in the afternoon, coffee in the evening or the

snacks, and for the entertainment programs at Christmas and Easter and all of

the other parts of the year.

It's the

life and the music of these programs. It's the young people that come from the

schools to visit. These are all part of what we're envisioning as we're putting

in place facilities that not only are convenient, efficient and health-providing

for individual persons but also are facilities that become community places.

They're facilities where the young children come to visit at Halloween. They're

the communities where a person who has a young pet, a young dog, brings that pet

so those there are able to entertain and find comfort. It's the opportunity of

knowing that the community flows in and out of this centre, which is an

important part of the community life. It's not separated from the community.

It's not apart from the activities that you've been involved in.

It's a

place where you can go and play bridge. It's a place where you can go and play

poker. It's a place where you can visit, take your automatic electric wheelchair

and buzz around. They say there may be difficulties on the road with our young

drivers, but there's just as much difficulty with some of our senior drivers as

they tear down the hallways in their automatic chairs.

It's a

place where people care for each other, where seniors talk and visit, and it's a

place where many of them at 70, 80 and 90 make new boyfriends and new

girlfriends and new relationships, which give real strength and vitality to

their lives.

[1545]

I want to

highlight that it's not just the facility that looks nice on the outside where

you would like to go. It's not the facility that's got the ability, where you go

out on the lawn and the yard and enjoy the birds in the summer in the sun. It's

not the facility, but it's all of these things. Most of all, it's interaction

between people caring for each other, sharing with each other and being able to

continue to develop for the full length of their life and to learn and to be

creative and to have opportunities.

I wanted to

emphasize that as we work on this vision, we have a vision which is a part of

our community, a vision whereby we move into a community as a young couple, and

we may think that we're going to be here for all of our years. What happens is

that our children grow up and leave home and go away from us. It's my experience

in community visiting in the city where I am now that the seniors who knew

everybody on the block at one time now are total strangers, because everybody on

the block has changed but themselves.

Whereas they used to work in the yard and

meet their neighbours, they're no longer able to do so. They feel kind of

housebound, and neighbours come and go, but they don't have the flexibility.

So they

like to move into a place where they don't have the yard and the lawn to care

for, into a place where they're welcome, where they're treated with opportunity,

where they even have their religious services, where the social clubs that

they're a part of can come and visit and bring their opportunities to them. We

have a continuum here — moving from your family home, moving into an apartment

where you still have independence, moving from that independence into a home

where you have some support for food and clothing and that kind of thing, moving

from that into assisted living where you have limited medical care and moving on

from there for more extended care.

I'd like to

put this in context simply to say that when we're discussing the nuts and bolts

of facilities,

[ Page 4319 ]

what we're really talking about is the relationships of people and of how

they live out their lives in interaction with others, giving and caring and

sharing with each other, and this bill is one aspect of fulfilling that vision.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of State for Intermediate,

Long Term and Home Care closes second reading debate on Bill 73.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I rise to summarize the debate and to close debate. I would like

to end by reiterating once again that this legislation is about people. It is

about care that is delivered to children. It is about care that is delivered to

vulnerable and dependent seniors, and it is about care that is delivered to

people who live with disabilities. The entire focus of this bill is about

protecting the health and safety of people. It is not about the needs of

facilities, nor is it about the prescriptive regulations that members on the

other side of the House might like to see. I am pleased that it in fact takes

this particular focus. It focuses on those things that are going to make life

safe and secure within the environments in which these people will live.

I'm also

pleased that this bill will remove barriers to innovative care. We have all

heard stories, I think, about how the old act stood in the way of innovation. I

am reminded of the child care facility that tried to establish itself to serve

the needs of parents who worked in the movie industry, and they couldn't do it,

because you couldn't have a child care facility in a trailer or in a mobile

home. That is clearly the kind of thing we want to avoid.

[1550]

have heard instances where ethnically appropriate food could not be given to

children or where ethnically appropriate celebrations could not be celebrated

because it wasn't permitted by the overly prescriptive nature of the old act. I

am personally very delighted that this act will allow for those kinds of

innovations to go ahead so that the focus is, in fact, on the needs around the

people who live in the facility and concern about their safety and their care.

