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)

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Ted Nebbeling

Hon. G. Campbell

M. Farnworth

J. McIntyre

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Wigs for Kids program

L. Reid

Colleen McCrory and Valhalla Wilderness Society

K. Conroy

Bruce's Country Market

M. Dalton

Rain forest protection in Incomappleux Valley

M. Sather

Olympic Torch Relay in Comox Valley

D. McRae

Valhalla Wilderness Society rain forest hiking tour

G. Gentner

Oral Questions

Hosting of Olympic Games dignitaries at Terminal City Club

K. Corrigan

Hon. I. Black

R. Fleming

B. Ralston

M. Farnworth

Distribution of GamesTown 2010 Olympic Games tickets

V. Huntington

Hon. I. Black

Waiting times for surgeries in B.C.

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

J. Horgan

Early intervention program for children with autism

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

M. Elmore

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Karagianis

L. Krog

N. Macdonald

G. Coons

K. Corrigan

A. Dix

G. Gentner

C. Trevena

N. Letnick

M. Sather

V. Huntington

H. Lali

B. Routley

D. Routley

H. Bains

D. Hayer

Hon. I. Chong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Social Development (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Herbert

[ Page 1679 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

TED NEBBELING

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague and a friend of many of us in this chamber. The former mayor of Whistler, the former MLA for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, passed away this morning after a long bout with cancer.

As those of you who knew him would know, Ted was a passionate and committed public servant. As the mayor of Whistler, he actually watched and helped guide that community to a world-class resort centre recognized around the world for the quality of its lifestyle and the quality of its community.

He was dedicated to his province and to his town. He was the minister of state for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games bid following the election in 2001 and travelled all around the world to try and ensure that we were successful in attaining that bid.

It is, I think, sometimes difficult for all of us to remember that we all are mortal in this world. It's hard to believe that someone that had the energy, the capacity and the real joy of life, like Ted did, has left our midst. I know that he was the first sitting cabinet minister to marry a same-sex partner. I'm sure his partner Jan will miss him greatly, as will his family, as will his friends and as will all of us.

He made a huge contribution to his province and made the world a little bit better and little bit brighter for all of us. I hope that we would send our condolences to Jan and the entire family.

M. Farnworth: We on this side of the House would like to join with the Premier in extending our condolences to Jan, Ted's partner. The Premier very eloquently said that Ted brought an energy to this House. All of us in this chamber, myself and a number of my colleagues who served with him back in the '90s will miss him. We join with the Premier in sending condolences to Ted's family and his partner.

J. McIntyre: I'd also like to add just a few words of tribute to Ted Nebbeling, who was my predecessor and my friend. He was a self-made man, a successful entrepreneur and a fighter right to the end, and he had many supporters and friends all around the world. He was sensitive and generous and had a wicked sense of humour and sense of play.

He was one of my closest friends, especially at the time that I had the privilege of being his riding president for six years, and trying to manage him was an amazing and memorable challenge.

As the Premier noted, he served as the first minister responsible for the 2010 games, and I'm so very sorry that he will not be here to see the flame lit in Vancouver in February 2010. I know that his spirit will be with us.

I also know that he worked very hard on the Community Charter, something that has a lasting effect in the province. He's a man well deserving of tributes.

Our hearts go out to his partner, his beloved partner Jan Holmberg, as he begins to deal with his deep loss. I just want to assure Jan that we'll all be there with him.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: Well, when I first started, I didn't think I'd be introducing so many guests from my constituency as it's so far away from Victoria. But today I'd like to introduce to the House Sheila Haegadorn. She's come all the way from Kaslo, B.C. Please make her welcome.

E. Foster: I rise today to introduce four constituents of mine. Maria Doyle, Debbie Taylor, Jody Berry and Cory Fryer are visiting the House today from the city of Vernon. They are in Victoria as members of the staff of the city attending the workshops for local government professional administrators. They've enjoyed their stay in Victoria and are here in the House today to see how a different level of government works. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

J. Rustad: As with the member for Nelson-Creston, it's not often you get the chance to introduce people that come from your riding. Today I have the pleasure of introducing two people in the House, Navi Bhatti and Amy Green.

[1340]

Navi is from the community of Houston. Both of them are here attending the University of Victoria. Navi is also the president of the Education Students Association at UVic.

We had a great opportunity to go for lunch today and have a chat, and she left me with a quote that I would like to share with the House. This is from Eleanor Roosevelt. "You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the things you think you cannot do."

