2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th 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)

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. D. McRae

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Nurses in B.C.

D. Barnett

Bingo For Life charitable fundraising

S. Chandra Herbert

Rights of victims

D. Hayer

Maa-nulth First Nations treaty and accord with Tseshaht

S. Fraser

Burrowing owl conservation

J. Slater

Trail Smoke Eaters hockey team

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Sales taxes on restaurant industry

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Government tax policies after harmonized sales tax referendum

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

Impact of harmonized sales tax on families

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Donaldson

Automobile insurance rates

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

H. Bains

Vancouver floatplane terminal contract

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

S. Simpson

First Nations consultation on Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

Petitions

Hon. G. Abbott

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development (continued)

N. Simons

Hon. H. Bloy

M. Mungall

M. Sather

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

S. Chandra Herbert

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. M. McNeil

C. Trevena

[ Page 6885 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have the pleasure today to introduce Valerie McKnight. She's here to watch question period today. She is the new administrative assistant in my office. If everyone would please make her welcome.

J. Les: Joining us in the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Alex Budden. He is the British consul general based in Vancouver, accompanied today by Ms. Amy Day from the British consulate in Vancouver. They're here for meetings with a variety of ministers and others to help foster the great relationship that's always existed between British Columbia and the United Kingdom. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

P. Pimm: It's not often I get two days in a row to introduce somebody. We've all heard about the Horn River shale gas play and the benefits the province is going to see from this spectacular resource.

We have with us today the mayor of the Northern Rockies municipality, also where the Horn River development is found. I'd like this House to help me welcome him to the House for the first time to watch us in question period today — Mayor Bill Streeper.

L. Reid: My former ministerial assistant, Jennifer Burnett, has joined us today. It's not that I don't love my current job; I do. But I truly miss working with this young woman. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

R. Howard: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today 26 grade 6 students from Dixon School in Richmond, accompanied by eight adults and teachers Don Allison, Darryl Unger and Shale Kotarani. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

I. Black: The last time I rose in this House to introduce my father, Stewart Black, my afternoon didn't really go as planned. However, I have taken the risk to introduce him yet again today. He's joining us. But I have advised the security of the building that should I feel in any way unwell this afternoon, he is to be escorted from the premises, and I will see him at Thanksgiving. Would the House join me in making my father feel most welcome this afternoon.

Hon. M. de Jong: Allan Edwards is a graduate-level student in the pharmacy department at UBC, and he is in the gallery today. He originally received his pharmacy degree from Dalhousie in 1998 and served his residency at Royal Columbian Hospital in New West in 2003. He also served this country with distinction as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, including deployments to Turkey and Afghanistan. I hope all members will make Alan feel very welcome here.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — International Interests in

Mobile Equipment

(Aircraft Equipment) Act

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to introduce the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act. This legislation is necessary to implement two important international aviation agreements in British Columbia when Canada ratifies them. They are the convention on international interests and mobile equipment, and the associated protocol on aircraft equipment, which have operated internationally since 2006.

[1340]

The convention and protocol established a framework for registering and enforcing security interests in aircraft equipment and an international registry. This modern, asset-backed framework significantly reduces the risks in international aircraft financing. This makes financing more available and affordable for convention member states.

To date, 43 countries are members, including the United States and the European Union. The federal government and most provinces have already enacted their implementation legislation. The major Canadian airlines are asking the federal minister to ratify the convention and protocol shortly.

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

Bill 8, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6886 ]

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. D. McRae presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011.

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. McRae: I am pleased to introduce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011. The amendment in this bill provides for greater deterrence of future crimes through higher penalties. I am pleased to say that B.C. will now have the toughest animal cruelty penalties in the country, with fines of up to $75,000 and jail terms of up to two years.

In addition, we are extending the statute of limitations for offences under the act from six months to three years. We are holding owners, companies and others responsible for animals more accountable for the welfare of those animals, and there is new ability for government to regulate specific activities pertaining to the use, care and protection of animals, including sled dogs and service animals, such as dogs and horses used by police.

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

Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NURSES IN B.C.

D. Barnett: I have heard them described as angels in comfortable shoes. May 9 to May 15 is National Nursing Week. This week is about celebrating one of the foundations of our health care system and recognizing the important contributions nurses make. There are over 36,000 registered nurses, nurse practitioners and licensed graduate nurses in B.C. alone. My mother was a nurse for over 20 years and my mother-in-law for over 30. They gave their time, care and support to patients in both the public and private health care system here in British Columbia.

Where would our health care system be without nurses? It's been said that the constant and attentive care by a nurse can be just as important as a major medical procedure for a patient. They are truly special people. The compassion, strength, empathy and respect they provide patients on a daily basis across our province is something we should all be grateful for. A nurse treats a patient's physical health but also goes that extra mile in ensuring that people are cared for emotionally.

For this reason, I would argue that nurses are not only the backbone of our health care system, but they are the heart. So I ask the House to join me today in recognizing the nurses in B.C. and across Canada that don't require a prescription to dispense care, comfort and compassion.

BINGO FOR LIFE

CHARITABLE FUNDRAISING

S. Chandra Herbert: "B-6, I-14, N-1. Anyone seen a hot man? G-5, O-52. Oh? Oh, girl, we've got a winner. Bingo!"

For 15 years this May, the drag queens of Bingo for Life have been making them laugh, raising money for charity, celebrating drag, camp and gay folks' right to be who they are — out, proud and, after a few cocktails, sometimes a little loud.

[1345]

Bingo for Life was founded at the West End Community Centre by: Bill Amundson; Michael Hornby; my predecessor, the former member for Vancouver-Burrard; and the irrepressible "tell it like she sees it, tough as nails, with a heart as big as they come and an ample bosom to hold it in" West End diva Joan-E, who continues to lead it today.

Bingo for Life next found its home at the Royal Hotel, which is where I first picked up a bingo dabber, tried to avoid the eyes of the big old drag queen looking for her next victim and got to know the love of my life, Romi, on one of our first dates.

Last year Bingo for Life broke its fundraising record, and in its 15 years it has raised over $350,000 for Friends for Life, a West End charity that provides over 60 health therapies to over 1,000 active members who live with life-threatening illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and cancer.

There have been over 800 nights of bingo dabbers, pickup lines, wild performances and big wins. From bingo girl Justine Tyme to co-hosts Summer Clearance, Robyn Graves, Mandy Kamp and Carlotta Gurl, to the incredible volunteers — most notably Bob Sulley, who has been volunteer bingo manager for ten years — and of course the support of numerous West End businesses who donate the prizes. Bingo for Life is vogueing it up, pulling in the money and making a real difference in the West End.

I hope you will all join me in wishing them happy 15th anniversary. Bingo!

[ Page 6887 ]

RIGHTS OF VICTIMS

D. Hayer: I believe, and many of my constituents believe, we still have a long way to go when it comes to ensuring that the rights of the victims and the rights of the law-abiding citizens take precedence over the rights of criminals. Justice leans toward giving criminals the benefit of the doubt. Even when convicted, the punishment can seem soft when compared with the harshness of the crimes committed.

A drunk driver kills an innocent victim and gets a slap on the wrist for punishment, and recently a man with mental illness was almost granted a pass less than three years after killing his three children — into the same community where the mother of those three dead children now lives.

Violence is also often perpetrated on the most vulnerable. A young woman raped and murdered in Victoria and her body burned. A young woman and young mother, an admired school teacher, killed in Surrey by her husband and body burned. Canadians grow insensitive to the brutality of such violence.

This year we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Air India bombing — 329 men, women and children plunged to their death in the Atlantic Ocean — and two more deaths in Japan when the second bomb exploded. Most of the terrorists who hatched that plot, no doubt right here in British Columbia, still walk free. Meanwhile, families of the murdered enjoy no closure.

Rights and freedom are at the very core of this nation and across this great land. Everybody is innocent until convicted. However, many citizens have come to believe that in determining that innocence, criminals' rights should receive less emphasis.

In the balance of justice, I have come to believe that Canada must do more to ensure that the rights of the victims receive greater emphasis while the rights of the accused should receive less emphasis. All levels of government and all political parties must work together to ensure that more appropriate balance is asserted in our justice system.

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS TREATY

AND ACCORD WITH TSESHAHT

S. Fraser: On April 2 I was honoured to attend an historic event celebrating the commencement of the Maa-nulth treaty. I would like to formally applaud here in this House the five Maa-nulth Nations, their citizens, their ha'wiih. These five Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations begin the journey of self-governance, finally freed from the yoke of the Indian Act. The energy and the optimism of the celebration were wonderful to see.

Another event occurred in the magnificent new Tseshaht administration building in Port Alberni only days before. This event was also of huge significance and helped make the Maa-nulth's celebration all the better. Chief Councillor Les Sam and the Tseshaht First Nation signed an accord with the Maa-nulth First Nations to recognize the hahuuthli , that's the traditional territory of the Tseshaht First Nation.

This is very significant not only in the case of the Maa-nulth treaty but also in the entire B.C. treaty process, where disputes around territorial overlaps can divide nations, communities and families.

[1350]

One of the significant challenges of the B.C. treaty process has been the issue of historic conflicts around territorial boundaries of traditional territories for adjacent nations. This was certainly the case in the Maa-nulth treaty process. Tseshaht territory is located right in the middle of the identified Maa-nulth jurisdiction, but the Tseshaht First Nation was not actually part of the Maa-nulth treaty.

On the eve of the commencement and celebration of the Maa-nulth treaty, I was honoured to bear witness to the signing of an accord with the five Maa-nulth Nations and the Tseshaht. The accord brings important recognition that the Tseshaht First Nation exists within the boundaries of the Maa-nulth treaty. This is monumental, and I salute the Maa-nulth First Nations and the Tseshaht Nation, who have set an example to the rest of the province regarding the true nature of reconciliation. Klecko klecko .

BURROWING OWL CONSERVATION

J. Slater: This past Sunday I had the honour of participating in the ribbon-cutting ceremony of the newly constructed breeding facility for burrowing owls, located north of Oliver. This is one of three facilities in British Columbia. The other two are located at the B.C. Wildlife Park in Kamloops and at Port Kells in Surrey. These breeding facilities will assist in re-establishing the burrowing owl population through captive breeding and then controlled release into artificial burrows.

The burrowing owl is a tiny bird of prey that makes its home in grasslands across North America. Unlike most owls, these inquisitive social birds live and breed in underground burrows usually built and abandoned by marmots or badgers.

