2009 Legislative Session: First 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)

Monday, November 2, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Vancouver Island Raiders

R. Cantelon

Introductions by Members

Statements

M c Donald's Champion Kids selection of Johnathan Botelho

Hon. S. Bond

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Crime Prevention Week and Surrey community safety awards

S. Cadieux

Patient safety

M. Mungall

Surrey and White Rock community resources fair

D. Hayer

Commemoration of internment of Ukrainian Canadians

K. Conroy

StrongStart B.C. centres in North Vancouver

J. Thornthwaite

Role of Prince Rupert in potash export industry

G. Coons

Oral Questions

Government support for Kitimat forest workers

R. Austin

Hon. B. Bennett

Government action on forest industry

C. James

Hon. P. Bell

Government support for Kitimat forest workers

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

Staffing for Prince Rupert audiology clinic

G. Coons

Hon. K. Falcon

Supply of H1N1 vaccine to Copeman clinic

J. Brar

Hon. K. Falcon

A. Dix

Children and Family Development Ministry budget priorities

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

Funding for infant development program

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

J. Kwan

Minimum wage

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. Coell

Petitions

C. James

S. Herbert

S. Hammell

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009 (continued)

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. I. Chong

J. Brar

A. Dix

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2009

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (continued)

S. Herbert

Hon. K. Krueger

L. Popham

Estimates: Ministry of Community and Rural Development

Hon. B. Bennett

S. Fraser

[ Page 1859 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Over the years and the decades British Columbians and this House have been served by some incredibly talented individuals in the capacity of Attorney General. Today we had a brief ceremony in the rotunda, and we honoured the achievements of all of those individuals. I'm so pleased that seven past Attorneys General were able to be here today. I'd like to introduce them to the….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: They are a shy, retiring lot.

The dean of the alumni group, who helped, I think it's fair to say, make the ceremony at noon a smashing success is — and I hope the House will welcome all of these individuals — Garde Gardom, who served from 1975 to 1979; Brian Smith, who served as Attorney General from 1983 to 1988; Russ Fraser, who served from 1990 to 1991; Colin Gabelmann, who served from 1991 to 1995; Andrew Petter, who was Attorney General in the millennium year of 2000; Graeme Bowbrick, who served from 2000 to 2001; and my immediate predecessor, who served from 2005 to 2009, Mr. Wally Oppal.

They are all deserving of our respect. The House has already made them feel welcome and I know will do so once again. [Applause.]

[1335]

Hon. K. Heed: Good afternoon. I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming some more very special guests today. Since the tragic death of their daughter Reena, Suman and Manjit Virk have turned heartbreak into hope by sharing their story in an effort to prevent similar tragedies. The Virks, in honour of Reena, have spoken at schools and community events to educate teens and the public about the true costs of bullying.

These parents are truly an inspiration. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming them, along with their son Aman and his wife, Elizabeth, to the assembly today.

Also in the House today is a very good friend of the Virks. He, too, works with our young people to combat crime and build safer communities. I would also ask all members to join me in welcoming Const. Paul Brookes of the Victoria police department, who we are proud to welcome to the Legislature today.

Tributes

VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIDERS

R. Cantelon: On Saturday the Vancouver Island Raiders, for the third consecutive year, won the Canadian Junior Football League championship. In two weeks Nanaimo will host the Canadian championship game.

The Surrey Rams fought hard. Their quarterback was flattened and had trouble getting up, but Cam Clark got up and tried again. Congratulations to the Vancouver Island Raiders, and good luck in the Canadian championships in two weeks.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Somewhere in the precinct — I know they're touring — is a group of students from a school in my riding. That is Hillcrest Elementary School. There are 29 grade 4 students and six adults, led by their teacher, Miss Margot Kirkpatrick. They may show up at any time. I know they are in the precinct. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Statements

m c donald's champion kids

Selection of Johnathan Botelho

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Mackenzie and Nechako Lakes…. We wanted to share a very good news story with the members this afternoon.

Olympic excitement is building, and that's the case in northern B.C. as well. There is a program called McDonald's Champion Kids, and it chooses 11 children from across Canada to participate in an international program connected to the Olympics. The students were chosen by a selection committee, including two-time Olympic gold medallist Cassie Campbell.

We are thrilled to tell you that one of those champion kids is from Prince George. Johnathan Botelho is a grade 7 student, a member of the local under-12 all-star A level soccer team. His enthusiasm for sports and great communication skills have allowed him to be a cub reporter on CKPG TV's Cougar View as well as a junior announcer at the CN Centre during Cougar games. He's an outstanding youth leader and now a McDonald's champion kid. He will be attending the Olympics, visiting cultural sites, interacting with other champion kids from around the world and filing a few stories, I am sure.

We are absolutely proud of Johnathan and wish him a wonderful time at the Olympics.

[ Page 1860 ]

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We are delighted, I'm sure, to have with us in the gallery today a gentleman, a bon vivant, a former ministerial assistant to a gentleman who thinks he's a star basketball player — he is, clearly, a former Attorney General, Mr. Wally Oppal — and a man who is currently the recipient of higher learning here in our province. Would you please join me in welcoming Mr. Terry Lalari.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — AMBULANCE SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

[1340]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: The Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act is designed to bring an end to the current impasse between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and CUPE 873, the union representing ambulance paramedics and dispatchers in British Columbia.

When B.C.'s paramedics began their job action on April 1, earlier this year, we sincerely hoped that a mutually agreeable settlement could be reached. Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts over the past seven months, the two sides have been unable to resolve their differences. The last offer made to the union was generous, given the difficult economic challenges we face as a province, and it is in keeping with what other public sector workers will receive in 2009-10.

We value the work and services of B.C.'s 3,500 ambulance paramedics, and many of us have great relationships with individual paramedics across the province. However, we are concerned that the longer this dispute drags on, the higher the risk for patients, a risk we are no longer prepared to countenance. With the H1N1 pandemic impacting the acute care system and with the busy holiday season fast approaching, the public needs certainty that they'll have the care they need in an emergency. It is time to move forward in the interests of all British Columbians.

It is not a decision we have come to lightly. The settlement we've put forward in the act reflects the key elements of the offer made by the B.C. Ambulance Service during the last round of talks in September. It is a one-year deal, retroactive to April 1, 2009, and includes a competitive compensation increase of 3 percent in wages this year, in line with other public sector workers. This wage increase was accepted by the union in September.

In addition, I will be calling on the Minister of Labour to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner to identify options for repairing the labour relations structure between the two parties before the next round of bargaining in the new year. The union indicated that the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner was the most important issue to address, and we agree. In particular, I also intend to address the issues raised by rural paramedics, who face unique challenges under the existing structure.

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 21, Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 20 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, amends the following statutes: Animal Disease Control Act, Community Care and Assisted Living Act, Community Living Authority Act, Criminal Records Review Act, Election Act, Forest Act, Forestry Revitalization Act, Homeowner Protection Act, Hydro and Power Authority Act, Land Surveyors Act, Livestock Identification Act and Motor Dealer Act. This bill also represents the final piece of legislation that the government intends to introduce for passage during this session.

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

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 1861 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. CRIME PREVENTION WEEK AND

SURREY COMMUNITY SAFETY AWARDS

S. Cadieux: Today I would like to acknowledge the many British Columbians who are working to make their communities safer places to live. To that end, I would like to read the following proclamation:

[1345]

"Whereas the week of November 1 to 7, 2009, has been designated as Crime Prevention Week in British Columbia and in recognition thereof, communities throughout the province are actively participating in this event; and

whereas the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and crime prevention groups throughout the province wish to heighten public awareness of crime prevention programs; and

whereas the success of crime prevention depends on the people working together in families, neighbourhoods, businesses, communities and youth groups to promote safer streets in every community; and

whereas British Columbia encourages local governments to build strong communities that discourage crime and work cooperatively with justice and law enforcement agencies, crime prevention groups, communities, schools, youth groups and businesses to build public awareness and involvement in crime prevention activities; and

whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903 on October 11, 2002; now know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and declare the week of November 1 to 7, 2009, inclusive shall be known as Crime Prevention Week in the province of British Columbia."

I'd also like to recognize two Surrey winners of the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Awards this year: the Surrey board of education, for their safe schools program; and Carrie Chattell, an RCMP employee in Cloverdale who developed a six-week course entitled "Protecting Yourself" in response to the needs of her community. I'd like to have the House encourage that.

PATIENT SAFETY

M. Mungall: Well, this week marks the beginning of Patient Safety Week all over Canada. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute launched Canadian Patient Safety Week as an annual campaign every year nationally. This week is part of the institute's mandate to build and advance a safer health system for Canadians.

The theme of Canadian Patient Safety Week is "Ask, listen, talk," because communication is key to patient safety. Good health care starts with good communication. If something doesn't seem right, ask questions, listen to the answers, and discuss your concerns.

Asking, listening and talking are exactly what Nelson and West Kootenay residents have been doing since 2002. Concerned about patient safety in rural areas, West Kootenay residents have been asking questions about their health care system, listening to a wide variety of answers and, of course, talking about their experiences and their concerns.

Transportation between communities and health services is a very big issue that impacts patient safety. Access to acute therapeutic and long-term care in our communities is a major talking point. Thousands across the country will participate in events that raise awareness. One of the things that this week reminds us is that between 9,000 and 24,000 people die each year as a result of preventable adverse events or harm in Canadian hospitals.

There are more deaths each year due to adverse events and preventable harm in hospitals than deaths from breast cancer, motor vehicle accidents and HIV combined. I'd like to take this opportunity to applaud the residents in my area who are dedicated to the concept of patient safety and committed to improving it.

SURREY AND WHITE ROCK

community resources fair

D. Hayer: Last week I attended an exceptional community resource fair hosted by Peace Arch Community Services Society, in partnership with the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, at my old high school, Queen Elizabeth Secondary.

More than 48 very important community organizations participated in this event. The fifth annual fair provided a huge information resource for my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead and for all residents of Surrey and White Rock.