I am also

pleased that this act will provide a very important component to this government

to move ahead on its obligation and commitment to provide 5,000 additional

intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. With the help of the non-profit

sector, we will provide this missing link in the continuum of care for our

seniors and people who live with disabilities. I want to add that assisted

living is in addition to…. It is a new component of the spectrum. It is not in

place of residential care.

Finally, I

want to say how pleased I am with the consultation process that took place over

the summer. We listened, and we acted upon what we heard. Of that, I am very

proud. I am pleased that the consultative process and resulting improvements

resulted in a bill that balances the need for protection while, at the same

time, ensuring that regulation is proportionate to the vulnerability of the

people receiving the services.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 73, the Community Care and Assisted

Living Act.

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill

73, Community Care and Assisted Living Act, 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. L.

Stephens: I call committee stage on Bill 69.

Committee of the Whole House

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY REPEAL ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 69; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:54 p.m.

Hon. S.

Bond: I would like to introduce my staff, please, Chairperson. With me I

have Arlene Paton, a director in Advanced Education in the post-secondary

education division, and Tony Loughran, acting manager of legislation for

Advanced Education.

section

section 5.

MacPhail: This is an amendment to permit the minister to appoint a board for

the Open Learning Agency "consisting of at least one and not more than 11

members." The addition is "at least one." Perhaps the minister

could start off by describing the current board of the Open Learning Agency.

[1555]

Hon. S.

Bond: We currently have a board consisting of 11 members. They are public

servants. Ten are from the Ministry of Advanced Education, and one is from the

Ministry of Finance. That was done on February 15, 2002.

MacPhail: Prior to that, before this government made a change so that it's

all bureaucrats, what was the board composition?

Hon. S.

Bond: There would still have been 11 members. They would have been appointed

by government.

MacPhail: What I'm trying to get at here is that prior to this government

taking over, there was a composition of the board that is much different than

the composition is now, and this legislation allows the

[ Page 4320 ]

government to change the composition of the board even more. Perhaps the

minister could tell me the nature of the Open Learning Agency boards and what

they've been like. It doesn't have to be under any particular government, but

the public participation, the public interest part of the board.

Hon. S.

Bond: The board typically would have been made up of members from throughout

the community representing a broad spectrum of interests.

MacPhail: And that would have made sense, because it was a service that

served the community, who have a broad base of interests and are broadly based

throughout the province. That was the nature of the Open Learning Agency board

from its inception in 1978 until February 2002. Why did the government change

the composition of the board to be 11 bureaucrats in February 2002?

Hon. S.

Bond: As we continued to do the core review and as we looked at the services

provided by the Open Learning Agency…. The act required 11 members. At that

time, it was decided that those positions would be filled by public servants as

we continued the review and looked at the services under the core services

review process.

MacPhail: So now we have a situation where we've moved from a

community-based board for 24 years. Let me see, from '78…. Yes, 24 years, and

then this government changed it to 11 bureaucrats. Now we have legislation that

says you don't have to have 11 people running it. You can have at least one. Why

that change?

Hon. S.

Bond: We want to make sure there is the flexibility required and the

timeliness in terms of making decisions around the transition phase. We want to

ensure a seamless transition, so we want the ability to determine the board size

to make sure we can move quickly, thoroughly, and look at the flexibility for us

in that process.

[1600]

MacPhail: How would a community-based board of 11 people impede that?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, we believe the decisions that will be made over the next number

of months will be complex, will be challenging. We want them to be done quickly

in terms of looking at how to transition. We think that public servants at this

point in time are the best people to be able to manage through the transition

process, both to ensure a seamless transition for students and to work with our

employees.

MacPhail: The reason why I'm spending so much time on the composition of the

board and this legislation that now allows the board to be reduced to one person

is that I'm trying to figure out where the minister delivers on her commitment

that she made so vociferously at second reading that the Open Learning Agency

will become a better community-based agency, that this legislation isn't about

shutting down the Open Learning Agency and distance education but is about

improving the services to the community. We learned in second reading that,

really, the service is now a website. I'm just trying to figure out, if it's not

through the board, where the minister gets her community input in this period of

transition.

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, the requirement will be that the board present to the

minister a transition plan which would take into consideration the needs of the

community, the employees and in particular the students. The job of the board is

to prepare that plan. They will take into consideration needs of the students

and needs of the community and present to me a transition plan. In fact, they're

simply the conduit of the transition plan. They will put the pieces together and

bring that to the minister.