To compensate for the absence of burrowing mammals, a network of artificial burrows has been created that will provide their initial living conditions. Released owls would then breed and raise their young naturally. Monitoring of the female owl during her incubation and the development of the chicks after hatching is conducted by a care team, and in most cases they are volunteers.

To date they have only seen a few birds return the next year, and it is hoped that over time more released birds and their young will recognize the B.C. sites as their home breeding range.

The burrowing owl recovery program is the first and longest sustained program of its kind in North America.

[ Page 6888 ]

Over the past 20 years the society, under the guidance of the executive director, Mike Mackintosh, has developed expertise and understanding of the burrowing owl behaviour.

For more information on the Burrowing Owl Conservation Society of B.C. program, please visit the website at www.burrowingowlbc.org.

TRAIL SMOKE EATERS HOCKEY TEAM

K. Conroy: As we are all anticipating the coming series of Canucks games, I wanted to remind everyone that we do have other hockey champions in this province. Fifty years ago this year the Trail Smoke Eaters won the world amateur hockey championship, the last amateur hockey team to bring the title to Canada. In fact, the Smokies, as they are locally known, are the only team to win two world championship titles.

The Smokies were formed in 1926, and that year they won the Savage Cup, B.C.'s senior hockey championship. They went on to win seven Savage Cups in a row before losing to the Kimberley Dynamiters in '34. However, the Smokies regained the championship in '37 with the strongest team they had fielded to date.

In December '38 the team travelled to Europe to represent Canada in the '39 world championship. They played an exhausting exhibition

schedule throughout Europe. Most games were played outdoors before sellout crowds. They crushed their opponents in the tournament, playing eight games and outscoring the opposition 42 to 1 — the Canucks wish. Their final game was in Switzerland before a crowd of 19,000 fans, and the Smokies earned their first world championship title.

Senior hockey in the West Kootenays was suspended during World War II but resumed in '45 with the Smokies again winning the Savage Cup. Through the '50s the Smokies gained momentum with a strong nucleus of local talent. They won the Savage Cup for the 15th time in '60 and then hosted the Allan Cup finals against the Chatham Maroons of Ontario, with Chatham, unfortunately, defeating Trail.

However, Chatham was to represent Canada at the '61 championship held in Switzerland. They declined. Trail eagerly accepted. The team played 20 exhibition games prior to the world tournament. They met the powerful Soviet team in the final game on March 12. The team persevered, winning 5 to 1, wearing the replica jersey I have on today. The Trail Smoke Eaters were world hockey champions for the second time, a feat not duplicated by any other community in Canada.

[1355]

On March 12 of this year the community of Trail, along with the players who are still with us, their families, friends and fans, celebrated the 50th anniversary of this hockey legend and world cup win.

Oral Questions

SALES TAXES ON RESTAURANT INDUSTRY

B. Ralston: The A&W restaurant chain reported its first-quarter 2011 results recently: significantly, a 3 percent decline in same-store sales — the first drop of its kind in 30 quarters. In this province A&W says the B.C. Liberals' HST is the cause.

Some might ask if dropping sales of Mama, Papa and Teen Burgers is families first. The burger family might disagree, but perhaps I digress.

Unless the Finance Minister agrees to respect the will of British Columbians and the referendum law, these falling sales and job losses will continue. Will the Minister of Finance make a specific commitment to restoring all exemptions to the PST, or will he admit that he intends to continue hammering restaurant patrons in B.C. no matter what?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, on this question I find myself genuinely conflicted. I could tell you that as the former Health Minister, I listened to group after group after group come and tell me about how, for certain foods, it would actually be good if we encouraged people to make other choices. Not that, you know, the fries and the soda and the hamburgers are bad, of course. It's just that there is a constituency….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Not that there is not a constituency for hamburgers, fries and soda drinks out there. I'm just reflecting on my role as the former Minister of Health.

Look, Mr. Speaker, I think the fact of the matter is that whether that impact is a result of the international economic meltdown or whether it's a result of HST, I can't be entirely certain. But I do know one thing for sure.

I know that when you travel the world…. We've heard this argument from the members opposite — that the restaurant industry as we know it will be utterly devastated as a result of this change. Yet I note with interest that the great cities of the world, whether it's London or Paris or Rome, have a thriving restaurant sector in spite of value-added taxes that are, in some cases, almost double what the HST is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, we're not talking about London or Paris. We're talking about the A&W restaurant chain here in British Columbia and what they say is the result of the B.C. Liberal HST.

[ Page 6889 ]

But they're not alone. According to a survey of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, 87 percent of restaurants say that sales have declined since the HST was implemented in July.

Still no commitment from the Finance Minister about whether these exemptions will be reinstated when the HST is rejected by B.C. voters this summer. Yesterday his half-hearted responses to the question didn't satisfy anyone because, frankly, British Columbians don't trust him.

So let me put a plain, straightforward question to this minister again. When the HST is extinguished by referendum this summer, will the Minister of Finance ensure that all previous exemptions to the PST are restored?

Hon. K. Falcon: It might be welcome news for the member to know that in the accommodation and food sector industry, there has been, since July of 2010 up till today, an increase of 8,600 more jobs in the sector.

Now, having said that, I don't want to pretend that there may not be some elements in the fast-food sector or others that may see some slowdown in sales. I don't know. I can only rely on the member opposite's word with regard to that.

But I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. We have been engaged in a listening exercise with the public of British Columbia. We were on the phones again last night in our telephone town halls. To date we have had almost 200,000 British Columbians participate in these electronic town hall meetings.

[1400]

We're certainly meeting with stakeholder groups. I met with the lobbying association for the restaurant industry, and I know what the lobbying association wishes. We're listening to all the different groups out there. We're taking all that information in to look at how we can improve the HST for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: Once again, no answer. This sector employs 161,500 people here in the province, the fourth-largest industry in the province, and no answer.

Forty-seven percent of B.C. restaurant owners say they cut back staff hours because of the B.C. Liberals' HST. Maybe that's why 68 percent of them say they plan to vote against the HST.

What they're looking for is some measure of certainty from this minister, which this minister clearly, so far, has refused to provide. Will the minister make a firm commitment to fully respect the wishes of British Columbians and restore all the exemptions to the PST when the referendum is successful?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite continues to perpetrate the myth that somehow the introduction of the HST is going to end the restaurant sector as we know it. I'm happy to have the member sit down with a number of restaurateurs I've met with who talk about the fact that actually it's had little to no impact on the restaurant business.

The member maybe doesn't listen to the radio and listen to the individual running a restaurant on the North Shore that talked about how he was one of the strongest critics against the HST when it was introduced, but he's discovered, actually, it has not affected his business. In fact, his business is growing.

I'm sorry that one fast-food chain has seen a reduction in sales, but the fact of the matter is…. I note with interest that in 140 countries around the world — including some of the countries that are renowned for their restaurant sector, like London and Paris and Rome…. Somehow, even with value-added taxes that are much higher than the HST, they still have a thriving restaurant sector, just like we will still have a thriving restaurant sector here in British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT TAX POLICIES AFTER

HARMONIZED SALES TAX REFERENDUM

C. James: The Finance Minister has had three opportunities to answer a very straightforward question, and he refused. One thing is clear, and it certainly isn't the minister's answers. The public doesn't trust the B.C. Liberals, especially on the HST. That's very clear.

The B.C. Liberals told the public that they weren't going to bring in the HST. In fact, they put it in writing, and they turned around and brought it in. Then the government said the HST is going to be revenue-neutral. Now we find out it's not.

Well, the public is going to soon have their say. They want a straightforward response from this minister and this government. Will the Finance Minister commit today to restoring all of the exemptions to the PST when the public votes down the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Congratulations, Member, on your first question this session.

The member opposite continues to perpetuate misinformation on the HST, and that's unfortunate. The member says that there was never any talk about….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll address the revenue-neutral part for the member over on the other side heckling.

If the members would only read our budgets. Boy, it would be helpful if they just took the time to actually read the budget.

[ Page 6890 ]

I want to quote directly from the September 2009 budget update, where it says that the harmonization is "initially expected to be roughly fiscally neutral."

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute, Members, before you get excited.

"In future years harmonization is expected to result in increased revenues because the HST is a more stable and robust revenue source than the PST and will contribute to enhanced economic growth."

Then I want to take them to Budget 2010 . Apparently, they never read that one either. Once again, Budget 2010 — page 101, for the members' information: "In future years harmonization is expected to result in increased revenues to support essential services such as health care because HST is a more stable and robust revenue source than the PST and contributes to enhanced economic growth."

[1405]

Two budgets. They don't read them. They continue to misinform the public and pretend it was revenue-neutral when it's been clear as could possibly be in two different budgets that that is not the case. Please read the budgets, Member. It will help you ask informed questions of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON FAMILIES

C. James: I'd like to inform the Finance Minister that if any of those B.C. Liberals had learned to listen, they wouldn't be in the HST mess they're in now. I don't know how many ways the B.C. Liberals can find to avoid being upfront with the public.

Let's try another few facts that the B.C. Liberals put out there. They told the public…. You'll remember this one. You all told the public that the prices would drop when the HST came in. The large corporations were going to pass on the savings to consumers. They actually said that prices would come down.

Well, in fact, B.C.'s inflation rate has gone up. Prices have gone up. The B.C. Liberals brought in the HST. Prices are up. Families are struggling. I'd like to ask the Finance Minister: how does that put families first?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've heard the NDP now quoting selectively, of course, from the independent panel report which has received broad-based applause for the fact that it was a very balanced, independent view of the HST versus the members opposite's preferred method, which is to go back to a PST or a retail sales tax. No jurisdiction in the world, by the way, is doing that. But that is the NDP's preferred approach, which is fine. That's appropriate for them to do that.

You know, the member opposite talks about us not answering questions. I've actually answered questions on the HST almost every day in this House. But we have not heard the answer to the question that the NDP have yet to answer, which is that their preferred method of going back to the PST, which will certainly set British Columbia apart in the world — that is what the Leader of the Opposition said they're campaigning on — will result, as the independent panel notes, in almost $3 billion less revenue to the provincial government over the course of two years.

So we have still not heard the members answer the question on how they're going to increase spending in every single ministry in government while at the same time campaigning for a tax which dramatically reduces revenue to the government. Still haven't heard that answer.

D. Donaldson: Here's an example of how the supposed streamlined B.C. Liberal HST process has hit a family in my constituency. The Bassetts from Smithers recently purchased a horse trailer in Ohio. When they brought it home, they paid HST on the trailer — more than $2,100. They were expecting that.