The list of organizations that participated range from the Alzheimer Society to the Surrey Hospice Society, Surrey RCMP, Legal Services Society, Options: Services to Communities Society, Tzu Chi Foundation, South Fraser Women's Services, Surrey Food Bank, DiverCity, Children's Foundation, South Fraser Community Services Society, Newton Advocacy Group, SEEDS, Immigrant Services Society of B.C., Atira Women's Resource Society, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Community Living B.C. and a host of others — also, representatives of such diverse groups as the Shell Busey home referral network, RBC Foundation, Surrey Board of Trade.

This incredibly informative day for Surrey residents would not have been possible without the outstanding organizational skills of such persons as Anthony Intas, Charan Gill, Victoria Clements, Satbir Cheema, Sue Sanderson, Sandy Alleyn, Jessie Kergan, Yasmin Ali, Jagtar Dhaliwal, Gurinder Budwal and Renu Gambhir.

Special thanks must also go to many, many volunteers, including Diane Elmer, Teresa Beck, Don Cosens, Dan Sardinha, Teresa Campbell, Sandy Alfonso and Shafeem Kahn.

I ask all the members to join me in congratulating and thanking all those mentioned and many, many more individuals, organizations and sponsors who worked so hard to make this event very successful and accessible information provided to the community as a resource for the residents of Surrey and the citizens of White Rock.

[1350]

[ Page 1862 ]

commemoration of

internment of UKRAINIAN CANADIANS

K. Conroy: On October 24, I attended a moving ceremony in Edgewood to unveil a plaque commemorating Ukrainian Canadians wrongfully interned during the First World War. Now, most Canadians know about the Japanese Canadians who were interned during World War II and the Québécois who were detained in the '70s, both under the War Measures Act, but I have found very few people who know that the Ukrainian Canadians were the first group of people to have suffered under this notorious act.

The federal government set up 24 internment camps across the country. The internees were housed in bunkhouses and were employed in hard labour, including roadbuilding. In Edgewood they built the road to nowhere, as there was no ferry crossing on the Arrow Lakes at the time.

Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the UCCLA, who specializes in the political geography of eastern Europe and the ethnic and immigration history of Canada, described it best: "Keep in mind that these were civilians who had come to Canada expecting to find freedom…who had done nothing wrong yet found themselves described as enemy aliens and herded together in camps and forced to do heavy labour, even though that was prohibited by existing international laws governing…prisoners of war."

This day, though, was about recognition and celebration and that this wrong should be righted and these people's contribution to our history remembered. While no survivors of these camps remain alive today, the unveiling of the plaque was a symbolic restitution of

an act that should never again be repeated in this country.

The plaque, permanently situated at the entrance to the Edgewood Internment Camp site, was unveiled by longtime Edgewood residents Dot and Rollie Crabbe and Ron and Phyllis Volansky. I want to thank the local UCCLA coordinator, Andrea Malysh, and the other UCCLA members, the Edgewood Community Internet Society and the Edgewood Royal Canadian Legion branch No. 203 for the fabulous lunch they provided and everyone who was involved for ensuring a very successful and memorable event.

STRONGSTART B.C. CENTRES

IN NORTH VANCOUVER

J. Thornthwaite: On Friday I had the pleasure of attending the openings of two more StrongStart B.C. programs in North Vancouver, with my former colleague Susan Skinner, the board chair; Rick Chan, who's the principal; childhood educator Heather Van Haltren; Joanne Robertson; and Irene Young. I was very pleased to be there to meet with them again.

The preschoolers of both Lynn Valley and Seymour Heights now have the opportunity to learn in an interactive and fun environment. Not only does this partnership create a stronger community. It also creates an environment that facilitates early learning and literacy for our little ones.

As a parent with three children in North Vancouver, I appreciate the values that these centres represent, and I know that if they had been available when my kids were young, I would have been eager to participate in the learning opportunities they represent.

These centres require great teamwork between school districts, schools, educators and, of course, the public. It's an investment into the future of our province, as the children of today are our leaders and innovators of tomorrow.

The official opening of Lynn Valley and Seymour Heights brings the total to seven StrongStart centres in North Vancouver. This goes to show that the communities in North Vancouver are dedicated to providing our youth with access to all of the skills they need to be successful.

Children are our most precious resource. We must do everything we can to give them the best of all possible starts in school and in life. By working together, we will reach our goal and make British Columbians the best-educated and most literate people in North America.

ROLE OF PRINCE RUPERT

IN POTASH EXPORT INDUSTRY

G. Coons: Taking the lead from Terrace's Hockeyville success, Prince Rupert is poised to become Potashville. As the Saskatchewan potash industry pushes to double exports in the next decade, those in Prince Rupert anticipate they will tap into the Port of Prince Rupert to try to avoid the rail congestion to other locations.

Canpotex, an internationally recognized business, plans to adds about 11 million tonnes of shipping capacity by 2012, almost doubling its current capacity. Just over a month ago over 500 people turned out to a public meeting about the project in Prince Rupert. The magnitude of community support caught Jon Somers, vice-president of Canpotex, off guard.

At the heart of the matter is a proposal to either build a $400 million potash terminal on Ridley Island — which Somers said would probably be the world's largest and the world's most innovative and will create hundreds of construction jobs, with 80 to 100 full-time operational jobs — or to expand their existing facility in Vancouver. Somers sees it as a gateway, a straight shot from Saskatchewan to Prince Rupert right to the heart of Asia.

[1355]

Prince Rupert, as we know, is the closest North American port to Asian markets, with faster sailing times,

[ Page 1863 ]

lower costs. It can handle the largest of cargo ships, unlike Vancouver. Don Krusel, president and CEO for the Prince Rupert Port Authority, is confident that the Prince Rupert gateway will provide Canpotex and the potash industry with significant advantages in growing their export business.

The project also reinforces the success that can be achieved when CN, the port authority and the Coast Tsimshian First Nation work together to demonstrate the strategic advantages of our trade corridor.

The price of potash, a key ingredient for fertilizer, has fluctuated over the past year. But every morning the rush to check out the TSX puts a strain on our local Internet speed as we get poised to raise the banner. Prince Rupert is Potashville.

L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I am pleased to introduce a group of students visiting from Portland State University in the School of Government. They are with us for an educational day of presentations to learn about our system of parliamentary democracy. They are both graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in a Congress and parliaments course. They are accompanied by their professor, Dr. Richard Clucas.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

R. Austin: As we raised last week, 535 workers are losing their jobs as a result of the permanent closure of the Eurocan pulp mill in Kitimat. I was home this weekend, and I can tell you that this announcement is having devastating impacts on the town, the workers and their families. Everyone, quite frankly, is in shock.

I also found out that senior bureaucrats from the Ministry of Community Development will be heading to Kitimat on Wednesday. To the Minister of Community Development: will these officials be bringing a cheque for $2 million to provide immediate assistance to Kitimat to plan for a future without Eurocan?

Hon. B. Bennett: I would like to start by repeating something that my colleague the Minister of Forests said last week to the member and to anyone else in this House who lives in a community that is dependent on the forest industry, as I do. I still have some mills that are down, as the member opposite does.

I'd like to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the 535 workers and their families. I have some idea, from talking to my own constituents, of what that's like. It's not an easy time for them. It's not an easy time for the community.

However, we will do everything we possibly can, not only through the ministry that I'm responsible for and the Rural Secretariat, but I know the Minister of Forests is interested and keen to help with this situation. I know that the Premier has spoken with the mayor, and together this government will do absolutely everything that we can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: On behalf of the community of Kitimat, I do appreciate the sympathies of the minister, but now it's truly time for action. Before the election Mackenzie and Fort St. James got $2 million in direct aid. Why wouldn't Kitimat get this right away? It makes no sense to delay this assistance.

The workers in Kitimat also need direct aid. They need to know that they will be directly assisted to make their own transition. Will the Minister of Community Development commit today to add provincial dollars to the community development trust transition fund specifically for the workers at Eurocan?

Hon. B. Bennett: Despite the fact that our government cut the school taxes for major industry in the province by 50 percent and despite the fact that we have the second-lowest corporate income taxes in the country and despite the fact that we have the promise of $140 million going into the forest industry when HST is implemented on July 1, 2010, this particular company made a business decision that this business was no longer viable.

I know that the NDP's first reaction to everything is: "Let's just cut a cheque." We have people going to Kitimat, as the hon. member has already mentioned. We'll have a discussion. We'll take some time and figure out what we can do.

[1400]

I can say to the member that both Fort St. James and Mackenzie are 100 percent forest-dependent. I would suggest to him that if he looks around at the potential that Kitimat and the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine have, he will see there is a lot of opportunity there in addition to forestry.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: Well, the minister's response shows that there is no plan in place for the workers in Kitimat — absolutely no plan in place for the workers in Kitimat — just as this government has refused to have a plan in

[ Page 1864 ]

place for the 50 forestry mills that have shut down across our province. No plan in place, as tens of thousands of workers lose their jobs on the Island, the Kootenays, the Interior, the north.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. At a time when B.C. Liberal policies have hurt 535 Kitimat families and tens of thousands of workers across our province, how does he explain not having a plan in place to deal with the crisis in the forest industry?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, this government has a very in-depth strategy and plan, and it's starting to pay off benefits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: The members of the opposition may not have paid attention to the amount of effort that we've put into growing the Chinese market. Yet every single economist, every single individual you talk to says that that is the future market that we need to be focusing our resource-based industries on.

In the last six years we've built that market from one that was not even in the top ten markets for British Columbia. This year China will be our second-largest market. It's a market that's going to continue to grow.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: We just got another example — and the people of Kitimat and forest workers across this province got another example — that the minister just doesn't get it, doesn't get that we've got a crisis.

On October 21 the minister told the Cowichan Lake District Chamber of Commerce that he is "excited about the course the government has been charting for the forest industry." Excited. The 535 forest workers in Kitimat and the tens of thousands across this province who have lost their jobs just don't buy it.

It took this government a few weeks to be able to come up with a plan to spend half a billion dollars on a new roof for B.C. Place. But they've had eight years of a crisis in the forest industry, and they've done nothing.

Again, my question is to the minister. How many more communities will have to be in crisis before this government will finally act?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad the member opposite gave me another opportunity to talk about some of the real windows that are open for the forest industry going forward. You know, Mr. Speaker, this government has made a significant commitment to the bioenergy industry. In fact, we produce enough electricity through our bioenergy industry already to electrify about 700,000 homes provincewide. But that's not enough.