MacPhail: Yes, but "they" could now be one person, could be a

bureaucrat, could be the minister herself, could be an order-in-council

appointment or could be a cabinet minister. "They" is an euphemism for

one person, potentially. That's what this legislation is about. This legislation

isn't saying: "We reaffirm that the board is going to be 11 people."

This legislation is saying that the board could be one person. The government

has already indicated that they don't want a community-based board. They got rid

of the community-based board. They've now got 11 bureaucrats. I assume this

legislation is changing the fact — that there won't be 11 bureaucrats. There

could be one bureaucrat. That's what I'm asking. If indeed the board will remain

— and the minister has indicated already that she doesn't have any plan on

getting a community-based board — how will this board, which could be one

bureaucrat, get community input?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, in fact, as we move through the transition phase and through the

transition of any of these kinds of situations, at the end of the day there will

not be a community-based board with the Open Learning Agency, because we intend

to protect services by giving them to other post-secondary institutions or other

providers. In the interim we are putting together a board that will present a

transition plan. They will consider the needs of students. They will work with

the current CEO. They will work with the employees to prepare and present a plan

for that transition. Ultimately there will be no community-based board because

as we move forward, eventually, over a two-year period, we will be winding up

the institution known as the Open Learning Agency.

[1605]

MacPhail: Well, clearly, the minister has absolutely clearly in her mind who

the board will be. Perhaps she could just tell us who the board will be.

[ Page 4321 ]

Hon. S.

Bond: Currently, the board is made up of 11 members: ten who are Advanced

Education public servants and one from the Ministry of Finance. It is the

assumption that those members will continue. At this point I have made no

decision to make the board smaller, but those are the members that would

continue to serve, however many of them, if we were to make it smaller — those

members that are currently there, who are public servants.

MacPhail: Well, we have the minister saying she's not going to change the

board. We'll see. We'll actually see, because this legislation provides for her

to reduce the board to one person. In fact, this government has done this

repeatedly in other areas as well — repeatedly. Usually the board is reduced

to one person who happens to be a cabinet minister.

If the

minister has plans, although there's no evidence of them in this legislation,

that Open Learning Agency will be carved up and given to other post-secondary

institutions, perhaps the minister could say what representation on the board

there is from other post-secondary institutions.

Hon. S.

Bond: Unless I misunderstood the member opposite, for which I apologize, the

board currently is made up of public servants. That is the composition of the

board. A number of those, if not all of them, will continue to be the board as

we move through transition.

MacPhail: Perhaps I didn't make my question clear. The minister suggests

that the agency is not being killed, that it will be divided up and spread out

amongst other post-secondary institutions. It would seem to me that if the

minister doesn't want community input, she would at least expect the board to

have input from the post-secondary institutions that are going to benefit from

this legislation. I say that in a positive sense.

Who on the

board now is from a post-secondary institution that could give advice on the

transition?

Hon. S.

Bond: The responsibility of the board that is in place. The expectation

would be that their discussions would be with other post-secondary institutions

and their boards, and they would begin a process of examining where those pieces

may eventually go. Their job will be, then, to put their best recommendations

forward to the minister in the transition plan.

MacPhail: My concluding comment on this is that it all seems highly

suspicious to me. The government says on the one hand: "Don't worry. This

legislation isn't about killing the Open Learning Agency. We have a plan to

divvy it up amongst other institutions." But I'm searching for the evidence

of that commitment.

The

evidence of that commitment clearly could have been demonstrated through a board

that understands that this isn't about killing the Open Learning Agency; it's

about divvying it up amongst other post-secondary institutions. But there's no

representation on the board from those other post-secondary institutions. The

representation is only from public officials whose mandate from this government

is to repeal the whole Open Learning Agency. It's highly suspicious.

Section

section 5 approved.

section

2, sections 19 to 22.

MacPhail:

Section 2 adds a

section called "Winding up of agency."

This is the repeal act.

Section 2 of the repeal act provides for a

section 19 of

the Open Learning Agency Act. It says: "The minister may decide that the

affairs of the agency are to be wound up in accordance with either

section 20 or

21."