But imagine their surprise when ICBC hit them up for HST again when they tried to register the trailer. They were told they would have to make a claim for reimbursement. As Ms. Bassett said: "We used to pay once. The HST has changed everything."

Does the minister believe that forcing a rural family to pay the B.C. Liberal HST twice is a good example of a streamlined tax system?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm happy to have the member bring that information to my office to look at. But you'll recall, we had another question by the NDP on apparently another family that was under some HST duress.

It was puzzling, to say the least, because it implied that they were spending about $140,000-plus on private health care that apparently they were receiving additional HST…. I asked the members to please bring that to my office so I could have a look, and still no sign of any information from the NDP caucus opposite.

[1410]

I hope this isn't going to be another situation where they allegedly have a situation, but they actually don't bring anything to our office even when we ask for that. To the member: I'm happy to look at that information. I would really appreciate it if you would actually bring it to our office so we could determine whether, in fact, that is actually the case.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[ Page 6891 ]

D. Donaldson: It's this government that just keeps breaking their promises on their HST. It was going to be revenue-neutral. Now it's not. It's no wonder. They're charging people twice and then taking months to pay them back.

The Bassetts expect it'll be four to five months before they get their money back. Now $2,100 might not be much to the B.C. Liberal donor corporations who are benefiting from this tax shift, but it's a significant burden to real B.C. families.

Now is it mismanagement by this government, or is it that the minister just doesn't care what is happening in communities with the B.C. Liberal HST on the ground?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, a few things that might be helpful for the member opposite to know. The member would know that we actually brought in an additional $200 homeowner grant for folks that live in rural British Columbia. That's what our government did. The member should know that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know it probably slipped the member's mind, but the member should also know that one of the things the independent panel reported out is that there will be an additional almost 25,000 new highly paid jobs created in British Columbia as a result of harmonizing the PST with the GST.

I am quite prepared to have the debate with the NDP who stand alone in believing that British Columbia should go in exactly the opposite direction of 140 jurisdictions around the world that have harmonized sales taxes and go back to a retail sales tax where nobody anywhere in the world is introducing them — including the communist countries, by the way. I find that very interesting.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

J. Horgan: For the past ten years we've seen increasing costs, increasing taxes on families, whether it's MSP premiums, whether it's escalating hydro rates, whether it's costs for families with seniors in continuing care. Now we learn that the B.C. Liberals want to increase auto insurance for citizens who get one single traffic violation — one single traffic violation.

One-third of British Columbians will see their auto insurance rates go up under the B.C. Liberal government, under this new plan that the minister is talking about today. Will she stand in her place today, stop the highway robbery, end it now before it starts?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's start with the fact that under the member opposite's reign, we had the highest personal income taxes in the entire country.

It is a concern to us. In fact, we've been very clear that we're going to put families first in British Columbia, and that's why, starting yesterday, I said that I have no comfort with assigning bad driving to a single speeding ticket in British Columbia. In fact, I have said to ICBC that I have significant concerns about the new model and, in fact, expect to sit down with them as early as tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

J. Horgan: The minister will forgive me if I don't take her exactly at her word. The president of the corporation said in the media today that the plan was to brand one-third of all drivers as bad drivers and increase their rates not for one year, not for two years, not for three years.

Will the minister, instead of dealing with this tomorrow, deal with it right now and say to British Columbians that it's not going to happen, that it won't happen on your watch?

Really simple, Minister. That's why they put you at the big table — so you can make decisions. Do it right now.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I think British Columbians recognize and understand the concept that if you're a good driver in British Columbia, probably some benefits should accrue to you. I've been very clear about that with ICBC. In fact, I didn't start today; I started yesterday having this conversation with ICBC.

As I said, this government has been clear that we expect drivers in British Columbia to think before they get in a car and drink. We expect them to watch excessive speeding. But we also recognize that there needs to be a test of reasonableness in terms of the new framework for ICBC. I've made that clear to the corporation, and I will sit down with them as soon as that is practical.

H. Bains: Penalties for bad drivers already exist. So frankly, no one, including many of your side of the House, believes a word that this minister says — or any family in this province. They said earlier, the same Liberals, that the HST would be revenue-neutral, but now we know that it will rake in millions of dollars more in revenue.

Now B.C. Liberals are telling families they need to jack up their car insurance rates for even a single speeding ticket.

My question to the minister is, again: will she admit that these will go too far and that it is just another B.C. Liberal tax grab?

[ Page 6892 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm not sure if the mike isn't working. [Laughter.]

I can assure the member opposite that I have made it perfectly clear to ICBC that we don't believe that a threshold of a single traffic ticket equates to being a bad driver and equating to increased rates in British Columbia. I've made that clear to the ICBC, so hopefully the member opposite has heard the message twice now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE

TERMINAL CONTRACT

S. Chandra Herbert: The opposition has learned that PavCo has recently decided to give its handpicked operator of Vancouver's floatplane terminal, the privately operated Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in subsidies over the course of its lease to try to get them to lower their charges to British Columbians who use floatplanes.

Can the minister tell this House how much of British Columbians' money is now going to subsidize this botched P3 project?

Hon. P. Bell: We are in ongoing consultations with both the leaseholders of the particular site that the member opposite refers to, as well as the floatplane operators. I'm hopeful we're going to find a positive resolution for the benefit of the tourism industry, for commuters who use that line, and I will not negotiate that contract either in this room or in the media.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

S. Chandra Herbert: A contract has actually been already signed with a number of floatplane operators that make up a tiny percentage of the big floatplane operators in B.C.

So my question is to the minister. Is it hundreds of thousands in rent for Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre — gone? Is it obligations to pay for hundreds of thousands in parking charges — gone, all paid for by British Columbians? Will the minister explain why British Columbians should be subsidizing a private business to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars over their term of the lease while that same operator soaks British Columbia flight users to the tune of nearly $20 a round trip?

Hon. P. Bell: It appears that the member opposite doesn't want to look for a constructive solution to the challenge that we have right now between the floatplane operators and the leaseholder of that particular piece of property.

I can tell you that this government does care about a constructive solution. We are working collaboratively with both sides to make sure that we get to a positive outcome. I'm not going to, in this room, negotiate publicly what needs to be a contract that can be constructive and provide tourism operators and commuters with an acceptable price point on their service.

S. Simpson: The minister has a responsibility to tell British Columbians whether they're going to be on the hook for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of subsidy to this private company while they continue to pay more to fly on these seaplanes. The minister has that responsibility.

The minister doesn't have to negotiate here. But stand up and tell British Columbians whether you are prepared to negotiate away those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of legitimate taxpayer income from this through PavCo. Are you going to negotiate it away — yes or no?

Hon. P. Bell: There are about 400,000 people who utilize the flight service to and from Victoria and Vancouver inner harbour on a yearly basis. It is important to the tourism industry of British Columbia, to the hoteliers on both sides of the water as well as to commuters. It's important that we have a reliable service, that we have a high-quality service, and we're in the process of trying to negotiate a suitable outcome for the beneficiary of those users as we speak.

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

S. Fraser: Despite what the minister for oil spills said yesterday in the House, First Nations from British Columbia and all of western Canada united in Calgary today to protest the Enbridge tar sands pipeline.

So this is going to the minister responsible for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Will she do her job as minister responsible? Will she stand in this House now and acknowledge First Nations' total opposition, and will she defend their rights as established in the courts, in the so-called new relationship and in the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for the question. Of course, it is in all of our interests in British Columbia to work well with First Nations, to consult with them, as we should, and to accommodate the kind of rights and title that they have in this province.

The Enbridge project is undergoing a full Canadian environmental assessment. There are strict requirements that they need to meet in that process. This is

[ Page 6893 ]

a very long process. It will likely take years to complete, and there's a joint review panel that has asked Enbridge to provide more information. There is a process that is being followed. Part of what we follow in our commitment to the new relationship is to ensure that First Nations are included appropriately all along the way.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: That's absurd. The joint review panel doesn't have one member from British Columbia here — not one. First Nations have said no. Here's part of a statement released today by the Yinka Dene Alliance. They're a group of five nations in British Columbia that collectively hold 25 percent of Enbridge's proposed pipeline route in northern British Columbia.

[1425]

"First Nations have used our ancestral laws to ban Enbridge pipeline and tankers from their lands…. Our nations are the wall this pipeline will not break through."

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: will the B.C. Liberals show some respect for First Nations by stopping their relentless promotion and defence of the Enbridge tar sands pipeline? Or is this truly the final nail in the coffin of the so-called new relationship?

Hon. M. Polak: I would be happy to take some time later to explain to the member opposite the difference between a federal process and a provincial one, but I won't bore the House with that now. What I can tell the member….

He seems to think that somehow he can make some headway describing our relationship with First Nations as not going well. Quite the contrary. No government in the history of British Columbia has done more to improve the relationship with First Nations in this province.

As I stand here, since 2002 we have signed forestry agreements with more than 172 First Nations in the province. We now have two modern-day treaties with six First Nations, one of which the member spoke about earlier in the House today.

To conclude, we not only have seen the Yale First Nation ratify their final agreement; the K'ómoks have ratified their agreement in principle. And 84 First Nations are in stage 4, and three more are in stage 5 — complete and utter success in that new relationship that's going to continue to go forward.

[End of question period.]

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. G. Abbott: This petition contains 2,755 signatures in opposition to proposed bylaw changes in the North Okanagan regional district to allow incineration in the local area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House, we will be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development, and in Committee A we will be going to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General estimates. If they get concluded, we will then move to the Ministry of Children and Family Development estimates.

[1430]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,339,088,000 (continued).

N. Simons: Perhaps the minister could begin by introducing the staff he has with him. I want to thank them for being here.

Hon. H. Bloy: If I could introduce the staff that's with me. We have my deputy minister, Mark Sieben. We have Molly Harrington, Wes Boyd and Rich Mowles. I would like to also mention Allison Bond, who was here yesterday and who I didn't get an opportunity to introduce.

N. Simons: Can the minister let me know what the budget is for Community Living B.C.?

Hon. H. Bloy: The budget for this fiscal year is $701 million.

N. Simons: Does the minister…? Is that an increase or decrease from last year, and can he give me the last three years and projected next three years?

[1435]

Hon. H. Bloy: For the year 2009-10 the budget was $717.7 million, but that included children. The budget for 2010-11 is $692.1 million, and the budget for 2011-12 is $701 million.

[ Page 6894 ]

N. Simons: I'd like to begin some questions on the pacific autism family centre. What's the status of that $20 million government commitment?