Mr. Speaker and the House, please make Navi and Amy welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the galleries we have a couple of pharmacy students who are currently doing

[ Page 1680 ]

their four-week rotation at the drug use optimization branch of the pharmaceutical services division. I'd like the House to welcome Cesilia Nishi and Jerrold Perrott, who are both with us today.

Hon. S. Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to join me in welcoming four representatives from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, who are here in Victoria today: the president, Joe Sardinha from Summerland; their vice-president Kirpal Boparai, who is from my riding in Kelowna-Mission; Glen Lucas, their general manager; and Josée Larocque, their communications director.

This is the association that represents those growers that bring us those great B.C. apples, cherries and soft fruits. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WIGS FOR KIDS PROGRAM

L. Reid: I would like today to dedicate this statement to Ted Nebbeling, because it would have made him smile. Ted was my daughter's godfather, and I can tell you he was absolutely enchanting in that role.

The title of the statement is "Wigs for Kids." The Wigs for Kids program, British Columbia Children's Hospital, was started in January 2006 by Bev Friesen and 11 other women known as the Ya-yas.

They fundraise year-round for monetary or silent auction donations, and every spring they hold an annual Wigs for Kids silent auction. This is their major fundraiser, with all the funds going to the purchase of wigs for kids from all over British Columbia who have lost their hair to cancer or other serious illnesses.

At any given time in British Columbia, there are 300 children receiving treatment and another 1,200 in long-term treatment. In many cases, these kids will suffer temporary or permanent hair loss. The children go through an extremely difficult time, and it's even tougher when they lose their hair.

Kids may be healthy enough to go back to school, but their life has changed. Other kids and even some adults can be uncomfortable with side effects like baldness. A wig can help those children resume a sense of normalcy when they return to everyday life. Their baldness is a question that they then don't have to answer.

Any child who has suffered hair loss is eligible to receive a wig fully paid for if they so wish. Each wig costs approximately $2,000, but this cost drops to $600 or $800 if the hair is donated.

Colleagues, I'm calling upon you. Hair must be at least eight inches long and chemically untreated. I welcome donations of hair. Please call my office for more information.

They are always looking for help with this, and the projects are very important to countless British Columbia families. There are challenging issues, no question. The leader of this group is Bev Friesen, and she would absolutely welcome a call from any one of you. Please stay in touch.

COLLEEN M c CRORY AND

VALHALLA WILDERNESS SOCIETY

K. Conroy: The Valhalla Wilderness Society was founded in 1975 in New Denver in the Slocan Valley. It started as a group of local residents who wanted to save the forested slopes of the Valhalla mountain range from logging. After an intensive eight-year campaign, Valhalla Provincial Park was won.

The registered charity became involved in other provincial, national and international environmental projects. Valhalla has spearheaded campaigns that now protect over 1.25 million acres. Over the years, its board of directors and staff has included a diverse mixture of scientific expertise, political strategists, public spokespersons, and literary and artistic talent.

Colleen McCrory was one of the society's chief activists and its longtime chairperson, who passed away suddenly in July of 2007. Colleen was recognized for her work with many awards, both national and international. However, one of the lasting legacies of her work was the securing of the Valhalla Mile property. Thanks to a huge outpouring of public support and donations from across Canada and internationally, the Valhalla Mile — a mile of beachfront property on the west side of Slocan Lake — was successfully purchased and transferred to B.C. Parks in April of 2009, becoming part of Valhalla Provincial Park.

The Valhalla Foundation for Ecology and Social Justice, the Land Conservancy of B.C. and B.C. Parks worked jointly to raise the $1.5 million needed to secure the property from a private land owner. The addition of the Valhalla Mile to Colleen's favourite park is a tribute to her memory and to her outstanding dedication to the conservation of the natural world.

[1345]

The campaign to secure the Valhalla Mile was coordinated in Colleen's memory by her brother and colleague Wayne McCrory and his wife and fellow conservation activist, Lorna Visser. "To protect the Valhalla Mile and have it added to the park was one of Colleen's dreams, so this acquisition gives us great joy," said Wayne McCrory.

On July 1 in New Denver a celebration was held to mark this historic event, with supporters in attendance from across the province. It was indeed a tribute to the work of an incredible person and all of the people who are the Valhalla Society.

[ Page 1681 ]

BRUCE'S COUNTRY MARKET

M. Dalton: For generations, travellers driving along the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge have stopped at a familiar landmark, Bruce's Country Market, with its distinct fishing schooner lodged next to it. Bruce's Market was opened in 1948 by Bruce and Elnora McEachern and is still owned by the McEachern family. Of the 70 employees, 16 are part of the extended family, and the rest are virtually adopted, calling Bruce and Elnora Ma and Pa.