We're becoming one of the largest pellet producers in North America, electrifying actually most of the European marketplace as well. We're growing new opportunities with companies like Lignol, with companies like Nexterra energy, as a result of the $35 million that we've put into the B.C. Bioenergy Network and as a result of the innovative clean energy fund that is ongoing.

This government is committed to a new, revitalized forest industry, and bioenergy is going to be one of the key components of that.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The minister's words are cold comfort to those families in Kitimat, to that community which is struggling, to the tens of thousands of workers across this province who, for the last eight years, have heard those hollow words from this minister and this government and who have seen over 50 mills closed down. The government's response has been to gut protections for workers — a failure to pay attention until after the damage is done.

Again, a straightforward question to the minister: will he finally admit that the B.C. Liberal forest policy has failed communities like Kitimat, and will he admit that they don't have a plan in place to deal with a crisis in our major industry in British Columbia?

[1405]

Hon. P. Bell: This government is absolutely committed to revitalizing the forest industry in what is the most difficult period for forestry ever, historically, in North America. The member opposite may not have noticed, but the U.S. housing market that used to build two million homes per year is down to about 500,000 homes per year. Our industry has continued to function, albeit in very, very difficult circumstances. We're building new opportunities, whether it's through China, whether it's through bioenergy, whether it's through wood-first policies in big buildings.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? HST is the biggest single thing that we can do to enhance our forest industry — $140 million a year. That works out to $7 per thousand board feet of production. That makes our industry the most competitive one anywhere in the world.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

N. Macdonald: The minister talks about the HST. He didn't before the election, but now it seems something that he likes to roll out. What's clear is that we had a long list of tax cuts, and they led to nothing. Each and

[ Page 1865 ]

every time this government comes forward with one of these policies, there is a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. But it never happens. What we have seen is a comprehensive failure — 25,000 jobs lost. Eight years of B.C. Liberal mismanagement.

For communities like Kitimat, it is almost a week. There has been nothing put in place by this government. This is not the first community. This is the 55th mill that has gone down. For a government to flounder after 55 mills with no plan in place is a disgrace — an absolute disgrace.

My question for this minister is: what specifically has he done for Kitimat? What specifically has he done in the almost week that he has had to deal with this issue?

Hon. P. Bell: If the member would tone down the rhetoric and actually have a reasonable conversation around this discussion, it might be that people could accomplish something. It's been very challenging to have to listen to this on an ongoing basis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we've been absolutely committed to working with the people of Kitimat. I attended a conference call with the mayor and council, an extraordinary council meeting that was held last Thursday afternoon. My colleague the Minister of Community Development has individuals going in this week to work with mayor and council to make sure they're aware of all of the programs and opportunities that are available.

My district manager for the district, the forest district there, is travelling to Kitimat, as well, to find out what the key issues and opportunities are. We've got a wide array of programs that we're going to work with Kitimat to make sure that we help mitigate this.

It's time for all of us to work together on this. The member needs to cut through the rhetoric and actually start working collaboratively on these issues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The government was asked: "Is there $2 million?" There's no answer there. That hasn't been thought about. Is there money, any provincial money at all, for the transition programs that are needed? There's none. That hasn't been thought through.

The question that I put to the minister is…. It is clear that the B.C. Liberal forest policy is a complete and comprehensive failure. That is evident for everyone to see. That failure continues. The CEP represents workers at Eurocan in Kitimat. They're calling for a multiparty federal-provincial emergency summit on forestry to lay out a new direction for forest policy in the province. Does the minister support that call?

Hon. P. Bell: I talk with the folks from the CEP, including the national head, on a regular basis. They've not yet asked me to attend that. I have a lot of respect for David Coles, the leadership of the CEP, and I'll be working with them as we move forward on this file.

[1410]

But I'm a little bit tired of hearing the lack of support for those communities. The job opportunities program has already delivered over $5 million to the people of Kitimat-Stikine — 130 resource jobs directly as a result of that — $125,000 in retraining, $2.2 million to help support the fibre basket and expanding the opportunities in the region, not to mention the $404 million in the northwest transmission line and billions of dollars in a new port, a new pipeline and a whole new series of business opportunities for the people of the northwest of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Staffing for

Prince Rupert audiology clinic

G. Coons: Hundreds of infants and children from Prince Rupert, the coastal communities and Haida Gwaii who are at very high risk for hearing problems are still not receiving the diagnostic treatment services they need. Why? The brand-new $600,000 audiology clinic in Prince Rupert lacks the staff it needs to operate because this government has failed to deliver on its funding commitments.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the minister release the operational funds that this government promised for the clinic?

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you for the question. I will endeavour to get the information for the member. I suspect that one of the challenges may be around the area of recruitment. That has been an ongoing challenge for us in rural-remote communities, but I will be happy to get the information for the member and answer it, hopefully, to his satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: I appreciate that, Minister. But when we look at what's happening in Prince Rupert, this job hasn't even been posted. Jess Rainey, the northwest senior audiologist, resigned last May due to the lack of commitment from this government and this minister to audiology services in the northwest. And it hasn't been posted.

[ Page 1866 ]

Again, will the minister provide the audiology clinic with the services as promised and at least direct Northern Health to post the position?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I do know that one of the health authorities that has performed in an outstanding manner and continues to is Northern Health Authority. We receive plaudits on the work they do every single day.

With respect to the issue of if it may or may not be a challenge of trying to recruit and retain audiologists at the facility the member is talking about, I will get the information for the member. But I can assure you that one thing I am proud of is that it was this government that brought in those testing processes for all young British Columbians in the province of British Columbia. We're proud of that.

SUPPLY OF H1N1 VACCINE TO

COPEMAN CLINIC

J. Brar: The Copeman clinic is a private medical clinic that charges new clients close to $4,000 for services. Can the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport tell this House why a special supply of H1N1 vaccine was made available to the members of the Copeman clinic?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is that the vaccines that are provided from back east are distributed through the B.C. Centre for Disease Control to every health office and every licensed practitioner in British Columbia in accordance with a process that recognizes that whether it is a private clinic, a public clinic or a private doctor's office — which, in most cases, doctor's offices are — they all receive the same amount. It is to be provided to those that have chronic health care conditions, in accordance with the phased processing of the vaccination program, at no cost.

That will be the case for Copeman and any other clinic that has received those vaccines from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: The reality is this. The shortage of H1N1 vaccine is leaving at-risk groups, including pregnant women, individuals with chronic diseases, young children, waiting for the vaccine at public health clinics. Can the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport again tell this House why a special supply of H1N1 vaccine was made available to the members of the Copeman clinic and what steps the minister has taken to ensure the Copeman clinic follows provincial protocol?

[1415]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as I said in my last answer, Copeman health clinic will be treated like every other medical practitioner. They are given an allotment of vaccinations. They are required to deliver those vaccinations in accordance with the directives of the program, and that is to chronically ill patients first, as part of the phased processing of this. They will do that, as professionals. They are all licensed professional doctors, and they will deliver that at no cost for the benefit of the patients that fit those categories.

To the member's other point about crowds, it's one of the reasons why we are asking the public to recognize that this is the largest vaccination program in the history of the province of British Columbia. It's one of the reasons why it's being phased in, to ensure that high-risk groups — those with chronic illness, first nations and communities that are most at risk if they are in fact infected with H1N1 — are dealt with first.

We're asking the public to cooperate with us on that, and we will continue to phase out the rollout this week. It includes children between the ages of six months and five years and health professionals. In the coming weeks we will have vaccinations available for the entire populace of British Columbia also.

A. Dix: The minister will know that many people, even people in those groups — I'm sure they've contacted him; I know they've contacted me — have been unable to get access to the vaccine in British Columbia. So how does it make sense?

The minister says no preferential access. There is preferential access at the Copeman clinic. You have to pay $3,900 to become a member, and then you get the vaccine. At a time when there is a shortage, at a time when the minister is rightly asking British Columbians to be patient, how does it make sense to provide some of that supply to a clinic where you have to pay to play?

Hon. K. Falcon: I know that the member opposite gets excited whenever there's a discussion of private clinics, but the member should know that licensed medical practitioners perform duties in private and public clinics right across the province of British Columbia.

What is happening is that they have been given an allotment. I understand it's exactly the same allotment provided to doctors' offices, which in most cases are also private, as the member should know. They are required to administer it in exactly the same way that it's being administered at public clinics, at private clinics, at doctors' offices, at hospitals — that is, to at-risk patient groups at no cost to the individuals. That's exactly what I expect them to do.

A. Dix: Except you have to spend $4,000 to get access to that lineup. The fact of the matter is…. There's a case in Ontario right now, and that clinic is being forced by the government of Ontario to provide access to everybody. The government of Ontario is currently conducting a review into that practice.

[ Page 1867 ]

The minister surely understands why people who are waiting…. The majority of health care workers aren't going to get access to the vaccine this week. The majority of children aren't going to get access to the vaccine this week. Yet privileged access is being given to members of a particular clinic. Does the minister not think there is something wrong with that picture?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would be careful with that, Member, because I am certain that the Copeman clinic also has clients that are suffering from compromised immune systems. They may have chronic health conditions that would necessitate a vaccination, just as doctors' offices right across the province or public health clinics also have patients that are dealing with chronic care issues.

As I said to the member, the distribution of vaccines is being undertaken under the auspices of our chief provincial health officer and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. They are making sure that they are delivered fairly and appropriately across the licensed medical practitioner population, to be delivered for the benefit of those at risk first.

children and Family development

ministry budget priorities

M. Karagianis: I have a question for the Minister of Children and Family Development. How does hiring four new assistant deputy ministers fit with the government's insistence that they are cutting administration in order to deliver more to front-line services?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm pleased to respond to the member and advise her that this is part of our continuing transformation to ensure that we have the best practice possible and that we respond to many of the recommendations in the Hughes report around decentralization.