Hon. H. Bloy: I understand that the responsibility for the autism centre project rests with the ministry for housing. We understand that the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health are also participating in the development of the programs.

N. Simons: Considering the fact that this would potentially be a residential facility or an educational facility, a facility that is dedicated to the advancement of education on autism, autism being one of the main service categories that the minister delivers, does he not believe that he has a role in this project as well?

[1440]

Hon. H. Bloy: We have been participating in discussions on the project, but the majority of it is with children and will be handled through Ministry of Children and Families.

N. Simons: A $20 million commitment with probably a serious amount of funding to go for operational costs. Considering the pressure on services and resources available to families and to adults and children with developmental disabilities in this province, does the minister consider $20 million for what many consider to be a vanity project is appropriate expenditure of finances?

Hon. H. Bloy: The funding of $20 million is through the Minister Responsible for Housing, and these questions are best directed towards that ministry.

N. Simons: One of the most important issues for families with members who have autism or other developmental or cognitive disabilities is the continuity of service. I believe that when you establish a program that potentially can drain resources from one sector to another…. There is an adult component to the autism centre. It's been described in reports that have been leaked to the public. Does the minister not believe that he should be playing a role in any planning around this facility?

Hon. H. Bloy: This ministry has been participating in discussions, and this project is still a long way off. From all early indications, we expect it to be a world leader in autism research that will benefit not only British Columbia and the people here but much further.

N. Simons: Can the minister describe the various components that would be housed in this facility?

[1445]

Hon. H. Bloy: It's my understanding that the programs to be delivered are currently under development. These questions are best directed towards the minister responsible for the project.

N. Simons: Well, the minister says he's involved with the development of this program, or his ministry is. We see $20 million being given by the same government that would otherwise provide services to adults and other children with developmental disabilities. Does he not believe that it's appropriate for the minister responsible for social development to be involved in decisions that allocate government expenditures for services that fall within his purview, such as this project?

Hon. H. Bloy: We are pleased to take all questions related to this ministry's 2011-12 budget estimates. The $20 million referenced is not part of that budget. This ministry staff will continue to be involved in the discussions with other ministries. However, this ministry is not the lead ministry.

The Chair: The member has heard that.

[1450]

N. Simons: Presumably, the $20 million has nothing to do with Community Living B.C. or the Ministry of Social Development. The $20 million donated by friends of the former Premier seems to still be on the books. Does the minister at least know the status of the project?

The Chair: Member, this line item is not in this budget. This is the estimates for the Ministry of Social Development.

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

The question that, really, residents of this province recognize and the ministry needs to recognize is that what the government has been saying they've been doing is trying to develop seamless transition from youth to adulthood for people with developmental disabilities and for people with autism. Now I'm hearing from the minister…. In fact, a program costing $20 million — when there's such a lack of adequate funding for people with developmental disabilities, adults with developmental disabilities — is highly relevant to his ministry.

I think it's the minister's responsibility to take an active role and determine whether or not this is the best expenditure of money when that money otherwise would be going to programs and services for people throughout our communities. Does the minister believe that it's appropriate to have centralized programs and services, rather than services spread across the province, for adults with community living issues?

[1455]

[ Page 6895 ]

Hon. H. Bloy: As we've indicated before, this ministry is participating in the discussions led by another ministry. Questions regarding expenditures made by another minister are best responded to by that minister.

The member may wish to rephrase his question regarding the services centralized versus those that are decentralized. Ministry of Social Development is mainly decentralized and the same for Community Living British Columbia, so we would be pleased to answer any questions in that area.

The Chair: I will recognize the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast but caution the member on relevance to the item under discussion, which is the estimates for the Ministry of Social Development.

N. Simons: Absolutely, hon. Chair, and thank you for that caution. It was a friendly caution, one of the friendlier cautions I've had. A yellow card, I guess.

My question, if I could complete my concern around the Pacific autism family centre: does the minister know if there's anyone in his ministry or in CLBC that is actively taking

part in one way or another in discussions, consultations, review or investigations around the development of this centre?

Hon. H. Bloy: As I have already identified, ministry staff have participated and will continue to participate in the discussions related to the development of the Pacific autism centre.

[1500]

N. Simons: Madam Chair, I hope that last answer allows me a little bit of leeway in that it seems to me that the budget allocated to CLBC, at least in part, is being used to address issues around the issue I'm raising.

Can the minister tell me what involvement that is — what involvement CLBC has, in what capacity?

The Chair: I would ask the member to continue his questioning of CLBC budget items.

N. Simons: The minister just got a free ride there. That was a "penalty that wasn't called" kind of thing. However, there were a lot of questions, and a lot of people are concerned about Community Living B.C.

For those in the gallery, I'm going through the minister's budget line item by line item. I was just getting too specific there, I suppose. I think that's the ruling.

Can the minister explain the concern that the B.C. Association for Community Living has about the purported increase in the budget? In fact, is the increase the equivalent to the amount being spent on a pilot project? And can the minister describe that pilot project?

[1505]

Hon. H. Bloy: The member refers to a budget increase for a pilot project. There was no pilot project last year. An increase was provided for personal supports initiatives, which is an ongoing program. This year's budget includes an increase for ongoing operations.

N. Simons: What was the increase for operations?

Hon. H. Bloy: The increase in the budget for this year is $8.9 million for ongoing operations.

N. Simons: Can the minister describe where that $8.9 million is going to be spent in operations?

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd like to assure the member across the way that 93 percent of Community Living B.C.'s budget is spent directly on providing services and programs to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. This increase is part of that.

N. Simons: Just to be clear, the $8.9 million increase is for operational funds. Was that what the minister said earlier? My Hansard isn't immediate. Okay.

Can the minister tell us how many adults are currently receiving residential services — in other words, group home or home share — through CLBC?

[1510]

Hon. H. Bloy: We have 2,399 individuals in staffed residential, and we have 3,099 in home-sharing or semi-independent living arrangements.

N. Simons: Can the minister tell me how many adults are being provided with day programming? I don't know how the minister categorizes all of those, but if I could get sort of a breakdown of how many are employment, just day recreational programs or whatever categories the ministry or CLBC uses.

Hon. H. Bloy: I can give you a number in total: 7,793 individuals are using planning assistance, family support or community inclusion services — if that's satisfying to the member. I don't have a breakdown right now of all the different projects.

N. Simons: I think that it might be misleading for people to hear total numbers when provision of service actually includes planning. I think, for me, it would be helpful to know how many adults are actually using day programs that are funded by CLBC through its contracted agencies.

[1515]

[ Page 6896 ]

Hon. H. Bloy: We can assure the member that the 7,793 amount represents services to individuals beyond just the planning function. We are happy to provide the member with a breakdown at a later date.

N. Simons: It's just that the service plan indicates that there are 13,291 adults with a developmental disability receiving supports. That's a high number. Obviously, the numbers provided don't quite add up, so maybe they're left over, as those who are in planning.

Can the minister tell me if this reflects an increase or a decrease in the number of adults being served?

Hon. H. Bloy: As of March 31, 2011, 13,481 eligible individuals with developmental disabilities were registered for services with Community Living B.C., a 6 percent increase compared to March 31, 2010, and a 35 percent increase over the last five years. The March 31 actual number was 12,715, and as of March 31, 2011, the number is 13,481.

N. Simons: Just to get to the group homes again, can the minister tell me how many group homes that represents, how many home share arrangements that represents, so I can get an idea of vacancies, etc.?

[1520]

Hon. H. Bloy: We'll provide the number of share homes earlier, and we have 3,099 as of March 31, 2011. In group homes…. We have 747 group homes in the province. We will get the number of homes for home share at a later date.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, I'm sorry. Sometimes it's like when you're playing pool, and it takes too long to take your next shot. You get out of rhythm — right? So here we are. It's my shot, and I can't remember what I shot last time. Am I high ball or low ball?

[1525]

But I'm just thinking that maybe you high-balled the number in the residential services for people living in group homes, because you've got 747 group homes and 2,399 residents of staffed resources. Am I mixing up numbers or did I get the number wrong last time or all of the above? I'll wait for the answer.

Hon. H. Bloy: I would like to agree with the member across the way from me. He was correct.

N. Simons: So can the minister tell me how many group homes there were last year and how many there were the year before?

Hon. H. Bloy: Last year there were 787 group homes, and prior to that there were approximately 810. It's an estimate; we don't have that number with us.

N. Simons: So the figures are correct that in the last year 33 group homes were closed?

Hon. H. Bloy: So 33 group homes were closed as of December 31, 2010, but for the fiscal year of March 31, 2011, 40 group homes in total were closed.

N. Simons: Can the minister tell the House how many empty spaces exist in group homes that are still open? How many vacancies are there currently in staffed residential care facilities?

[1530]

Hon. H. Bloy: We do not have an exact number of vacancies. However, we operate close to capacity on four-, five- and six-room, six-bed….

N. Simons: I should assure the minister that I will not hold him to the specific wording. It is a new ministry, and I recognize that. It's an important one, and it's one that has a huge impact on families throughout this province. So I really do believe that the voices of these families need to be heard in this House, and policies need to reflect their needs and their concerns.

Clearly, closing 40 group homes has had an impact on not just the individuals in those homes but the families who have supported them, and their friends and their support networks. Can the minister project how many more group homes are going to close in the next fiscal year?

[1535]

Hon. H. Bloy: There is no planned target to close residential group homes. We anticipate that there may be further adjustments on the use of group homes as a result of Community Living British Columbia pursuing its resource management policies, as stated on page 15 of the CLBC service plan — for example, "ensuring residential services are aligned with disability-related need to help avoid unnecessary placements in staffed residential resources, encouraging adults in staffed residential resources to explore more inclusive community alternatives such as home-sharing."

N. Simons: Can the minister tell me how he would suggest that home-sharing is a more inclusive community alternative than living with three friends in a group home for ten years?

[1540]

Hon. H. Bloy: There are 2,260 home-shared facilities. Community Living British Columbia, like service providers in other jurisdictions, is using home-sharing as a means of increasing individual participation in community-based activities, rather than being tied to scheduled activities in the large group home setting.

[ Page 6897 ]

These facilities increase independence and participation in the community, based on activities then that are available in a group home setting.

Let me tell you a story about an individual — Jim's story. Jim was 47 years old when he moved into a group home. Jim came from his family home. Jim enjoyed his group home for a number of years, but over time people moved in and out, the staff was changing, and his parents noticed that he wasn't very happy. They had a discussion with Jim. He said he still enjoyed his work, but he wasn't happy at the home, especially after his best friend passed away.