[1610]

Then

section 20 addresses the winding-up by the board — this board that has no

community base and no post-secondary institution base.

Section 20(1) says:

"If the minister decides that the affairs of the agency are to be wound up

in accordance with this section, the minister may request that the board prepare

and submit to the minister for approval a plan for winding up the affairs of the

agency and the board must comply within 6 months of the request." Then it

talks about how that plan for winding up the agency has to take place.

Contrast

this with a message that went out to Open Learning Agency students and clients

from Gerry Armstrong, the Open Learning Agency chair. That message said:

"Key programs and services at the Open Learning Agency, such as the B.C.

Open University and the Open College, will be transferred to other public

post-secondary institutions and will contribute to the BCcampus collaborative

model. Most remaining Open Learning Agency programs and services will be

transferred to other providers so that these services continue."

I've

ascertained that the collaborative model for transferring programs to other

post- secondary institutions doesn't involve any actual representation on the

board. There is nothing in the legislation that says the programs and services

will be transferred to other public post- secondary institutions.

Let me just

try to ascertain whether it's the legislation that prevails that just talks

about winding up the agency or whether the message from Gerry Armstrong

supersedes the legislation. Has the minister already made a decision to move

most of the OLA services to BCcampus? Exactly what services of OLA are now part

of BCcampus and what services aren't?

Hon. S.

Bond: As a matter of fact, the reason the transition will take two years is

because we want to find the appropriate homes for many of these services, or

alternate providers. In fact, there have been no decisions made about exactly

where the pieces will go. I think it's important to clarify that we're talking

about the winding-up of an agency and protection of the services. They are

different. The point is that the transition plan, which will be required through

legislation, will

[ Page 4322 ]

be presented to the minister to explain exactly what the options and the best

recommendations are for where those services should be provided.

MacPhail: The reason why I'm so puzzled about this is that the minister

makes guarantees all over the place that there are no cuts. She stood up here

yesterday in the Legislature. She stood up at news conferences and said:

"The Open Learning Agency is only going to get better. Nobody should be

concerned. There will be a different model of delivering it, but it's only going

to get better."

Well, you

can't make that statement unless you have some evidence to back it up, unless

you're not telling the truth. Well, I know I can't make that allegation in here,

Mr. Chair, so I assume it's got to be that the minister has a plan, because

she's made the commitment. Could the minister stand up and tell us what the plan

is?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, what we're going to do is protect the services that are most

appropriate to enhance opportunities for students. We've set aside a two-year

period to do that. We are putting a group of people together, a board, who will

provide recommendations to us about where the best homes for those services will

be. In fact, we are winding up the agency known as the Open Learning Agency.

We're going to work over the next period of time to build a transition plan,

which will come back to the minister for approval, that will look at how best to

protect those services. We're not going to do it overnight. We're building it in

thoughtfully and carefully, and that's the point of this legislation.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

What services will be protected?

Hon. S.

Bond: We're looking at alternate providers for all of the component pieces

of the Open Learning Agency. Two of the most significant pieces, and certainly

those that the member opposite has referred to a number of times as being

"killed" or "blown up," are in fact going to become part of

BCcampus. Those are Open University and Open College. Those will protect the

concepts of continuous intake, credit bank and all of those necessary services.

Those will be two of the essential components that will become part of the

BCcampus initiative.

J. Kwan:

The minister has actually gone out publicly and said that OLA services would be

moved to BCcampus. If that decision has already been made by the minister, why

not just state that the OLA would simply be wound up and that a new agency would

replace it?

Hon. S.

Bond: We're not interested in creating another agency. That's why we're

winding this one up. We actually have great public post-secondary institutions

where Open College and Open University will be able to find a home, and they

will become part of the collaborative process called BCcampus.

J. Kwan:

We know that there will be no agencies replacing it then. The services will be

transferred into what's called BCcampus services. OLA will simply shut down. Why

not come up, then, and share with members of this House and with British

Columbians the plan to roll the OLA into BCcampus? My colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings started the debate asking for that exact plan, but there is

no plan. It appears that there is no plan to date; yet the minister is very

certain, though, that the services will be protected somehow. Yet there is no

plan, and that information…. If the minister has it, share it with British

Columbians.

Hon. S.