[1420]

I'm sure the member will be pleased to know that at the end of this shift in management, we will have no more management positions than we have now, and this entire change will be managed within the existing management and administrative salary budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

funding for

infant development program

M. Karagianis: Well, Dorothy Gazzola, whose daughter has Down syndrome, says that the infant development coordinators — a program this government just cut — were a godsend. She said that they were integral to the development of her special needs child. Yet this government cut those coordinators, insisting that it was a cut to administration.

So my question again to the minister: shouldn't the minister start at the top rather than going down and hurting those most vulnerable as the first line of attack?

Hon. M. Polak: The member well knows, because we've canvassed this before, that both the infant development program and the supported child development program continue uninterrupted, and that the administrative and coordinating functions that were represented by the provincial advisor's office will now be provided through the ministry regional offices — again, consistent with the multi-year plan that we are still continuing with to decentralize according to what Mr. Ted Hughes recommended in his well-known report.

J. Kwan: Well, that's not what the front-line workers say. April Kennedy at Sheway and her colleague work with young infants and pregnant women with substance misuse challenges. She and her co-worker provide developmental screenings, assessments and support to group parents. They rely heavily on the information provided to them by the advisers in the infant and Aboriginal Infant Development Program of B.C. so that the high-risk infants and their families have a better chance to succeed in life. Currently they have a caseload of 80 infants, and approximately 70 percent are identified as aboriginal.

To the minister again: is the chance to succeed for 80 high-risk children not worth $300,000?

Hon. M. Polak: I will advise the member that the infant development program maintains the same budget that it began with — $18 million this year, an all-time high — and supported child development has seen an increase in funding from $37.7 million in '04-05 to an all-time high now of $57 million this year.

These are hugely valuable programs, but they're part of a complex array of supports that we provide to children and families around the province. As we shift to decentralize, I want to remind the members of something that Mr. Hughes said in his report — decentralization "allows for a closer match of services and programs to the unique needs of widely dispersed…communities." And that's what we are going to provide.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: You know, from the front-line workers' point of view, they take a different point of view than this minister. They say that training and current information on relevant trends and changes in early intervention are an essential part of providing quality services to the heavy at-risk caseload.

The infant development office has helped over 80,000 parents at the cost of $300,000. That's $3.75 per family.

[ Page 1868 ]

Why is it that this government can find close to a million dollars to spend on government MLAs and their cabinet ministers for Olympic tickets? Why is it that this government can find…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: Why is it that this government can find half a billion dollars for a retractable roof, and they cannot find $300,000 to support front-line workers working with high-risk infants of 18 months or younger?

[1425]

Hon. M. Polak: I will repeat this for the member. There are no reductions in service in infant development programs. There are no reductions in service in supported child development programs. In fact, both programs are being funded at an all-time high. There is no reduction in funding.

I'll tell you what really concerns me. I have been travelling around this province, and I have been talking to front-line workers. What really concerns me is that you have parents who are dealing with at-risk infants, with special needs children, and they're being told by opposition members that those programs are not going to be there. That is the last thing those families need to hear. It's absolutely untrue, and those members should be ashamed of themselves.

MINIMUM WAGE

R. Chouhan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It has been eight years since B.C.'s lowest-paid workers had a raise. In fact, it was decreased from $8 an hour to $6 for the new workers. We now have the lowest minimum wage in the country.

To the Minister of Labour: how much longer do our lowest-paid workers have to wait? When will the government finally raise the minimum wage?

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to take the member back eight years to when we were first elected and the NDP were defeated. So 60 percent of single parents were on welfare in this province, and 6 percent of people were earning minimum wage. Today that has been cut in half to 2.7 percent of the people on minimum wage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: People earning minimum wage today pay no provincial tax, as they did when the NDP were in power, and the NDP voted against that. People earning minimum wage pay no MSP, and the NDP voted against that as well.

[End of question period.]

C. James: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. James: This petition has 1,597 signatures from the Kelowna area opposing the HST.

S. Herbert: I'd like to seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Herbert: All right. This petition is 1,407 signatures from the good people of Vancouver–West End opposing the HST.

S. Hammell: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Hammell: This petition is signed by 3,496 people from the wonderful city of Surrey, and I present this to the House, as they are opposing the implementation of the HST.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts; and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

bill 14 — housing and

social development statutes

amendment act, 2009

continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Housing closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been sitting listening to the members opposite for some time, and I must admit that

[ Page 1869 ]

the NDP love affair with criminals continues. It's absolutely amazing to me, though, that their tough talk earlier this spring, when they wanted to go after gangs in British Columbia, has withered away to actually opposing a bill that says somebody with an indictable offence would not be given welfare.

The interesting thing about this: it wasn't always thus. As a matter of fact, I will read just one

section of a regulation that existed from 1997 to the year 2000 in the province of British Columbia.

"A person is not eligible for assistance if a warrant for the arrest of that person or an adult dependent has been issued under the Immigration Act of Canada or under an enactment of Canada in relation to an indictable offence and the warrant has not been executed, and for the purposes of this section, indictable offence includes an offence that is deemed under

section 34(1)(

a) of the

Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence."

That is part of a regulation that goes on for about two pages that the NDP had in place in 1997.

They stood over there on Thursday afternoon and berated the government for no consultation, not doing this thing publicly, going out for discussion in a house…. What did the NDP do? They brought that regulation in, in 1997, without any consultation, with no discussion with law enforcement, no discussion with communities. They went ahead and brought it into place. Subsequently, three years, they lost it to a Charter challenge because they didn't have the temerity to actually put in legislation.

But they'll sit here at the absolute height of hypocrisy and berate a law that does exactly what they did in 1997. How could it be okay to do the regulation haphazardly in 1997 and not okay to do a piece of legislation in 2009 that actually tries to meet the test to deal with this issue in our province?

Something switched. Somewhere along the way, the NDP have decided that some sexual predator from Montreal with a Canada-wide warrant coming into British Columbia should get social assistance, or some guy that's actually been assaulting someone — whether it be his ex-spouse or whatever the case may be — and has an outstanding warrant for an indictable offence should come to British Columbia. They'll wrap their arms around him and say: "Welcome to this province, and by the way, here's a cheque."

We don't agree with that, and actually, at one time they didn't either. They absolutely didn't either. But today they've changed their minds. Earlier this spring they wanted us to go after body armour. Earlier this spring they wanted to work with us on gangs. Now their policy is, "Well, we have a gang member committing an indictable offence, and they have an outstanding warrant. Give them welfare, because that's what we really believe in" — over there.

Yet the hypocrisy is that they already tried to do it themselves, and in so doing, they killed all the rest of the arguments that they had during second reading debate.

Sometimes you should look at your history. Sometimes you should look in the mirror.

As we go through that, we should also understand that a number of the other things that these folks were actually complaining about during second reading need to be put on the record so that we can actually have these people understand what's going on in B.C. versus when they were government in the 2000s.

[1435]

Let's deal with children and the LICO measurement, which is a measurement the members were all talking about. The children in poverty in British Columbia in 2000. Total population: 15.1 percent, the highest in B.C.'s history. Today: 11.1 percent, the lowest in B.C.'s history.

They don't want to talk about the fact that the percentage of children living in low income in British Columbia just in one year, in 2006 to 2007, declined by 29,000 children, a reduction of 21 percent. They don't want to talk about the fact that the incidence of children living in low income declined by 13 percent in 2007, the lowest since 1991. The proportion of families living in poverty is decreasing at a rate that is historical in British Columbia because of the policies of this government.

That LICO measurement doesn't measure rental assistance. It doesn't measure the other programs in government. It doesn't measure the lowest income tax rate for people making lower incomes. Even themselves, they say on their stuff: "Don't measure it by that."

So then I sat and listened to things about SROs, and I heard things about issues with the Downtown Eastside. I could go on for hours on what's been done in Vancouver for housing, in the Downtown Eastside and across B.C.

I could talk about the 7,000 people who were homeless 36 months ago, when our outreach teams have actually connected them to housing with supports across B.C. — and 80 percent of them are still housed today. I could talk about the fact that we've gone and bought 23 single-room-occupancy hotels, upgraded them and changed them into better housing and supports for people that are homeless with mental health and addictions on our street.

I could talk about the fact that we've taken the homeless shelters in British Columbia, almost tripled the amount in the last few years and taken the 24-7, 365 days a year and put in two other strategic moves with regards to cold-weather and extreme-weather strategies. But those I might actually save for my second reading debate under the Assistance to Shelter Act.

But I could not wait, frankly, to talk about the love affair with a criminal by the NDP and the hypocrisy of actually having a regulation that almost mirrors the legislation that's before the House and not once taking this to any consultation or whatever when they did it. What are we doing? In open debate in the Legislature of British Columbia, we're debating

an act, and we'll go right through committee stage.

[ Page 1870 ]

It should be interesting, as each one of these things matches up, what the objection of the members opposite will be to, let's say,

section 1(2) of their regulation: "under any other enactment in Canada in relation to an indictable offence…."

I suppose they'll get up and debate that and be opposed to it and call division on that when they actually get to it, because obviously, they didn't believe in it then, and they don't believe in it now. All they want to do is wrap their arms around the bad criminals of this country and say: "Come on guys. Come on down and get a cheque."

I close second reading debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I refer the bill to a Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call committee stage debate on Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Health Statutes

(Residents' Bill of Rights)

Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Hon. I. Chong: I would like to introduce some of the staff with me today to begin with and then allow the members to ask some questions. With me today are Sue Bedford with our ministry, Christine Massey and Andrew Hazlewood, who's the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport.

With that, I'll entertain the questions from the members opposite.

section 1.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister and staff members. I hope we will go through committee stage in a meaningful way. Just to start the questions, my understanding is that

section 1 talks about the display of the bill of rights at each care facility location. I would like to ask the minister whether the bill of rights will be displayed at one location or more than one location in each facility.

Hon. I. Chong: As I understand, the question is whether there would be the displaying of the bill of rights in several locations within that facility. The requirement is that it needs to be displayed in one location within that facility, in a prominent location that is highly visible and that people can see.

However, if a facility should choose to prominently display it on, say, every level of their facility or in a number of areas, they can do so. But they are required at this time to absolutely have it visible in one location within that facility.