Jim and his parents and his circle of friends met with Community Living British Columbia, and they decided on a plan for him. They all worked together, and they thought that home-sharing would be the best outcome.

[1545]

At the second home that Jim visited, he knew that was his home. He just felt it when he walked in. He's been there over two years now. He plans fishing trips with them. He's part of the family. He's gone on holidays with them.

Community Living British Columbia offered a choice. Things change as people mature over the years, so CLBC offered a choice, and Jim chose a choice. That was shared accommodations, and I believe that Jim has a better life today.

N. Simons: I don't know Jim, but I am glad that the choice was given to him. I think that options in residential care are something that should be part of every service provision. I also think that the best options should be available.

I'm just wondering. In your service plan it says: "Contract management and oversight has been a focus since CLBC's inception. Over the four years ended March 31, 2010, annual ongoing savings from redesigning services and contract recoveries totalled over $50 million." Am I just to presume that those are savings from reduced costs for group homes, and are they being put into day program services? Or where is that $50 million going?

Hon. H. Bloy: The savings are being directed to those individuals that are primary on the requests for service.

N. Simons: How many people are waiting for residential services — currently on a wait-list?

[1550]

Hon. H. Bloy: We're unable to provide a number of those requesting residential services here, but we will get that number for you. We can identify that CLBC's goal is to provide some level of service within six months, and that may include some requests for residential service.

N. Simons: Okay. The issue is that there are people waiting for residential care, and there are families that are struggling, are in crisis and are waiting for care. The minister is unable to tell me if there are any empty beds or how many empty beds there are, and now he can't tell me how many people are actually on a wait-list for those empty beds. But we do know that there are empty beds and that there is a wait-list. Can the minister explain that?

[1555]

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bloy: Supports and services to individuals are allocated based on individual need, and in a group home setting, compatibility with other residents is essential. It is not the case that vacancies are being stockpiled. If a vacancy meets the needs of an individual based on the two

interpretations that I've given, then CLBC will fill that vacancy.

N. Simons: Well, I understand that that answer was proofread three times, and I understand that the philosophy of the provincial government is to ensure that cost pressures are addressed by CLBC. That's probably why we've seen an increase and concern among resident families. We've seen a massive decrease in the number of services available to families.

In a way, it's almost like you chopped up a service and sort of sprinkled the remnants to families who, at the time, were not receiving any. We have people who are desperate in this province for care for their children — in many cases adult children who have transitioned from getting some services before they were 19 to absolutely no services after 19.

[1600]

I think that it's incumbent on government to recognize that there are certain needs that were considered essential five years ago that are now considered outside of the individualized funding model.

This ministry has a lot of acronyms, but it also has a lot of euphemisms. I think the euphemism for service cuts is "service redesign." Service redesign casts a chill among service providers and families because they know that redesign, for this government, means removal of services.

We've seen group homes closed, and we've seen group homes closed without the adequate consultation with the clients in those homes, their families and their caregivers. It's built into the structure of the redesign, the structure which requires people to go to communities, do a cursory analysis of their needs and assign them a disability rating. That rating will

[ Page 6898 ]

be associated with a cost provided to that contracted agency.

It's anything but individualized. It's a cookie-cutter approach, and I think it is not serving families that have a member who has a developmental disability.

We see aging parents caring for their adult child at home. We see absolute burnout. We see impacts — physical impacts, mental health impacts — and they are growing, because the needs are growing in our community. The demand on service is growing, and it's untenable that the government can consider redesign as the answer, especially when redesign means capping services at the current rate.

We've seen an increase in the cost of living. We've seen an increase in the cost of practically every need that a family has over the last six years. In this particular case we've seen families needing services from a government agency, which they can't get from anywhere else, being lost.

Does the minister realize that there have been group home closures that have gone against the wishes of the families of the residents, of the residents themselves and of the caregivers who look after many of these adults?

[1605]

Hon. H. Bloy: I am aware that group homes have closed. They have closed for a variety of reasons, and group homes are not closed primarily on a budget rationale. Group homes will continue to be a big part of Community Living B.C.'s model.

In the late '80s and '90s the closure of large residential institutions introduced four-bed group homes as the best-practice standard. While current thinking deems four-bed group homes to be within the community, they are still considered somewhat institutional. For this reason, an alternative to staffed residences may be appropriate for some of the people that Community Living B.C. supports. In 2006-07 found that 360 individuals were interested in exploring alternatives to group homes.

From April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, 40 homes closed, representing 5 percent of the existing group homes and 4 percent of the residents. The 111 residents have transitioned to other residential arrangements that meet their disability-related needs, including other group homes or home-sharing — 66 to group homes, 18 to shared living, one to supported living and eight deceased.

Eighteen individuals continue to be supported by Community Living B.C. but are no longer receiving residential services. Many of the group homes that closed had two residents, and their new living arrangements will provide for more community interaction with the appropriate supports.

It is important to understand that some group homes closed due to people aging and individuals requesting different housing options in their communities. Over the years many individuals were placed in group homes who were able to live more independently and subsequently enjoyed more social and community integration. Between April 2007 and March 2011, 248 individuals residing in group homes passed away.

N. Simons: I can't imagine that the minister has visited a group home and still has the impression that they're institutional. Can the minister tell me: when was the last time he visited a group home?

Hon. H. Bloy: In my position as Minister of Social Development and responsible for Community Living B.C., I have not visited a group home. In my position as an MLA, I have visited group homes.

[1610]

N. Simons: Was his position when he was an MLA the same as it is now — that group homes are institutional?

Hon. H. Bloy: I do look forward to visiting more group homes after this session is finished in mid-June. While I agree with the member that there are a variety of care models through group homes, they tend to share a commonality of scheduling activities through the course of a day — as a result of accommodating meals, staffing schedules, etc. Some do better than others at being less institutionalized.

[1615]

I've already identified that group homes will continue to be part of Community Living B.C.'s service delivery. This government and Community Living B.C. have no plans to close or eliminate group homes. This is part of our model in Community Living British Columbia and will always be a part of our model.

N. Simons: Before families across the province rejoice, I believe that the minister is simply saying that he was not going to use any new model to close group homes — that in fact we will continue to use group homes but that some will close. I believe that's the minister's response, because earlier he did project that there would be future closures.

My question is: does he realize that the staffing component…? After some beds close and people move out…. They're being moved out because the contract will only pay a certain amount, based on that individual's need, based on their disability rating.

When the folks from CLBC reassess a client's disability level or ability level, they will be provided with a certain amount of money for that person's level of disability. If it means that they no longer can afford to live in a group home, it may also mean that others can no longer afford the day services.

Does the minister recognize that service reductions do not only impact on group homes but that in fact,

[ Page 6899 ]

day programming throughout the province has been cut back?

[1620]

Hon. H. Bloy: When individuals move from a group home setting to a home share, there are services that accompany that individual to help support individual increase or inclusion in their community activities. Wherever possible, the same service provider is used.

The Chair: We'll take a short recess and reconvene in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

M. Mungall: Just the other day Shelly Devito — who is a contractor with CLBC; she has several group homes in Nelson — contacted my office to let us know that she was, in fact, forced to shut down Rosemont house, which had two women residents. One woman went to a group home in Castlegar; the other went into a home share.

What she made really clear is that neither one of these women had any choice with where they were going to go or the fact that they had to move, because the house was being shut down. She felt that the word "forced" was very accurate, actually.

This stands in stark contradiction to what the minister has said, which is: "No one has ever been removed from a group home in the province of British Columbia without their explicit choice" — and choice being the key word here.

Definitely, the two clients of Shelly Devito did not have any choice. That house was being shut down. I wonder if the minister could please comment on this discrepancy.

[1635]

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd like to reiterate that we do not force people to move. It's always a decision. However, I'll follow up on the specific circumstances of what you've said, and we will get back to you.

M. Mungall: I think what's important to note here is that the government is in a position of power, a position of authority. They can give notice on a contract and say that funding is no longer going to be provided and that the particular housing support service for people with disabilities is going to be shut down. That, in and of itself, is forcing someone to move.

So every single time this minister says that we don't force anybody, I feel like he is deeply misleading the people of British Columbia. In a systematic way, that's exactly what the minister is doing here, and it is shameful.

Shelly Devito again said that she is feeling like she is being threatened and that the Nelson house, which is another community home for people with disabilities, is being threatened with closure through attrition in this way.

That house provides three places for clients. Currently it has two clients and one open space, but it's not being filled, despite wait-lists in the community. This is something that we've been hearing on this side of the House from people all over British Columbia who work in community living — this attrition method of shutting down homes. That's precisely what's happening here in Nelson. Can the minister please comment on that?

[1640]

Hon. H. Bloy: There are a variety of reasons why group homes close. We do not know the specific circumstances in Nelson. However, as stated earlier, Community Living British Columbia matches individuals' needs and the compatibility of the residents when considering placement options. As I committed to before, we'll look into the circumstances in Nelson, and we'll let you know.

M. Sather: Bramble house was a fine home for folks with developmental disabilities in Maple Ridge and a very strong family atmosphere. The residents used to go camping together, and they had holidays together. There were lots of shops locally that they could go to, and they had a great deal of independence.

[1645]

Now some of them have been sent to quite remote areas. I wanted to ask the minister: why was Bramble house in Maple Ridge closed?

Hon. H. Bloy: I'm not aware of the specific circumstances associated with the closure of Bramble house. We anticipate that those formerly living at Bramble house are now living in other residential settings suitable to their disability needs.

M. Sather: I'm actually surprised that the minister's staff — I've been hearing this through the afternoon — doesn't have awareness of the various closures. I am somewhat surprised about that.

Nonetheless, now the minister said in this House a few days ago that everyone has had a choice of where they want to live. He then said today: "We don't force people to move; it's always a decision." I'm having a hard time understanding what the minister means here when he says: "It's always a decision." A decision by whom?

[1650]

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, the decision is made. There's a planning process that revolves around the family, the individuals and the service providers. The decisions

[ Page 6900 ]

will be made based on the individual's disability needs. But ultimately, Member, the decision is made by the individual.

M. Sather: Loni Neville was one of the residents that lived in Bramble house. She has a degenerative disease that will result in her being wheelchair-bound. Now, her socialization, her medical needs were met there. And when Bramble house closed, she was forced…. I think that's the correct word, because it was not her choice. It was not her parents' choice. We've talked to the parents. They said no; it was definitely not their choice for her to be moved.