Bond: Actually, the purpose of this legislation is to allow us to ask for

the plan to be created. We couldn't contravene the current legislation, which

does not allow for us to begin to talk about the component pieces separately. In

order for me to request a transition plan that's done carefully over the next

two years, we actually have to have this piece of legislation in place so that

we can begin to deal with the transition issues. Current legislation does not

allow us to do that.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that the minister is already doing it. She has already announced

that the OLA is going to be shut down. She has already announced that the

services are going to be transferred into BCcampus. But the plan is not

available. The minister says: "We can't develop the plan until the

legislation passes." But in her mind, there already is a plan. We already

know what the outcomes are going to be. OLA is going to be shut down. That's

what this act is: Open Learning Agency Repeal Act.

Is the plan

to be made public before the minister approves or rejects it?

Hon. S.

Bond: At this point the plan is for the transition plan, as suggested in the

legislation, to be presented to the minister with a number of options.

J. Kwan:

I know what the act says. The question to the minister is: will the minister

make the plan public? This minister and this government like to claim that they

are open and transparent. They say that they have to go through a consultation

process. They say that they have to put forward a plan. If it's to be open and

transparent, will the minister make the plan public?

[1620]

Hon. S.

Bond: At this point the plan is to present the minister with the transition

plan. Prior to doing that, we anticipate a great deal of discussion as we move

through the process with the students, the employees, the post-secondary

institutions and the boards of those institutions as we develop the plan. In

fact, we're going to include them as we develop the plan, and then the

recommendations will be made to the minister.

[ Page 4323 ]

J. Kwan:

We know how the process has gone with other ministers to date in a variety of

areas. What they do is that they pretend, and they say they're consulting.

Supposedly, they receive information, but it never gets to meet the public eye.

It's hidden. Somehow that's supposed to be consultative and transparent. It

isn't. Let's call it what it is.

The

question to the minister is simple: is the plan to be made public before the

minister approves or rejects it — yes or no?

Hon. S.

Bond: Just to repeat the fact: before the plan actually gets to the

minister's desk, there will be much discussion with institutions, with students

and with employees about the best places and the best ways to accommodate the

services we're able to transfer and to look for alternative providers.

J. Kwan:

The minister has just failed to answer the question or refuses to answer the

question, and there's only one reason behind it. It's a simple question. Will

the minister make the plan public before she decides to reject or approve the

plan? After she has received information from the students, from the

institutions, from all the people she claims she's going to consult with, will

she put the information to the public so the public can decide what the

information she received says — not for the minister and through the minister

and this government's

interpretation?

To date, we

have already experienced that what this minister says and what this government

says sometimes, in reality, could be completely different. It could be

completely different, and here's the issue. Why doesn't the minister commit now

that she would make the plan public before she accepts or rejects it? Why

wouldn't she do that?

Hon. S.

Bond: There will be a significant amount of discussion required to prepare

the transition plan. The transition plan will be created and presented to the

minister.

R. Masi:

I have a question for the minister regarding the integrity of the degree that

people have earned at the Open University and also the status of those students

who are, in fact, working toward a degree at the present time at the Open

University. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. S.

Bond: The Open University process will continue. The ability to grant

degrees under the Open University will continue, so for those students currently

completing a degree, the process will continue as it does today. As a matter of

fact, enhanced opportunities will be given to those students under the umbrella

of BCcampus, but the integrity of the degree granted will continue, and we will

continue to be able to grant degrees under the Open University credentials.

R. Masi:

During the transition or following the transition period, I have some concerns

about distinct universities taking over programs. Universities have a tendency

to establish their own criteria for graduation and, in some cases, have a lack

of flexibility in terms of credits earned from the outside. I'm wondering, in

the particular case of the Open University concept going into different

vehicles, different universities, how they will work the arrangement of credits

that are earned outside that particular university.

[1625]

I know

that's a bit of a complicated question, but for individuals, it's a very

difficult thing. They may have credits earned in three or four different

universities, and in some cases, they're not honoured by this university or that

university. I wonder if that has been thought about.

Hon. S.