J. Brar: What steps will be taken to make sure the rights of adult persons in care are known orally and in writing? We have already spoken about writing to personal care and their families and representatives. My question basically is around…. I understand the display of the bill of rights, which will be placed somewhere on the wall in an area which is visible to a majority of the residents. But orally or verbally, what method will be applied to make sure that all the instructions about the bill of rights are given to the residents?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would expect the facilities to ensure that the bill of rights is displayed in an appropriate and prominent location and that on admission to the facility, the staff there would speak to the family members, to the residents, and advise them that there is in fact a bill of rights that they can refer to from time to time.

[1445]

I'll give you one example. In Surrey we have a facility where probably more than 50 percent of the people speak South Asian languages. So in that sense, in my opinion, if we want to truly implement the bill of rights and make it known to the residents, it's important for the residents to have that access in different languages.

[ Page 1871 ]

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, on admission the staff will be required to ensure that residents who are coming into the facility are aware there is a bill of rights or their family members are aware. They must communicate so in a way that it is understood that there is in fact a bill of rights.

J. Brar: I would like to submit, though, that it's very important to the minister's office that we do make that option available under this bill. As I said before, if we want to totally implement this bill of rights, it's important that we translate the bill into languages that people can understand. So it's very important. I don't think if you give the option, that will serve the purpose which is actually the intent of this bill.

We are talking about the written bill of rights now. Similarly, I think the intent of this bill is that oral or verbal instructions will also be made available about the bill of rights to the residents if needed. So my question will be about that as well, because this bill says that oral instructions will be available.

Hon. I. Chong: I assure the member that I am very aware, living in a multicultural and diverse province such as I do, that there are certainly languages…. As he will know, our government has strived over a number of years to ensure that a number of publications are translated in a variety of languages.

[1450]

I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't occur. It's just that that option is available. We certainly would like to work with them. Also, the health authorities, as I understand it, have translators within the health authorities, and they work closely with the facility as required when there is a need for translation. So that will still be ongoing. That is still being made available. But most importantly, for residents and family members to know that a bill of rights is there so that they have understanding of what to expect in terms of a commitment to care.

J. Brar: When we talk about the translation, that matter could be taken care of very easily, because you need somebody to translate, and then, of course, you can display that on the wall. But when we talk about verbal instructions, that's a much bigger task for the care provider, if that's the expectation from them. Verbal instructions cannot be given to only translation. It has to be somebody talking to the resident in that situation.

My question is: how is the minister going to implement or make sure that the verbal instructions in this case — for example, in Punjabi, Cantonese or Mandarin — are available to the residents who can only speak that language if there is no staff in a particular care facility?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm just trying to ensure that I have the correct, I guess, response to the member's question. If he is referring to instructions on how to provide care, that would be what the health authorities are always and currently involved in, in terms of ensuring that the care facilities have the translators in place to instruct on the care that needs to be provided.

But if his questions are with respect to care and the care providers, that is the area of responsibility with the health authorities and health services.

J. Brar: I would like to probably make it more specific. We are talking about the bill of rights, not the care which is related to the health authority. We are talking about the bill of rights, and I would particularly read from

section 1(b), which says here under (c.2): "make the rights of adult persons in care known, orally and in writing, to

[ Page 1872 ]

persons in care and their families and representatives." So that's what the bill says.

[1455]

If the member is concerned that those instructions or that communiqué is not being made available, I do have the ability, as well, to make an order about how to have that displayed within that facility.

So my question is…. In this one you're expecting the care providers to make sure the residents and their families and the representative know about the bill of rights, both in writing as well as in oral instructions. So you want to make sure of that. That's a good thing.

What I want to make sure of is that…. If in a facility there's no staff member who can speak, for example, a Punjabi language, and there are 30 percent of the residents who speak a Punjabi language, then who will give them oral instructions in that situation to make sure this bill of rights is known to those people, the people who can't read and write?

Hon. I. Chong: I thought, in a previous answer, that I had provided that to the member. Again, I will reiterate for him that the health authorities will be providing assistance in this way. They'll be monitoring the requirements. They have translators, and they can call them if needed to ensure that should there be a problem that arises that a family member or a resident is…. If they are determining that they are not feeling an adequate acknowledgment of the bill of rights, the health authorities should call for assistance — call the translators to make sure they are aware that there is a bill of rights.

The health authorities will continue to monitor them, and as I say, they have the staff complement. Especially in some of the larger densely populated areas, they have a number of translators that they can call upon.

Hon. I. Chong: The care facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the residents and family members are aware of the bill of rights. As part of their licensing, the health authorities will be monitoring to ensure that they do adhere to this new requirement. So that's one of the reasons why the health authorities, as I've indicated, will be monitoring this. It is going to be a requirement that they do adequately ensure that this takes place.

I'm sure that at the beginning there might be some confusion. If members feel that they have not been adequately provided with information, then we would expect that they would make that known to the care facility and that, therefore, the health authorities would be able to provide that assistance.

[1500]

As part of the licensing requirement, that care facility will be required to ensure that they do provide that information and avail themselves of those translators in these health authorities if they need to call upon them to do so.

J. Brar: I was more clear last time, and I'm as confused as I was last time after the answer I got from the minister.

To make it very simple, what I want to understand here is…. In my estimation, this would need additional work, whether by staff members of the care facilities or staff members of the health authority. I just want to figure out who in that situation will be responsible to provide verbal instructions — whether it's the staff of the health authority or staff of the care provider. That's my question. If the minister can clarify that, that will be helpful. We can move on to the next

section then.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, as indicated, the care facilities are responsible. Their staff are responsible for providing this information. If needed, if they are not able to communicate this in a way that the resident or family members understand…. If they need assistance from a translator, then they can ask for help through the health authorities. But at the end of the day, the care facilities

[ Page 1873 ]

need to ensure that their residents or family members are aware.

That's what I said earlier — that on admission, they need to ensure that those members know. If they experience that that is not happening, then they will need to contact, as I say, the appropriate individuals, likely through the health authorities, to get the assistance to make sure that people are aware of this bill of rights. I hope that clarifies it for the member.

J. Brar: I understand that now. The primary responsibility basically, when it comes to the bill of rights and making it known to the residents, will remain with the care provider. That's what I understand from the response from the minister.

In that respect, will that mean that some, if not all, care facilities may be required to hire staff members particularly to deliver instructions to a multicultural community if that's the need of that particular care facility?

Hon. I. Chong: I would just like to again reiterate for the member. He indicated care providers would be responsible, but I want to say while they are providers, it's the care facility itself which is responsible for ensuring that the bill of rights is made known to its residents or to family members.

I do want to say that most facilities do in fact have a complement of staff who speak a variety of languages. But if a facility found that they did not have a staff member who could adequately translate or communicate the bill of rights, they can, as I say, contact the health authorities. They can search out an organization within the community to ask for someone to come along and translate. They can choose whatever variety of ways to ensure that the resident or the family member is aware.

[1505]

I'm not able to suggest that every care facility is going to hire new people. It will depend on the circumstance. Particularly in the Lower Mainland, my understanding is that many of the care facilities do have staff on hand who speak a variety of languages. But for those other remote areas that don't, generally there will be a community organization that will have translators, as well, who could provide that. Even family members may feel that they are comfortable and adequately trained to be able to translate for the benefit of the resident or family member coming into that facility.

The primary responsibility remains with the care provider, but they can seek help from the health authority, if that's the case, or they can hire somebody to get that work done, or they can get help from family members and all that.

My point was that there could be a case where they need to hire somebody to get that work done, because otherwise this bill of rights will not be implemented if that capacity is not available in that facility.

Having said that, I will move on to subsection (c)(1.2), where it states: "The minister may make orders for the purposes of subsection (1)(c.1)(ii)." This is a bit confusing for me. I want to ask a very simple question on that one. What kind of orders can the minister make for the subsections I just listed?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the best way to describe this is by way of example. If we found that a facility was not posting the bill of rights in a prominent location or that the font is so small that nobody can read it…. As you know, we're all getting older and need to be able to have it prominently displayed and also be able to read it. If it's not being posted appropriately in that manner, as the minister, we have the ability to make an order to ensure that those are corrected.

I trust that that's a good enough example for the member as to how the minister would make an order to ensure that the bill of rights is well known to those in that facility.

J. Brar: I'll move on — I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing here — to

section

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Brar: Under

section 2(a), it says: "defining a word or expression used but not defined in this Act." I just want to ask: what is the purpose of this amendment? What is the end goal the minister wants to achieve by amending this particular clause?

Hon. I. Chong: From time to time, I suppose, there are words or expressions that may be used which may appear ambiguous. What this

section merely does is provide an opportunity for that word to be clarified so that there is no misunderstanding, so that there is no ambiguity.

[1510]

This

section provides the ability, by regulation, for us to make that clarification if we find that there is a word or an expression being confused or being used in ambiguous ways.

J. Brar: Can the minister give any example of those words or expressions?

Hon. I. Chong: What this

section allows is essentially what is permitted through other pieces of legislation

[ Page 1874 ]

as well — that where you find a word or an expression within the legislation that is confusing, that requires clarification or is ambiguous, for then, by regulation, to make it more clear.

Because we have not yet implemented the bill, we don't know whether there is a word or expression in here that can be misinterpreted or that can be used in an ambiguous way. I can't give the member an example, because if there was an example, we wouldn't be putting it in. We would clarify it now.

This provides a

section for us to…. Upon its implementation, if we were to find that that were to take place, we can by regulation, therefore, make the necessary change to clarify it. It's dealing with a potential circumstance, if that should occur. There is, again, no example I can point to currently, because we don't know how people will be interpreting some of the words and expressions within this.

J. Brar: I will move on to subsection (

b) of

section 2. Under that there are three different things that are mentioned here. The first one under (

a) is: "designate a class of premises." Can the minister define what it means by designating a class of premises?

Hon. I. Chong: This would allow us, if required, to designate a class of premises and, potentially, a new class of premises. Currently, what we're considering is a class of premises such as the long-term care facilities, a class of premises such as the community living group homes, a class of premises such as the mental health and addiction facilities.

Should a new class of premises emerge in the future, again, it would allow us to designate that grouping as that class of premises. It deals with those that currently exist and anticipates, perhaps, adding and ensuring that that new class of premises would be captured by this legislation.