I don't know why the minister is continuing to stick with that line. Would he actually say, then, given the information that I've provided, if he wants to accept it as correct…? Would he still maintain that Loni Neville had a choice to remain at Bramble house?

[1655]

Hon. H. Bloy: We don't know the circumstances of this individual or of Bramblewood house and for Ms. Neville. We will check into this for you and get back to you, but I can reiterate again that no one is forced out of a home.

M. Sather: I have to respectfully disagree with the minister. I would say, in fact, that my constituent Loni Neville was forced out of her home.

Can the minister tell me: are there individuals, clients, in group homes and community living whose assessment of their functioning level when they leave a group home is sometimes attributed a higher rating than when they were assessed in the home itself?

Hon. H. Bloy: Disability-related needs change on an ongoing basis. They require an ongoing review and assessment for an individual. The member has outlined what could potentially occur, as with other scenarios. For example, disability needs may lessen or increase.

[1700]

Someone who's in a home care setting may require more intensive care and move to a group home.

M. Sather: Well, Loni has been moved to a homestay setting, and now she's going to have to move again. She's — I'll use the word — being required to move again, according to her parents, within just three months.

Now, we maintain, based on what the family said…. In fact, they say that the home is capable of dealing with the level of need that Loni has, but when she left the group home, they said she was at a higher functioning level, if that's the correct term, than what she actually was. So when she was moved to this new home, they said that it's not appropriate for her.

Why she was put in that home in the first place, I don't understand. But it appears to me very much that what is happening is that people like Loni are…. She just got this reassessment — bingo! — when she left. It wasn't a change in her circumstances. She was simply reassigned at a higher functioning level than she actually is. So they put her into a home, and now three months later she has to move.

Not knowing the specific circumstances but understanding this file, can the minister tell me, then, what other reasons there could be? Why would she then have to move again against her will?

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd have to agree with the member. This doesn't seem normal. It's something you wouldn't expect within three months. As I said earlier, we will look into it, and we will get back to you on this matter.

M. Sather: So can the minister tell me what options there are for Loni and her family, for her to be moved to another facility in Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows? What's out there for her and her family?

[1705]

Hon. H. Bloy: We do not know the available options at this moment. We have committed to checking into the options available, and we'll be in touch with the individual and her family within a week.

M. Sather: Finally, on that issue, here's what Loni's mother, Gayle Morrissette, had to say about the closure of Bramble house and her daughter's situation. "It's just such a shame they closed that house down. It was a wonderful place. Everybody there had jobs, and they had lots of friends. It's just not the same as having" — and here she was referring to the placement she now has — "two or three staff and means to go to the hospital if she has to."

I appreciate the minister's comments, and I just want to know again, specifically, what he will do to assist this family.

The Chair: Member, did you put a question to the minister?

M. Sather: Yes, I asked the minister specifically what he would do to assist this family.

Hon. H. Bloy: As I've already stated to the member, we don't know the circumstances of this individual or the home, but we've committed to checking into the available services with the individual and with her family, and we will be in touch with her within one week.

M. Sather: Loni Neville's friend from Bramble house, Stephanie Kleckner, was also forced to move against her will and the will of her mother when Bramble house closed. She now lives alone in the basement suite of a

[ Page 6901 ]

private home. She feels lonely, and she feels that she's lost her independence. Her mother said the placement is not working out.

Can I get the same commitment from the minister for this family? The two families, the girls, the young women, are friends. Can I get his commitment for the Kleckner family, as well, that within one week he will contact them and assist this family?

[1710]

Hon. H. Bloy: We are going to look into Bramble house, and we'll look into this individual also.

N. Simons: I think it's clear just with two examples that the minister's statement about non-forced closures does not match the reality facing families in this province. And I suppose you could have some arguments over semantics. What's a forced closure, and what is an "urged under pain of suffering" closure?

I think in the case of…. What we see now is that you have service providers who are being forced by CLBC to reduce their costs. When you have a service agency, an association or a society that receives funding from Community Living B.C., they're being told by Community Living B.C. that they have to find efficiencies. Those efficiencies are going to come out of somewhere, and that somewhere is usually in residential care or in day programs provided to individuals with developmental disabilities.

The impact of these cuts is severe, not just on the families but on the community as a whole. We have people who can't keep their jobs for as long. They aren't getting the support they need. We have people who are unable to attend day programming.

You want to talk about stories. There's one fellow in Powell River who stands by the door and waits for the lift that has picked him up for 20 years to bring him to the day program. He is no longer eligible for the day program because of the cuts that CLBC is forcing on these service agencies.

But let me point it out. It is not CLBC that's at fault; it's the government. And it's the minister's responsibility to ensure that CLBC has adequate funding to meet the needs of people in our communities — people of all abilities and, in particular, vulnerable people with developmental disabilities.

Does the minister personally think there's adequate funding to CLBC?

[1715]

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living British Columbia was created by this government with a purpose in mind: to improve supports to people with developmental disabilities through innovation, practice and increasing inclusion in our communities. Community Living B.C. is fulfilling that purpose and promise. Community Living British Columbia continues to find ways to serve more individuals with developmental disabilities and their families year after year.

I have a few examples to offer the member, to demonstrate the powerful change occurring in people's lives as a result of Community Living B.C.'s approach and the commitment of the Community Living B.C. staff and service providers.

I acknowledge that there are pressures on Community Living B.C.'s ability to provide even more services. Budgets, at the end of the day, are finite. We continue to work with Community Living B.C. on ways to maintain and expand services while managing what will always be a finite budget.

This government, though, has a strong record of supporting Community Living B.C., including significant budget increases since Community Living B.C. was established, notwithstanding an extremely challenging economic downturn, a difficult period for a government to maintain and expand services. Community Living B.C.'s budget was not cut. It has never been cut. In fact, it has steadily risen.

I can tell you that my personal commitment, responsible for Community Living B.C., is to work very hard to support all the services that Community Living B.C. provides for those individuals and their families.

N. Simons: It would be fulfilling to hear that kind of statement if it were not for the fact that Community Living B.C. was developed through years and years of dedicated work from families who have been asking for a system that met the needs of their family members more efficiently and more close to their actual needs in their communities. If you ask anybody involved in the Association for Community Living or families now, they are saying this system has not worked. Their dream has not come true.

This minister may say nice things about the whole idea of community living, but you talk about a finite budget. It's up to the minister to make a case, to say that it's important enough to increase the budget for families who are suffering. These families are in crisis. Their adult children often require 24-hour care. They're often required to provide that care under the stress of having other children in the home that have other needs.

If the minister wants to say that everything's fine — that it's a finite budget, that this was a dream and that CLBC is fine — he is dreaming in Technicolor. This is a problem that everybody in the province recognizes. Every advocacy group that isn't getting rich off being advocates for people with developmental disabilities is saying that the system needs more funding.

I'm saying it needs more funding, not just to throw money at it but because families are in crisis. It is the responsibility of government to make proper choices as to how they allocate funding, and $20 million to a Pacific

[ Page 6902 ]

autism family centre, which has been asked for by no one except significant donors to the Liberal Party — that is a bad choice, in my opinion.

I think that's what this minister needs to take on. This minister needs to learn his file, he needs to understand the needs of the families in this province, and he needs to make a case to his government, to his Treasury Board, to say that families are suffering out in the street. They're suffering in the north, and they're suffering in urban parts of our province. They're suffering everywhere.

[1720]

If the minister is continually using an excuse for the cutting of services, then families have a lot to fear. My responsibility as an opposition member of this House is to ensure that government is held to account, and by holding the government to account on its priorities of spending…. It means government is not spending enough to ensure that families stay out of crisis.

The costs of not addressing these families' needs are significantly higher. If families can't be participant in the care of their family members and everything is left to government, that's understandable. That's untenable. But we're asking that support be provided for families so they can continue to provide the necessary support.

Three or four years ago we were seeing respite services cut for people with developmental disabilities. A few years ago we saw gaming grants cut to Special Olympics. These are people who are vulnerable in our community. I believe that we need to show as a society that we will care for those who are least capable of caring for themselves, and right now they are suffering.

I would agree that there was a dream about CLBC — that CLBC would provide the services necessary for families. I have absolutely no doubt that the people working for CLBC are doing the best they can, but the best they can is limited by a government that doesn't have vision for the future. It's incumbent on this minister to recognize what those hardships really mean in family terms, in terms of day-to-day existence.

I implore this minister to take adequate attention and adequate time to look at the budgets and to look at the restrictions. We're seeing a 5½ percent increase in demand. I'm not blaming the government for that, but if the government insists on trying to maintain a cap on funding for services, you know that services are going to be reduced. You know that the certain services…. It's going to be sprinkle and crumbs for everyone and not a piece of bread for anyone — just crumbs.

I think that the minister needs to recognize that there are ways of delivering services efficiently. There's nothing wrong with reviewing services, but involve the families, involve the advocates, and involve the people who are receiving the services themselves.

The system that's being used right now is a stealthy system. You go into communities, you talk to the person who's living in the group home, and you talk to a couple of people.

Talk to the families. Find out from the families what these individuals need. Find out from their caregivers what they need. Don't be selective in how you review the needs of the family. That is what's happening. Families are being left out. Caregivers are being left out.

Now we have the situation where people are moving to share homes, family-sharing. I think there's nothing wrong with that, but who's looking over those? Who is actually making sure that these homes are adequate? Who's making sure that for the quality of life of individuals moved from group homes to home share, they're actually living the same kind of fulfilling lives?

In the staff resources we have accreditation. You have standards; you have reviews. You have people who are professionally trained. In home share you have people who have been recruited on eBay, asking for mortgage helpers. You know, these are not the people that we are necessarily trying to recruit to look after our vulnerable adults.

Does the minister know what the difference is between the services that an individual receives in a group home and the services they receive when they're living in a home share?

[1725-1730]

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to tell the member across that I do appreciate his concern and passion on this event, and I want to assure the member that we have not seen any cuts. In fact, the budget has increased year after year. I want to acknowledge that there is increased demand for the services from Community Living B.C.

Here are some of the CLBC's expectations of home care, home share placements.

"Home-sharing is a residential option in which an adult with a developmental disability shares a home with someone who is contracted to provide ongoing support. Home-sharing may be offered by community-based agencies or directly by Community Living B.C. Homes may be owned or rented by the home-sharing provider or by the individual requiring support."

Community Living B.C. has specific policies and standards to ensure that individuals receive consistent, high-quality support in all residential arrangements.

"Policies are clearly written rules that define the expectations Community Living B.C. has of home-sharing providers in specific situations."