Bond: The issue of the transfer of credits is an important one, and it is an

item on our agenda. In fact, despite some challenges, B.C. actually leads the

country in the transferability of credits. Wherever the Open University ends up

being housed, we would want to ensure that those principles are maintained in

terms of the ability to use credits from a variety of places and to receive

recognition. Plus, it would be a goal of our BCcampus, a vision of BCcampus, to

be able to improve the transfer of credits from institution to institution. We

would actually like to improve upon that, so we will maintain the principles of

the Open University in this circumstance but also look at seeing how we can

improve transfer of credits between institutions as well.

J. Kwan:

The question that I had for the minister was whether the plan would be made

public before the minister approves or rejects it. I asked that question several

times of the minister. She has refused the answer. I can only assume then that

the answer is no, the minister will not make public the plan before the minister

approves or rejects it.

If the

minister actually simply came clean and said no, at least the minister would be

honest. Come clean and say: "No, we're not into that kind of transparency.

We don't want to be transparent. That's how we operate within government."

Come clean and admit it and say it. Then at least it would have been an honest

answer.

The

minister has refused to answer that question to date. As I say, I can only

assume the answer is no. If I'm wrong, I invite the minister to get up and

correct the record and say: "We will make that plan open to the public

before I approve or reject it." Be very definitive about it, not just say:

"We'll consult with so-and-so." Be very clear that before a decision

is made, the information will be shared with the public so that they, too, can

assess what information has been received. Then they can make their own

evaluation and conclusion with regard to the plan — whether or not it's a

valid one and whether or not it's a sound plan.

On the

issue around input, the minister says: "We'll go and consult with

people." Taking the minister at her word at the moment that perhaps she

will, will the

[ Page 4324 ]

minister at least make the information she receives from the public through

the consultation available for the public?

[1630]

Hon. S.

Bond: The point of this piece of legislation is to allow a board the

opportunity to begin to do the work to make a thoughtful, careful transition

plan and present it to the minister. In order to do that, they will work on a

process that will gather information, look at the issues, talk to the students,

employers and post-secondary institutions, and present their recommendations to

the minister for the best possible suggestions about how to transition the

services of the Open Learning Agency.

J. Kwan:

There's a bit of a deficit going on in this chamber right now. Let me ask the

question once again of the minister: will the information that the minister

receives from the public through the consultation process be made public and be

available for all British Columbians who might be interested to look at and

review?

Hon. S.

Bond: I'll try it one more time. The board will be collecting the

information in order to prepare a transition plan to present to the minister. In

fact, as part of the job of the board that will deal with the transition of the

Open Learning Agency, they will put together the pieces, they will bring

recommendations to the minister, and the information that they collect, they

will use to put the transition plan together.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Health Planning is sitting there going: "Well, what

don't you understand? What don't you understand?" For a government who

claims it would be open and transparent, when asked a direct question on

consultation information the minister will be receiving through this board she

is establishing by legislation…. Will she make that information available for

public scrutiny? She will not answer the question. That is the

part I don't

understand: a government who claims it's open and transparent, when everything

they do is the opposite. It is anything but open and transparent.

Well, let

me ask the minister this question: will the reports prepared by the board during

the windup period be made public?

Hon. S.

Bond: I'm happy to answer the question one more time. We're putting together

a board of people who are going to examine the issues, who are going to look at

the pieces of the Open Learning Agency. They are going to put together a process

to determine where the pieces of the Open Learning Agency would best be housed.

They are going to gather that information together. They are going to talk to

employers, to students and to post-secondary institutions, and then they are

going to present to me the best recommendations they have after having had a

thorough process, which the transition period will be — approximately two

years.

J. Kwan:

For all the MLAs who are sitting around me — the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville; the member from Burnaby, I think she's from…. No,

Surrey actually.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Actually, no, I don't recognize where all the members come from. Actually, I

don't even necessarily recognize all of the members, because I rarely hear from

them in this House, quite frankly. I'm being honest here. I don't always

recognize all of the members, Mr. Chair.

They're all

sitting around going: "Oh, I understand that. I understand that. Oh, gee.

Yes, sir; yes, sir; three bags full. How far can I kowtow to what the government

wants me to do?"

[1635]

The

question is this, a very simple question to which I only need a yes or a no.

Grade school children could probably answer the question if they were to be

honest and just put forward the information. Will the reports prepared by the

board, which this minister is establishing under this act during the windup

period, be made public — yes or no? The minister doesn't have to sit in her

seat to think of another way of not answering the question. She only has to get

up and say one word: yes or no. It is that simple.