[1515]

J. Brar: Can the minister provide a list of premises that this bill of rights will be applicable to?

Hon. I. Chong: The examples I gave to the member were examples of the class of premises that we're dealing with.

Just to be very specific, the bill of rights will apply to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Residential Care Regulation — so including the long-term care, as I've indicated, mental health and substance abuse, community living, hospice, acquired injury. It will also apply to residential care facilities regulated under the Hospital Act, typically referred to as private hospitals or extended care facilities.

I'm presuming that's what the member is looking for, as opposed to a list of every single facility throughout the entire province of British Columbia. I hope that provides clarification.

J. Brar: Is there any exemption to any premises which fall under the community living care act which is not part of this bill?

Hon. I. Chong: We have not considered or provided for any exemptions based on the list that I just read to the member. Those who are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or the Hospital Act in particular will be required to post the residents bill of rights.

J. Brar: My simple question is: why not apply this bill of rights to assisted-living facilities?

Hon. I. Chong: As I understand it, the member originally asked if there are exemptions. I indicated there are no exemptions. The follow-up question, I guess, refers now to why it doesn't include those who are living in assisted living.

The bill of rights does not apply to assisted living because the persons who reside in assisted living are able to make decisions on their own behalf and do not need the extensive protections that are provided to persons with complex care needs. Those facilities, as I've indicated, are generally for those persons who will have complex care needs. That's why the bill of rights applies to those facilities.

J. Brar: If we believe that the intent of this bill is to improve the care for seniors…. There are a lot of people who are receiving home care from the government. I think it will make sense to include those people as well, if possible. So my question to the minister will be: why not include people who are receiving home care? Why can't we make them part of this bill of rights or a similar bill of rights?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I indicated the bill of rights applies to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Residential Care Regulation, as well as the Hospital Act. Those facilities which are classified as assisted living are not licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. That's where we had made the determination as to where the bill of rights would apply.

[1520]

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Brar: This is actually the major line of questions I would like to ask, because this

section has that list of the so-called bill of rights which has been developed, probably

[ Page 1875 ]

keeping in mind that this will improve care for the seniors in care facilities. My first question will be why the minister thought it was important to develop this bill of rights and make it available to seniors.

Hon. I. Chong: First, I do want to say that the bill of rights will not be applying just to seniors. It will be for all those adults. We actually did take a look at that. I think the original thought was that it would be applied just to seniors. Recognizing that some of these facilities will have persons who are adults but not classified as seniors, we created this residents bill of rights to clarify the rights of adults when they move into residential care, as the facility becomes their home either temporarily or permanently.

Therefore, the bill of rights is designed to help ensure that licence holders, the person in care and the family members are all made aware of that standard set of rights. That goes to the heart of why the bill of rights was created and established.

J. Brar: My understanding is that this whole list in the bill of rights is not a new creation. It is something that already existed in different places. The purpose here is to put together one consolidated list of those rights so that it can be made available to the people living in different facilities. Is that what we're doing here, or is this a completely new creation done by the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: The bill of rights actually strengthens provisions for persons in care. Actually, it's complementary to existing provisions. I want to clarify that we do have, as the member indicated, protections currently for residents of facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and under the Hospital Act. The introduction of the bills of rights is not merely a repeat of that but actually, as I say, strengthens that.

Let me provide for the member, in a number of areas, what the bill of rights will do in addition to the protections that are currently there. It articulates government's commitment to care and to individualized care plans for each resident not necessarily in place now. It enshrines a right of participation in the development of their care plan or, where residents are unable to participate, the right of their family or representative to participate.

It promotes transparency by requiring that the bill of rights is posted prominently for all residents, family members and visitors to a facility to see. It promotes accountability to residents and family members by requiring the posting of the most recent routine inspection report.

It also creates a plain-language guide to the rights of persons in care. Most residents and their family members are not aware of the specific and detailed legislative requirements in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act, which are written in a more legal drafting style.

These are some of the enhanced protections and rights that members can come to know and understand — and their family members, when they make a choice of moving a member into one of these facilities in which the bill of rights will now be posted.

[1525]

J. Brar: For any new bill, either somebody initiated that bill from within the ministry to improve or streamline the system — that's understandable, and that's a good step if somebody does it — or there's a demand from outside, from the public, for some sort of change or amendment or for the new creation of any bill.

My question was: is this bill of rights in front of us the outcome of somebody asking from outside, or is this the outcome of the ministry staff just looking into the existing bill of rights, which is probably at different places, to streamline the system, putting all those things together in one place?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will probably know that the act was renewed about four years ago, and on October 1, 2009, this year, we also renewed some of the Residential Care Regulation. It made sense that we were also moving forward, as I say, to build upon existing protections and moving towards the bill of rights.

If the member is suggesting that the staff and the ministry were just putting together a bill of rights without regard to a number of other events that were taking place, I want to assure him that it was a constant review of what we have in place. As I say, with the renewal of the act and the renewal of the regulations, it made sense to move forward to a residents bill of rights.

J. Brar: Moving on to the next level, can the minister provide us a list of stakeholders that were consulted, specifically for the purpose of this bill, to ensure that the list in the bill of rights is comprehensive and inclusive?

Hon. I. Chong: Government did hold a number of extensive public consultations from fall 2004 through to January 2005 on the Residential Care Regulation, and that's one of the reasons why a number were introduced just this past October. They were held with a number of organizations and stakeholders.

The residential care regulations, therefore, are compatible with the residents bill of rights, which is one of the reasons why we did not have a separate consultation, if that's what the member is referring to, on the bill of rights.

As he well knows, we had promises in our election platform. As well, it was reiterated in the Speech from the Throne just this fall. It certainly was very well known and publicly known.

We also, over a number of years, have had phone calls with organizations that include the B.C. Care Providers

[ Page 1876 ]

Association and the Denominational Health Association. They, too, were very clearly aware of the bill. Perhaps those organizations are two of the larger organizations concerned and wanting to have input and awareness of what was coming forward.

J. Brar: If I understand that correctly, there were no specific consulting efforts made for this particular bill of rights. Is that true?

Hon. I. Chong: There was no additional consultation made, if that's what the member is referring to, specifically for the residents bill of rights, because government had held an extensive consultation between fall 2004 to early 2005 on the Residential Care Regulation with organizations and stakeholders.

[1530]

For that reason, that consultation really led to the compatibility of what was being proposed in the bill of rights. So no separate consultation, I agree. However, there had been extensive consultation leading up to the bill of rights.

J. Brar: There is quite a bit of questioning on this one. My understanding, then, is that of all the stakeholders, whether it's seniors or care providers or other facilities…. Nobody was specifically asked to give input or feedback for this bill of rights. That's my understanding. If that's wrong, I would like to ask the minister to clarify that.

I understand the minister is talking about the historic consultation done with the stakeholders, but that was for a different purpose. We are talking here about a particular bill of rights, and I think that question needs to be asked to the stakeholders. If that question was specifically asked previously, I would like to know that. If not asked, then I would like to know why the minister chose not to specifically consult the stakeholders — particularly, in this situation, the residents and care providers — to give input, to make sure that this bill of rights is complete, inclusive and comprehensive.

Hon. I. Chong: There were approximately 1,200 people who did participate in the consultation on the changes to the regulations. Because the regulations are compatible with the bill of rights, there was no separate consultation process that was taken.

The member is asking: "Was there a separate consultation?" I've advised that there was not. He asked: "Why not?" It's because the consultation that took place earlier was such that they were…. The consultation that took place on the regulations ensured that they were also compatible with the rights that we are introducing now.

J. Brar: What will the minister then say to those stakeholders who now think that they should have been consulted and they could have given good input into the process? What will be the response of the minister to those people who are very, very involved in this process, either care providers or seniors or family members or staff members — all those people? What would the minister say to those who say, "We should have been consulted specifically about this bill of rights. We could have made it better or more effective" — to basically do the thing which the minister would like to do by implementing this bill of rights?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, because of the extensive consultation that took place and because that consultation complements the bill of rights, we did not feel that there was a need for a separate consultation.

I acknowledge that the member may feel that further consultation can take place or should take place. So let me just say this to the member. If there is something that is fundamentally missing from the bill of rights that is required or should be required to be included, we are always willing to hear from stakeholders and organizations. But we do believe that the bill of rights does complement a number of the consultations that took place.

[1535]

The bill has been introduced. It's been out in the public domain now for, I think, just over a week, and we've not heard from any groups that say that something that was fundamental should have been included in the bill of rights.

Again, we're always willing to listen. This is, as I say, a piece of legislation that allows us to build upon a number of protections that we currently have in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and in the Hospital Act. I believe it's a good step forward. Certainly, I'm sure we'll hear from others if, in fact, more should be considered in the future.

I would not have wanted to hold up putting something like this in place in order to, as I say, provide this complementary piece of legislation for the other rights that are currently available.

J. Brar: You know, we're talking about the bill, which is going to be implemented pretty soon — in the near future. There are people out there, by the way…. As I said, I've spoken to seniors. I've spoken to some staff members. I've spoken to care providers. I have spoken to a lot of stakeholders out there. A lot of people are not happy, because they think they were never asked about this bill. That is a very genuine concern of these people, and I think that that step should have been taken before putting together this bill of rights.

The minister is suggesting now that the minister is willing to listen. I appreciate that. But what will that mean after you basically pass this bill and implement this on those people? The consultation won't mean anything until the minister brings this bill back to this House and makes the amendments. So that's a long process to go, and that's not the right process to follow.

[ Page 1877 ]

I would just leave a note on this particular part that it was a mistake not to consult the key stakeholders for this particular bill — which are the people in care, care providers, staff members and family members — because this is for them. They should have been given the opportunity to ask as to what they want to improve, if we really want to improve the care for the people in care facilities.

I will move on to a specific question.

Section 3 says: "An adult person in care has the right to a care plan developed…." My question to the minister will be if the minister can tell us who will be responsible to develop the care plan.

Hon. I. Chong: The facility has responsibility for developing the care plan for the resident, for the individual, with that individual. If that individual wishes to include family members, they can do so, but primarily the care facility, or the facility in cooperation and working with the resident, will develop the care plan that best suits their needs.