The following policies govern Community Living B.C.: approval of Community Living B.C.–contracted home-sharing providers, bathing guidelines, behaviour support and safety planning, complaints resolution, criminal record checks, critical incidence, investigations of abuse and neglect, monitoring of CLBC-contracted home-sharing providers, respite guidelines, standards for home-sharing.

The majority of home-sharing arrangements are provided by community agencies accredited by the Com-

[ Page 6903 ]

mission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, CARF, or the Council on Accreditation.

The number of individuals selecting this residential option has increased by more than 350 percent in the past 15 years and continues to show steady growth in popularity. It is the fastest-growing residential option within the province, and there are now approximately 3,100 adults who live in home-sharing arrangements funded by Community Living B.C.

Home-sharing occurs in virtually every community, either through CLBC or a qualified service-provision agency. Over 50 percent of home-sharing providers have more than 50 years experience. Many of these providers have been supporting the same individual for over 15 years.

S. Simpson: The minister talks about home shares. Well, home shares are fast becoming the only residential option for people who are in the system as we increasingly see group homes becoming less and less an option.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As the minister will know, even in the Guide to Support Allocation now, the option of home shares is not a consideration in much of the Guide to Support Allocation . That's the reality we have.

But the minister is trying to tell us that there's no cut. The minister may want to talk about the semantics of money here, so my question to the minister would be this. We have a $681 million budget. We're going to continue to have that $681 million budget again next year and the year after, based on the current budget.

[1735]

We also, as the minister knows, are expecting to add about 600 people a year over the next couple of years in terms of service requirements from CLBC. So we're going to increase the number of people who require service by about 600 people a year. The reality is that some of those people are requiring maybe $50,000, $60,000, if they're in residential care. A group home care may be closer to $100,000 a year to provide service for those individuals.

So what has occurred here — and the minister might want to check this out — is that we've seen the ministry…. CLBC might call it efficiencies. We've seen the better part of $22 million of service reductions through efficiencies. That $22 million…. It's still in the budget, but it's the money that's going to be used to help pay for those 600 people's services.

There has been a noticeable reduction in services available. We know of all of the young people coming up who we increasingly are hearing "get to wait-lists…." They don't get service.

Will the minister acknowledge that while, as he says, the budget stays at $681 million, the requirement service obligations of CLBC…? So 600-odd new people a year for the next few years. There's no new money to provide services for those people. Instead they're being got out of the budgets.

So maybe we'll start with this question. Based on average service costs — and there is an average cost — could the minister tell us how much it will cost to provide service to those 600 new people who are expected to come in to CLBC?

[1740]

Hon. H. Bloy: In response to the member, you know, I can't give him a specific number. It depends on the developmental needs.

I can say that government has a strong history of supporting Community Living British Columbia, and I can say as minister that I'm committed to working and supporting Community Living British Columbia always, to provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

[1745]

S. Simpson: I find it remarkable that it took quite that much time to create that answer.

The reality is this: 600 people, based on what we know costs are; about $30 million to deliver services, give or take a million — about $30 million to deliver CLBC services, more or less. That's the real number. That's roughly what we're dealing with.

The question to the minister is this. He can either deny that number is in the ballpark, or he can accept that. The minister can then tell us where that $30 million comes from in terms of existing services.

We don't want to hear efficiencies. We don't want to hear rhetoric. Give us a list of what changes in terms of real services, because what we know changes is that 33 group homes close. It's about $100,000 for somebody in a group home. It's probably a little less than $50,000 to put them in a home share. That's where they find some of that money. It's reductions in respite dollars. That's where they find that money. It's reductions in day programs. That's where they find that money.

It's time for the minister to take the time to answer the question. Get your facts. You have a very capable staff there with you. Tell us where those reductions are coming from. Give us a list — $30 million, more or less.

[1750]

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, the activities that Community Living B.C. is engaging in…. It's no secret that demand is growing. They are identified in Community Living B.C.'s service plan on page 15, and I want to read that into the record.

"Community Living B.C.'s planning and resource allocation decisions are guided by the literature, which indicates the best quality-of-life outcomes for adults with developmental disability result from being integrated into family and community life.

[ Page 6904 ]

The evolution of Community Living B.C.–funded supports and services increasingly reflect this principle.

"Community Living B.C. manages and allocates resources in a transparent and equitable manner at the local level by allocating funding to the 11 quality service areas based on demographics and regional factors; using the Guide to Support Allocation to consistently measure an individual's level of disability-related need and applying the Catalogue of Services to ensure an appropriate funded response; establishing and managing a request-for-service list to capture support requests, disability-related needs of individuals and address them in a systematic and equitable way; and implementing the Request for Service Priority Tool to consistently measure the urgency of an individual's support needs.

"Community Living B.C. staff use the following general strategies to manage resources: maintaining family involvement whenever possible; promoting employment as an alternative to traditional day services; cultivating greater community involvement and developing cost-effective, sustainable, person-focused solutions; ensuring residential services are aligned with the disability-related need to help avoid unnecessary placements in staffed residential resources; encouraging adults in staffed residential resources to explore more inclusive community alternatives such as home-sharing; assisting individuals and families to develop individual support plans that balance the use of funded supports and services with access to generic services that citizens without disabilities use, and informal supports provided by family, friends and neighbours; supporting individuals and families to maintain independence; and making effective use of small amounts of flexible funding to prevent the need for more expensive supports later on.

"The above strategies help manage the level of Community Living B.C.'s response that is required to address an individual's disability-related need.

Response costs are managed through using negotiated sectorwide rates for union and non-union providers and competitive procurement processes; using standardized funding templates that help staff develop and evaluate service costs based on the negotiated rates; incorporating service levels — hours of service — into contracts with monitoring processes that help identify and recover funding for non-delivery of service; monitoring contracts and reviewing services to identify service delivery issues and underutilized capacity; and periodically evaluating disability-related needs of adults receiving service and the appropriateness of Community Living B.C.'s funded response.

"Contract management and oversight have been a focus since Community Living B.C.'s inception. Over the four years ended March 31, 2010, annual ongoing savings from the redesigned services and contract recoveries totalled over $50 million. These savings were used to fund the needs of eligible adults that otherwise would not have been addressed.

[1755]

"Residential services represent approximately 65 percent of contracted adult service expenditures each year and are a major focus of cost-management efforts, including providing full information on residential options that are available to individuals, matching disability-related need to services provided and supporting individuals who choose to move into alternative models."

N. Simons: The province of B.C. should be embarrassed that the minister, to an important question, simply reads from a service plan that's available on line to anyone who wants it. Was that a reading practice?

You know, these are serious questions about important resources for people of this province, and all you've done is read a page and a half of something that everybody can have their hands on if they so desire. To me it's shocking. The minister seems not to have studied his file, despite the fact of having been in it for a length of time that would have adequately prepared the average person to at least be able to answer the simplest of questions.

I'm speaking on behalf of many families who do not have a voice, who are overworked, who are unable to manage on their own and who need a voice in this House. If this voice isn't going to come from the government side of the House, it's going to have to come from the opposition.

I cannot believe that a ministry as important as this, in a sector as important as this, has a minister who has very little understanding of the issues — relying on the agency to speak for the ministry.

The minister is responsible for providing the funding to the Crown agency, and the minister is getting his answers from that Crown agency. It's inappropriate — absolutely inappropriate.

I'd like to just go back…. It's not just about throwing money at the issues. There are ways of finding efficiencies, but I wouldn't use the word "efficiencies" as a euphemism for cuts to service, because every parent knows what that means.

It was efficiency when a parent received a letter in the mail saying that their two children with special needs were not going to camp for a week. It was efficiency when the government told Special Olympics on the Sunshine Coast that they weren't going to be able to travel anymore. It was efficiency when the group home in Powell River with four residents who'd lived together for many years were told that they were all going to spread out and have more individualized funding.

Well, I'm sorry; those are not efficiencies, Madam Chair. Those are cuts to services to our most vulnerable in our communities. Mean-spirited cuts, I might add. I think everybody recognizes that.

This is supposed to be a family-friendly government. Well, we've seen the opposite. We see evidence…. We see time and time again that, in fact, that's just a simple slogan to cover up the reality of service cuts to people in our communities who least can afford those cuts.

When you see vanity projects by Liberal donors receiving government money, you know that it's coming out of the pockets of people who could use it for efficiencies, where this efficiency is making their life a little bit easier.

I'm just sad on behalf of people who are living with family members who have a developmental disability. I'm sad for their siblings. I'm sad for their parents, their grandparents and everybody who has to take up the burden that has been left by a government that seemingly has lost its priorities, or it maybe never had them in the first place. I'm just shocked.

The priority tool that the minister referred to: can the minister tell me what the priority tool is?

[1800]

[ Page 6905 ]

Hon. H. Bloy: The priority ranking tool is used for those people requiring service. The tool rates the level of disability related to need, and care is prioritized for the request-for-service list.

To follow on that, in the past families would approach Community Living B.C. and say: "My adult child has the same need and profile of my neighbour, but they are receiving completely different services. Is that fair?"

[1805]

No one thought this was fair. The amount of service that a person received was dependent on the strength of the advocacy efforts of the family involved, local negotiations between service provider and staff, and how much money was available the year the request was made. All of these things added up to a system that was unfair, unclear and inconsistent.

In the past six years Community Living B.C. has worked hard to develop a resource allocation system that provides guidance on how to determine the appropriate supports in relationship to the person's disability-related needs. In this process, Community Living B.C. studied and talked to other national and international funding bodies on their resource allocation approaches.

As a result, Community Living B.C. developed the policy and practice guidelines that ensured that consistent practices across the province are used. This is how the tool is used for components to change.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I'm just wondering: how does the priority tool fit in with the prioritization of funding approvals based on health and safety criteria? Are the health and safety criteria the overarching document that will determine how the priority tool is applied?

Hon. H. Bloy: The request-for-service list is continually reviewed for health and safety needs. Anyone with health and safety concerns is looked after immediately. In the ranking tool, priority ranking is used for all others.

N. Simons: Can the minister describe the way in which CLBC evaluates its own performance and the satisfaction of those it serves?

[1810]

Hon. H. Bloy: Each year CLBC undertakes a consumer satisfaction survey. In the last survey, overall, 71 percent of individuals are satisfied with the services received from Community Living B.C.

In addition, Community Living B.C. has eight performance measures in its service plan to measure performance. All service providers receiving more than $500,000 per year must be accredited by a formal accreditation body such as the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities or their Council on Accreditation.