No answer

from the minister — no answer from the minister on a simple yes or no

question. I can't make it any simpler than that, can't even make it simpler than

a multiple choice, because there are only two options the minister can choose

from: yes or no.

The very

fact that she's refused to answer the question about whether or not she herself

would make the report public and make the recommendations public prior to

approval or rejection, the fact that she refused to answer that question and

commit in this House that she will make the information public tells you very

clearly that this government is anything but transparent, as they claim that

they are. When asked the question about whether or not the board — which is

going to gather this information and, once they receive that information, report

to the minister — will make the information public so that we can all

scrutinize the information and make our own judgments on the information, the

minister refused to answer the question.

That tells

you once again — it only adds and reconfirms — that this government is

anything but transparent. On a very simple question on the information that the

minister receives through the board on its consultation — not even the

recommendations about what the board may suggest to the government that they

should

[ Page 4325 ]

do but on the information received through the consultation process — and

whether or not that information would be made public, the Minister of Advanced

Education would not confirm and commit to making that information public.

You tell

me, Mr. Chair: what part of this exercise so far illustrates transparency? None

whatsoever. It is anything but transparent. It is perhaps as dark and hidden as

one could imagine. That is what this process is all about.

The

minister, when asked the question, is asking her staff: "How else can I

answer this question?" I actually rose in this House and gave the minister

a very clear choice on how one could answer the question: yes or no. Will you

make the information public? Yes or no — not that complicated at all. The

minister so far has refused to answer the question.

We know

this government has reaffirmed once again that this government is anything but

transparent. The New Era document is nothing but a farce. Things within

it are yet more broken promises and more to come.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Maybe this is boring for the members. It isn't for British Columbians who expect

this government to live up to what they committed to. They do. There's an

expectation.

They

promise to do one thing; they're doing another. They say that they will be

transparent and open and accountable, and they're not. British Columbians voted

on that basis, believing that this government would do exactly that. It is

anything but that. Maybe it's boring for them, but it isn't for British

Columbians who have these concerns.

The

Chair: Member, please get back to…. Will you please be seated for a second

here.

I think

this is committee stage on Bill 69. We seem to be getting off the track here.

It's

section 2 we are debating in committee stage, and I would ask the member to

stay focused on that section, please.

[1640]

J. Kwan:

Yes, I am staying focused, because I'm just trying to understand what this

minister is doing on the question around transparency relating to the

information that the minister will receive from the board with regards to the

winding-up of the Open Learning Agency. The answer so far has been clear. That

is, the government will not be transparent. That is the information I have

gathered so far through committee stage questioning with regards to the process

the government's going to be engaging in. It's a shame and it's worrisome,

because the ramifications of what will happen are broad.

Can the

minister tell us what challenges BCcampus faces as it moves to adopt some of the

Open Learning Agency programs?

Hon. S.

Bond: Could I ask for that question to be repeated? I'm not certain I

understood it.

J. Kwan:

Can the minister tell us what challenges BCcampus will face as it moves to adopt

some of the programs from the OLA?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, in fact, the programs that will be transferred from the Open

Learning Agency and that will become part of BCcampus will be transferred to

existing, excellent public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. In

terms of the challenges facing BCcampus, the great news is that we have all of

the institutions in this province working together to work on the vision of

BCcampus. I think that's exciting. Certainly, with those institutions working

together, I think we're going to have a great initiative. I look forward to the

process as it evolves.

J. Kwan:

Well, what that sounds like is that the minister doesn't know what challenges

BCcampus will be faced with. What funding resources are being committed now to

the transition period, and can the minister tell us what funding sources will be

made available to an expanded BCcampus?

The

Chair: Member, for the information of the Chair, could you please tell me

how this is relevant to the

section — asking about BCcampus. We're talking

about a repeal of the Open Learning Agency, and you're speaking about BCcampus.

J. Kwan:

The minister is advising that through the winding-up process of the OLA, which

is the Open Learning Agency Act that we're dealing with, which is being repealed

right now…. In its place the minister says she is going to set up a board, and

BCcampus is actually taking over some of the programming. She's made that

announcement. There's a direct link with BCcampus and the Open Learning Agency

and th