J. Brar: So my understanding is that this will be a responsibility of the staff members, to be more specific. The staff members of a particular facility will be responsible to work with the resident in care and talk about developing an individualized care plan.

Is that the true or right definition of developing an individualized care plan — that it will be the responsibility of staff members working with the individual residents to develop individualized care plans?

[1540]

Hon. I. Chong: I want to be clear. It's not just the staff at the facility. It's the facility staff that have the clinical expertise to develop these individualized care plans. That is currently what is, in fact, taking place now.

J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, to the minister. So my understanding then is that they will develop the plan, and they will also be responsible to implement the plan step by step.

Hon. I. Chong: Once the individualized care plan has been developed and agreed to, then that plan provides direction to all relevant staff to meet the needs of that person in care. So it will have been developed, it will have been agreed to, and then the plan is implemented. Direction is given to staff for them to implement it based on that agreement of that care plan.

J. Brar: Just to recapture that. I just want to make sure that at the end of the day, once it is implemented, there will be some guidelines for the care facility people, which will also serve as guidelines to the residents, who will be working with the staff members or the care facility for those individualized plans.

So it will be developed by the staff members. There will be some input from the health authorities, and they will also be responsible to implement that developed plan step by step later on.

My next question will be…. In each care facility there are residents who may come from different cultural backgrounds or diverse cultural backgrounds, and there may be staff members who come from different cultural backgrounds as well. Will the residents of a particular care facility have a choice to work with somebody they feel comfortable with?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to say, first and foremost, that care plans, once established, developed or determined, don't stay in that form forever. Care plans can be reviewed regularly as the needs of the person in care change. So there is that opportunity.

It is up to the facilities to work with the residents and family members to deliver the best possible care for those residents and to recognize the unique needs of residents. There is not one approach that can be taken across the board. Every facility will, based on the residents' needs, develop their plans and ensure that they're followed through in that way.

[1545]

I also want to assure the member that licensing also monitors the concerns of residents' needs if they're not being met. In fact, licensing also will monitor the care plans through random selection, take a look at care plans again to ensure that they are considering in some cases unique needs of some of their residents. I hope that provides some assurance to the member.

J. Brar: What will be the caseload on one staff member to ensure that this is done properly, meeting "unique abilities" as listed in this bill — "physical, social and emotional needs, and cultural and spiritual preferences"?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to be clear here that the bill of rights does not impose staffing requirements. For facilities regulated under the Residential Care Regulation,

section 42, a licensee must ensure that, at all times, the employees on duty are sufficient in numbers, training and experience to meet the needs of the persons in care and to provide assistance to people with the activities of daily living. So we are not setting staffing requirements. That is not what the bill of rights is designed to do.

J. Brar: I think the expectation of the minister will be for this bill of rights — particularly as we're talking about developing an individualized plan for the person in care — that the plan is developed, then that plan is implemented, and that the plan is monitored.

As the minister said, somebody is going to monitor the plan. To do that, there must be sufficient capacity. So what will be the expectation from the minister as to what

[ Page 1878 ]

is a reasonable number of residents for the caseload for one staff member to make sure this is done appropriately to the satisfaction of the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: I could, perhaps, seek a bit of clarification. I'm wanting to determine if he is asking about the staff requirement and the caseload — what he's indicated — that would be required to deal with the implementation of the bill of rights, which is, as I say, requiring certain clarifications for family members as well as for the residents in the care, or whether he's speaking specifically to the staff complement that is required in each facility for those residents in those facilities.

I'm not clear, when he's referring to caseload, what he's referring to. Is it the provision of the health care or is it the caseload for the provision of the bill of rights?

J. Brar: We're talking about only one thing here. I just want to clarify that again. We're talking about the bill of rights here, and I don't think we're talking about anything else. We're talking about the bill of rights. We're talking about a particular item under the list of the bill of rights, and that is to develop an individualized plan for each person in care.

[1550]

My question is very simple. The minister must have some standards, at least, or some expectation from the care facilities as to what the caseload is that is reasonable for a staff member to get this additional work done. That is my question.

There may be 50 people in one facility and five staff members. Is that the right number to make sure that the individualized plan is developed and implemented and that somebody is there to monitor? I am asking about the caseload to develop the individualized plan, to implement it and to monitor it. What is the standard caseload that the minister will be satisfied with?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated earlier, there are individualized plans that currently take place, which were already in place prior to the introduction of the bill of rights. The bill of rights, as I say, is a clarification as to what family members and residents can expect, so it's not providing or requiring, necessarily, additional work.

However, the staff-to-client ratio will vary depending on the needs of the residents and will be up to the facility. If the member is looking for an average, it's very difficult, because every facility is different. There are more complex needs in some facilities than in others.

The care plans are being developed, have been in the past and will continue to do so.

J. Brar: My understanding, then, is that the minister, at this point in time, is not sure as to what is an acceptable level of caseload from a particular care facility to make sure that this is implemented to the satisfaction of the minister.

With that, I will move on to the next bill of rights, another line there, which says: "to have access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints or resolve disputes…." Who will ensure access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints and resolve disputes? Who is responsible for that?

Hon. I. Chong: As would be expected, the facility would be primarily responsible to develop the means to resolve disputes.

J. Brar: My understanding on this one, as well, is that this will be a task the staff members will be responsible to deliver once this bill is passed and subsequently implemented.

The next line there is: "to be informed as to how to make a complaint" to an outside authority. Who will be responsible to inform about this particular right? Will it be staff members or somebody else?

[1555]

Hon. I. Chong: I wanted to make sure that I had all the information for the member. I apologize for the delay.

There are licensing officers who currently have a range of tools that they can use to ensure compliance with the regulations and legislation. The facility will be required to provide information to residents or their family members as to how they can make a complaint outside the facility. That's why the bill of rights states, in plain language, that a resident must be informed.

If a resident or a family member wishes to make a complaint, they have the right to be informed on how to do so. If that should not happen, then the licensing officer, who has, as I say, a range of tools to ensure that there is compliance, could ensure that they come into the situation. Also, if they have to issue any action on the facility operator's licence, which can involve things like suspension or cancellation, that could take place.

I would expect that all facility operators will ensure that they have people on staff and even — again, upon admission — informing the residents and the family members, should there be a complaint, as to how to make that complaint outside of the facility.

J. Brar: This is a little strange to me that the care facility will inform the people in care about making complaints against them to an outside authority. That is a bit strange to me.

[1600]

Compliance is a big issue here. Accountability is a big issue here. I just want to get an understanding from the minister as to how this particular right will be enforced, because as I see it, there is a contradiction in this right.

[ Page 1879 ]

Somebody is telling somebody about making a complaint against the person who is telling them.

How do you enforce this kind of thing? People in care won't know about this — where to go — so how do you enforce this? Is somebody going to go into a care facility and ask them if this is happening or not happening?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, informing residents and family members that they have a right to make a complaint to an authority outside of the facility is embedded right in the bill of rights. This is part of the obligation. This is part of the bill of rights. As I say, family members and residents will be made aware, or should be made aware, on admission that these are their rights.

Also, there are inspections that will be carried out. Also, the inspection information or reports will be posted. If there is a violation of that, we have our licensing officers, who will then be able to take direct action if in fact they feel that they are not living up to the requirements of the residential care regulations.

J. Brar: I do have concerns about this particular right — as to how to enforce it. I will certainly suggest thinking through what is the best way to enforce this particular right if we want to really give the rights to the people in care. As I said before, it looks a bit contradictory that care facility providers will inform them to make complaints against them to an outside authority. There must be some system to make sure that happens.

Having said that, I will move on. They also have the right to have ready access to "laws, rules and policies affecting a service provided to him or her" and access to the most recent routine inspection report of the facility. Again, my question will be: who will be responsible to provide information or photocopies of laws, rules and policies affecting services provided to him or her and access to the most recent routine inspection report of the facility?

Hon. I. Chong: The facility is responsible.

J. Brar: This will, of course, require staff members to make photocopies and talk to the people. My point here is that this will be additional work for the staff members. That's what I'm trying to understand. That's my understanding. If it's the responsibility of the care facility, these are, at the end of the day, tasks to be performed by the staff members of that facility.

Another right they will have is to be informed in advance of all charges that must be paid to the facility and a written statement for anything paid out in advance. Who will be responsible to make sure that this happens?

Hon. I. Chong: The facility, upon admission.

J. Brar: Once again, I would like to make a note that it will, of course, be additional work for the staff members of the facility to make sure that this happens and that this is done the right way, to make sure that the bill of rights is implemented.

[1605]

Another right they have is to have a family representative equally informed of these matters of transparency and accountability. This also, in my estimation, is additional work for the staff members. I understand that this will be done by staff members. I just want the minister to confirm that.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to clarify for the member, because implying…. I don't know if he's meaning to imply that there will be a substantial amount of work the staff have to do. This is about having ready access to copies of laws — not immediate access but ready access. Yes, staff can provide copies. They can show the website. They can provide information. It's not necessarily going to be more onerous on behalf of the staff and the work they do.

I just want to ensure the member is aware that this is about providing information. This is about allowing family members as well as the residents know what they can view in terms of inspection reports and what is available to them — but certainly not to say that staff drop everything and have that immediately made available.

I don't expect that there should be required onerous amounts of time that the staff will have to spend to provide this information to those residents.

J. Brar: I understand that this is a requirement. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. This has to be done by somebody, and this whole list of new rights is an additional responsibility for staff members.

If you look at their job description, this will be a new list of things to do. That's my point. If the minister differs with that, I would like to hear that.

These are all tasks, these are all responsibilities, for the staff members to perform if the minister wants to implement this bill of rights.

The next one says respect of lifestyle and choices, including pursuit of "social, cultural, religious…and other interests." So my question here will be…. There are, as I said before, facilities where we have multicultural residents in the care facility who come from different backgrounds, have different faiths, different values, different languages and all that. There are people or a group of people in some care facilities who may wish to have their private prayer, for example. They will, of course, need a space to do that.

Will this mean — because this bill clearly states that they have to respect lifestyle and choices, including pursuit of social, cultural, religious and other interests — that the care providers, the care facility people, have to provide them a room or space, if that's the need, for the

[ Page 1880 ]

people or group of people who want to do a collective prayer in that facility?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't anticipate that there would be additional changes to accommodate this particular section.