N. Simons: It's interesting that…. I'm not going to read it, but in the service plan, the customer satisfaction, CLBC conducts an annual satisfaction survey, and managers use this result to develop plans that are identified as requiring improvement.

[1815]

Accredited agencies, apparently, also provide this service. Is CLBC itself accredited?

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living B.C. is in the process of becoming accredited.

N. Simons: I'm just going to look at some of those performance indicators that the minister just raised. There are eight in the service plan, and they're interesting. I worry that some of them are very subjective, and I question the ability to assume that they're reliable.

The percentage of individuals and families who feel well supported by their service providers, is that the 71 percent satisfaction rate that was just indicated? If so, that's below the targeted goal. I'm just wondering if the minister has any comments on that.

[1820]

Hon. H. Bloy: The baseline measures in the service plan refer to specific questions in the survey. The 71 percent refers to a blended percentage of all the questions asked on the survey.

N. Simons: Does the minister have a copy of that survey that he might be able to share with us? If so, I'll just continue on the….

Hon. H. Bloy: Yes, we'll get one, Member.

N. Simons: That was so fast. If there was injury time in this, we'd be going till midnight-thirty. However, we don't have injury time, despite how we all feel.

Goal 3, "Operational efficiency." I see in that goal that one of the performance measures is "percentage of individuals receiving residential services that live in smaller, individualized arrangements." Now, to me that suggests there is a systemic plan to ensure that fewer and fewer people live in group homes and, I guess, more and more live in smaller home share arrangements. Is that an operational efficiency, and is that a performance measure of operational efficiency — the smaller homes?

[1825]

Hon. H. Bloy: We can confirm for the member that the measure is consistent with CLBC's commitment to facilitate increased inclusion and individual development through individualized arrangements, inclusive but not limited to home-sharing.

[ Page 6906 ]

N. Simons: As this trend towards home-sharing continues, and I suspect that it will, one would hope that individuals who are living by themselves or in a roommate situation or in a basement suite of somebody who is a home share provider that the other services for them would be actually increased.

What I worry about is…. When you have group homes, you have scheduled activities, and you ensure that people are living their fullest potential. You have staff individuals with specific skills and knowledge, and you have access to programs and services.

When you're in a home share, on the other hand, you're living with somebody who may not have had any experience working with people with developmental disabilities. In fact, it's not a requirement.

I'm wondering if the minister recognizes that while funding for residential care is being squeezed, that, in fact, the same thing is happening in day programming and programming to employment supports as well.

[1830]

Hon. H. Bloy: Any individuals that move into a home share are very well oriented, and the provider is well trained. The individual is integrated into the family, the community and community events and activities. Additional funds may be available for the individual to integrate into the community events.

N. Simons: The minister might help explain how a woman who lived in one home for 20 years was moved on two weeks' notice with one preplacement visit where one of the adult home share providers was at home. I think that the facts from the communities around the province belie the reality that families face, and I think that adequate preplanning is an issue that the minister raised and is actually one that, I think, needs to be looked at.

For that reason, perhaps the minister could provide me with the completed satisfaction survey so we can see what the results were, because there's some contradiction in the service plan as to who actually conducts those satisfaction surveys. On the one hand it's accredited external agencies, and at the other time it's external experts that have nothing to do with the area in question. So it would be nice if some openness around surveys and how satisfaction is measured would be available to the public so we could actually see whether or not what we're being told is actually a reflection of the concerns that people have.

My next question has to do with performance measures related to service excellence. The question I have has to do, actually, with a different performance measure related to individualized funding.

One of the measures is the number of people who are receiving individualized funding. Now, isn't that simply another way of saying that when a person has access to funding, for example, for respite, they send their child to a respite home maybe once a month for overnight or two nights. They may not be the direct payer for this service, but soon they find out that respite's cut, and they'll be getting $150 in order to cover the same thing, which of course wouldn't go anywhere near providing the necessary service.

Does individualized funding actually reflect something good in the life of a care provider? In fact, is it just another way of saying how we're paying for a particular service and likely how we're paying less for a particular service?

[1835]

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd like to clarify what individualized funding is. Community Living B.C. services include support to help families care for individuals in their family home. Families may receive supports through contracted services or through individualized funding to purchase services themselves.

Individualized funding is a payment mechanism that is available through two options: host agency funding or direct funding. Host agency funding allows individuals or families to select a Community Living B.C.–approved host agency to administer the money allocated to them and to assist them with arranging and managing the supports that they require. This option provides individuals and families with the benefits of individualized funding but with less responsibility for paperwork and record-keeping.

Direct funding is when money is paid directly by Community Living B.C. to an agent for the purchase of supports and services. Individualized funding enables people with disabilities to use the money allocated to them by Community Living B.C. to make individual choices about how the supports and services are provided. It gives individuals more control over the decisions that affect their lives.

Individualized funding provides individuals and families with flexibility and person-centred, self-directed payment options for arranging, managing and paying for support and services. The individualized funding measures reflect CLBC's commitment under the Community Living Authority Act to make individualized funding available.

N. Simons: Thank you for that edifying explanation. I understand how individualized funding works. As an example, a family in Victoria used to send their children to Corner House, a respite provider paid for by CLBC and offering professional care, appropriate activities, socialization with other individuals with similar needs, and a break for the parents and the families, which we all understand.

[1840]

When they had that removed, they were offered some money instead. That money could purchase a weekend

[ Page 6907 ]

with somebody with no skill, perhaps far from town, with no other children to socialize with, no programming. Sure, it's cheaper, but you get what you pay for.

In this particular case, individualized funding just means less money to be spent directly by the family. I understand that. They have choice. They can choose someone who is qualified and who expects to be compensated appropriately or choose somebody who isn't. That's a difficult choice for many families.

There are certain downsides, but I see it being used as a performance measure, as an indicator of success, when in fact it's the redistribution of funding — probably spread out over more people, but less of it — and really less capacity to access services that are appropriate for their child or young adult child.

I have so many questions here, and many I've been asked to put on the record for possible answer either today or in the future. My main questions have had to do with the fact that CLBC seems to be able to continually manage the same budget for more and more individuals. At some point, we recognize that that's unsustainable.

When you see a budget projection of zero increase over three years, and you see a waiting list that's, even according to ministry statistics, quite high, and you see a number of youth transitioning to adulthood, and you see aging parents losing their capacity to care for their adult children, how can that possibly be sustainable without massive cuts to the level of service being used by families today?

[1845]

Hon. H. Bloy: We recognize the pressures on the system and, again, the member's concern. CLBC continues to work with its partners and community agencies to sustain a level of supports and services to as many individuals as possible.

The province has increased funding to Community Living B.C. for operations every year since its inception. In the last three years alone we've provided an additional $31 million for operations. The province has invested a total of $3.5 billion in Community Living B.C. since its inception in 2005. Again, 93 percent of every dollar goes towards services and programs.

N. Simons: Can the minister tell me how many day programs were closed throughout the province this year?

[1850]

Hon. H. Bloy: We do not have a number of daycare programs that have been closed. As we're changing the service delivery model, there'll be more changes in the community that receive community and individualized choices.

Noting the hour, I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $605,202,000 (continued).

The Chair: We're currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

S. Simpson: I'm here today to talk to the minister and the minister's staff about the gaming and BCLC end of her responsibilities as the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I'll note, for anybody who's paying attention to us today, that this does not include gaming grants. We won't be talking about gaming grants today, for all those people who will wonder why I didn't ask any questions about gaming grants. We'll save that for another day and another minister.

We know that in 2009-10 the government, through the Lottery Corporation — GPEB, I guess, at that point — dedicated about $5.2 million or so to problem gam-

[ Page 6908 ]

bling in British Columbia, which was about a half a percent of overall government revenues.

Could the minister tell us what is the expected level of funding, government revenues and funding, that will come this year in this budget to the government, and what percentage of that budget and what the overall number will be that will be invested in problem gambling?

Hon. S. Bond: The expected allocation this year will be $4.46 million. In addition to that, BCLC adds $2 million.

S. Simpson: So that will be $6.46 million in total. Could the minister tell us…? In terms of gambling revenues that come to the government of British Columbia from the Lottery Corporation, from casino revenues, from lottery tickets, from overall Lottery Corporation, how does that number…? We'll go to the total number, the bigger number, the $6.46 million. What is that as a percentage of overall revenues?

Hon. S. Bond: In the interest of saving time, because there is limited time today, the revenue is $1.1 billion, and the investment in problem gambling is $6.46 million.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us whether she believes that number is sufficient? I know that we saw a reduction in the '07-08 budget around problem gambling. At that point, I believe, the overall budget was reduced from $7 million to $5.2 million in that budget. It started, with the addition of this money, to climb back up again.

The minister's predecessor, I know in conversations that we had last year, talked about how people weren't accessing the money, and we had a debate about whether the government needs to do outreach to get at people around the money, to be able to access that money.

[1440]

I'd be interested, certainly, for the minister to tell me what the status is now, but we know that in '09-10, of the seven provinces that have problem gambling programs, British Columbia had the lowest level of funding in relation to that.

Could the minister tell us whether she's satisfied that that amount of money will meet the needs?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, it is correct that there was a look at the usage in terms of the dollar amount in earlier budgets. The member opposite asks if I feel that's enough. For me it's not a matter of how much money is in the pot. For me it's a matter of taking care of people who have issues with problem gaming.

If services are being provided and people are being offered services that are necessary, then that for me is the test of whether or not we have adequate resources in place. What is important to know is that for 95 percent of British Columbians, approximately, some form of gaming is not a problem for them.

I am the first to recognize that a percentage of people in British Columbia, as in every other jurisdiction, have issues with gaming. What I have been reassured about is that every person who needs help, who calls out for help, who asks for help, is being given service in British Columbia. To me that is the test of whether or not there are appropriate services in place or not.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister that it is about the services. The minister knows…. I'm sure that she has seen the previous reports that preceded her time for responsibility, about the failures of the self-exclusion program that have been noted through investigations done by media and others.

The minister will also know…. I'm sure she's read the reports by people like Dr. John Carsley, Vancouver Coastal Health medical officer, who criticised the government for underfunding problem gambling and responsible gambling programs in the province. Those criticisms were made in March of this year, so we know there are problems.

My question to the minister is this. If the minister is looking for the best programs, and I think that's the right thing to do, could she tell us whether the Lottery Corporation or GPEB or her ministry have at any time done a look at best practices, have done an evaluation of our programs, looked at best practices and in fact have implemented best practices? If so, could we finally get the documentation on that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, of course they have. You know, we recognize that while