As we know, many facilities now already have space within the facility, communal space in particular, which provides for opportunities for individuals to, as I say, pursue their social, cultural, religious, spiritual or other interests as well as to be supported in those ways.

[1610]

I don't see this

section as adding additional burden on the facility — just to know that the resident has the right to have that respected and supported.

J. Brar: So just to clarify. Is the minister saying there's absolutely no additional expectation to implement this particular right when it comes to the space availability?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't expect that to be the case. If a facility, in reviewing these rights, deemed that they have not had adequate space in the past and may wish to provide adequate space or a communal space, certainly they may wish to do so in order to accommodate this

section of the act. But to suggest that all facilities in the province would have to suddenly make modifications or changes I think would be an inaccurate reflection of what is now taking place.

We are, as I say, enshrining certain rights in a bill of rights so that residents know what they can expect and, also, what the facility operator should expect to provide. That should allow both parties to move forward to ensure that those rights are adhered to.

Again, I don't believe that a whole new structure needs to be set up to accommodate this section. I do believe currently there are a number of facilities, particularly in the Lower Mainland, that are already accommodating this. Again, the bill of rights really clarifies what the expectation of residents and family members are.

J. Brar: The simple answer to my question could have been no. But the minister is not absolutely certain about this particular question that I have asked — whether there will be an additional space requirement for people to implement this particular right, giving them the option to practise their faith or religion, as I said before. So I will take it, as I understand, that the majority of the care facilities may have the meeting rooms or spaces available, but unless the minister says absolutely not, there's a possibility that this particular right may require additional space or room for the people to practise their individual cultural and religious needs.

The other right they have in this list is protection from abuse or neglect. My understanding is that in order to protect seniors and vulnerable residents from abuse or neglect, care providers need to ensure an appropriate level and well-trained staffing in their care facility. Otherwise this will happen.

My question to the minister is: will the minister agree with my observation on this? And can the minister tell us whether the care providers in the province of British Columbia have an appropriate level and well-trained staffing available?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe this goes back to an area we canvassed earlier, and that is the individual needs of persons in care and their care plans. Their care plans will have to identify the needs of that resident and the family members as well being aware of what the needs of that particular resident will be. The facility operator will know what they need to have in place to implement that care plan and to provide the care of that individual.

[1615]

J. Brar: Now, this is my take on this bill. In order to truly enforce the bill of rights, this is a huge undertaking — a huge undertaking, I would repeat — for the care providers, and it will require a lot of additional staffing hours and probably additional staff members and additional training for staff members.

If you read this whole list…. I will probably just recap a few of the additional responsibilities staff members will have. People in care will have the right to have an individualized care plan, which somebody has to develop, somebody has to implement, and somebody has to monitor. Then they will have the right to access "a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints or resolve disputes." Somebody has to make photocopies. Somebody has to work with them to resolve disputes. That is a time-consuming process as well.

They will have the right to be informed as to how to make a complaint to an outside authority. That is also a new task. They have to go to the person and provide them with all the information — phone numbers, the contact person, their name and all that.

They will have the right to have ready access to laws, rules and policies about the services they are receiving. So this will need, of course, somebody who understands the law to tell them, to make photocopies and to make those photocopies available. If they need to translate that into a different language, somebody needs to get that work done. So that will be an additional responsibility and will need additional staffing.

They will have the right to be informed in advance about all charges that must be paid to the facility and a written statement for anything paid out in advance. So this will also require, of course, additional staffing hours.

I just mentioned a few of them. There are 15 different items on the bill of rights. This all will require additional staffing and training. This is a kind of rewriting of the job description of the staff members.

[ Page 1881 ]

Having said that, can the minister tell us if the minister has done any assessment to implement this bill of rights as to how many additional hours of staffing will be required to develop and implement all the requirements listed in this bill for the staff members?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member may be missing the point somewhat. The rights are compatible with regulations that exist and, in fact, build upon some of the existing protections for residents of facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and under the Hospital Act.

What is occurring is that most residents and family members are just not aware of those specific and detailed legislative requirements under those two acts. Even if they were aware, they don't often refer to them because they are written in some legalese. Only lawyers would spend the time to go through and understand specifically what they refer to.

So the bill of rights allows us to bring those rights, those legislative requirements, into a more plain-language document so that family members and residents are aware. As I say, a number of these rights do currently exist. People just aren't aware. This is one of the reasons why it's important to let people know, especially their family members.

We don't anticipate that there will be a greatly increased workload. Many of the facilities in the Lower Mainland already do have a bill of rights — perhaps not written in this way but, I guess, a code of conduct that they adhere to as a best practice. So again, we do not anticipate that there will be additional staffing workloads, as the member appears to indicate, because these are requirements that are legislated.

The bill of rights ensures more clarity and more transparency so that members of their families, and the residents in particular, are aware of what they can expect.

[1620]

I hope that provides some assurance to the member and to all those who may be paying attention to the debates that it's not that things are not already in place. Some people and family members are not aware, and the bill of rights attempts to correct that unawareness, if I can use that word — to make sure that the awareness, in fact, is there.

J. Brar: I am a little confused about the response I heard from the minister. I asked at the very beginning: is this bill of rights a new creation, a new list of rights, or is it already happening and the minister is trying to streamline the process?

The minister said at that time that there are a few things happening at this point in time, but there are new lists of things — part of this bill of rights. That's what the word was. There were additional or new lists of things which are the expectations of the minister of the care facilities.

Having said that, there's a huge list, if we look at that, which will be expected of staff members or care facilities to implement this particular bill of rights. I'm saying this. I've spoken to the care providers. I've spoken to seniors and other people in care facilities. I've spoken to staff members. I've spoken to care facility people. All of them say one thing consistently, very consistently: they don't have sufficient staffing to implement all of this.

They're also saying that this is additional work for them. This is additional work, for any person who can understand that very clearly. This is a new list of expectations by the minister to improve, so-called, the care of the people in care.

Having said that, my simple question to the minister will be: is the minister saying that this will not require any additional staffing hours to implement this bill?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member is not wanting to put words in my mouth. I did not say that that was not going to be the case. I said that we did not anticipate that there would, necessarily, be additional workload that would require additional staff.

Certainly, if some facilities felt that they would require additional staff or to redirect staffing requirements, they may do so. It will vary depending on the needs of persons in care and will vary from facility to facility.

What I also said earlier was that this bill of rights builds upon a number of existing protections that exist through the two acts that I've mentioned a number of times already. I've also indicated that it provides, as I say…. Upon building on that, it's not just about bringing all those existing protections together but allows for things such as informing the residents and family members that they have a right to make a complaint, as the member has already indicated. Some people were not aware that that is an important right to have.

It's about requiring facilities to make families and representatives aware that there is a bill of rights. Again, that's not going to require that much more work — just telling people upon admission that they now have a bill of rights that are available. So for the member to suggest that there are going to be onerous responsibilities that will be required of the staff, that more time will be taken away from the care they provide in order to implement the bill of rights, I think, would be a mischaracterization.

What I do believe is that if facilities currently are not able to provide this information, they will need to find out how they can, because the bill of rights, as I say, needs to be posted in a prominent location. Residents and family members need to be made aware of what those rights are upon admission.

Certainly, some of the implementation process here will be different from facility to facility. I'm not going to suggest that every facility is going to have to hire additional staff. But I'm not going to suggest, either, that

[ Page 1882 ]

some facilities are not going to redeploy or find a way to facilitate this in a manner that suits and best meets the needs of their residents.

[1625]

J. Brar: Has the minister done any assessment to figure out whether to implement this bill of rights will require additional staffing or not? If the minister has done, the minister should present that assessment.

Hon. I. Chong: We have not specifically done any, I guess, assessments and calculations for what the member is suggesting.

However, in our consultations and in our discussions with the personnel and staff who deliver a variety of the funding programs, in our discussions with the service provider organizations, they have not indicated to us that they would not be able to adhere to the bill of rights or that it would be difficult to meet in any way. We have not heard that this would be a problem.

The member suggests that it would be. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what requirements there would be. But with all the discussions that ministry staff have had with those who are reviewing the bill of rights and how to ensure that family members and residents are aware, they have not indicated that it would be difficult to meet the requirements of the bill of rights.

J. Brar: I would like to put that on the record. The minister hasn't done any consultation with any stakeholders.

As I said before, I've spoken to the care providers. I've spoken to the staff members. I've spoken to seniors and persons in care. They're all saying one thing: that in order to implement this bill of rights, there will be additional staffing and training required. They're all saying that.

The minister hasn't done any consultation. The minister hasn't done any assessment as to whether there will be a requirement of additional staffing or not. In the absence of both things, the minister still continues to say that there will not be any additional requirement for staff members or any expectation for additional staffing on this one.

I am saying, on the basis of information I got from the stakeholders and from a commonsense point of view, that this is a huge list of new responsibilities for staff members and that there will be additional staffing required and, probably, additional training for staff members needed. I'm just saying that.

[1630]

I would like to also read this for the record. "A newly released Statistics Canada report reveals that B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and '08. This came to light when many seniors remained in hospitals waiting for a bed in a residential care home setting as the Liberal government imposed a fee increase on residential care and as health authorities cut many programs in place to support seniors health.

Despite what the Liberals promised our seniors, they have suffered under the regime of this government. In 2007 and '08, B.C. had the lowest rate of paid hours per resident-day in residential care facilities in Canada, at 4.2 hours per day. This is compared to a national average of 4.8 hours per day and much higher rates in other western provinces: 5.5 hours in Alberta, 6.2 hours in Saskatchewan and 5.7 hours in Manitoba.

Clearly, B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and '08. Already they're struggling. This report is a clear indication that the care providers are already struggling. Staff members are already struggling to provide the best care they possibly can.

In addition to that shortage of staffing, now they have to look after this new list of responsibilities under the bill of rights, which seems to be a good bill of rights. But in order to implement this completely, effectively, and to make sure it happens, they would need additional staffing. They would need additional staff training as well.

My question to the minister will be: what support will the minister provide to care facilities where they need additional staffing or training for a staff member in order to implement this new bill of rights?