When it opened 61 years ago, the local board of trade said that it wouldn't last six months because it was too far out of town. It seems like they proved the pundits wrong. Bruce's Market is the salmon retail outlet for its fleet of ten gill-net boats, a processing plant and smokehouses. There's also a produce department, a gift

section and a large deli.

Bruce's Market holds regular events like the fall Apple Fest, when 100 varieties of apples are sold. Country bands play while friends socialize over gourmet food. On Mother's Day, Spring Fest is held, featuring their specialty: wild salmon, barbecued or smoked.

When I asked Darrel McEachern what the key to success was for all these years, he said that it was serving people what they needed at the time. The business has seen lots of variation and sidelines, including selling washers and dryers for a time. He said that people today are looking for a specialty food experience that is organic, convenient and delicious. Bruce's Market does not disappoint.

On September 17 a final goodbye was said for Bruce, who died at the age of 89 years old. Today I pay tribute to this man devoted to his family, faith and customers. Maple Ridge is a better place because of him.

RAIN FOREST PROTECTION

IN INCOMAPPLEUX VALLEY

M. Sather: Most British Columbians are aware that the west coast of our province is a rain forest. However, not that many know that we also have an extensive inland temperate rain forest in southeastern British Columbia.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Incomappleux Valley, a place I will never forget. The upper Incomappleux is an ancient and truly magnificent ecosystem. I stood beside its massive red cedars, 12 feet in diameter and 1,800 years old. I saw western hemlocks as large as those found on the coast. I saw huge white pines, larger than I've ever seen in my years as a biologist in B.C.

We walked by trees that had been recently rubbed by the grizzly bear, leaving his telltale silvertip hair behind. We searched massive tree cavities looking for early-denning black bears. We followed the trail of the mountain caribou, who feed on the abundant lichens of the forest in early winter.

Scientists believe that the upper Incomappleux forest is thousands of years older than its oldest trees. It is still the great unknown. Although there has been minimal research in the Incomappleux to date, already scientists have discovered nine species of plants not known to occur anywhere else in the world.

Incredibly, probably due to its obscurity, the upper Incomappleux Valley is not protected by any park, protected area or land use plan. The Incomappleux is the crown jewel of the inland temperate rain forest. It is not replicated elsewhere. To lose it would be unforgivable.

I invite all members to visit this ancient forest. Let's work together to ensure that our grandchildren and their grandchildren can do the same.

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY

IN COMOX VALLEY

D. McRae: You can feel the excitement and buzz in the Comox Valley already. In fact, we've been anticipating this moment for quite some time now, and I'm not talking about the first snowfall at Mount Washington. I'm talking about the upcoming 2010 Olympic Torch Relay.

[1350]

The torch will be arriving in my constituency on Monday, November 2. Communities, organizations and countless volunteers have been working tirelessly to ready events for this exciting day. On Monday morning the torch will arrive in Fanny Bay — you might have heard of their famous oysters — and travel through the historic coal port of Union Bay and the former logging town of Royston. It will then be welcomed in Cumberland by local singers and dancers.

Torchbearers will then carry on to Courtenay for a community celebration in Lewis Park. The torch will be welcomed by aboriginal tribal dancers, and several community choirs and dance groups will perform, including True Colours and Dance Medley. The torch will then leave Courtenay, stopping by the traditional big house of the Comox First Nation where it will be blessed. The torch will then travel to the town of Comox, then passing through CFB Comox and the farming communities of Merville and Black Creek on its way to Campbell River.

People in my community are excited and honoured to host these events. Not only is it a great way to embrace the Olympic spirit and support our athletes; it's an opportunity for individuals and families to get together and celebrate their community. We are lucky to live in one of the most beautiful places in all of British Columbia, and what a way to showcase both B.C. and the Comox Valley to the rest of the world.

At this time I would like to recognize the amazing work done by the chair of the torch committee, Marilyn Tevington, and the other members of the torch committee who have worked so hard to make this event a

[ Page 1682 ]

success: Randy Wiwchar, Ron Weber, Ken Grant, Don Larson, Leslie Baird, Marty Douglas, John Watson, Kirk McFarlane, Alan Douglas, Leo Richards and the RCMP detachment of the Comox Valley.

I ask the House to join me in wishing the Comox Valley and all communities across Canada the best of luck with their upcoming torch relay events.

VALHALLA WILDERNESS SOCIETY

RAIN FOREST HIKING TOUR

G. Gentner: I want to follow up what my colleagues have said about the Valhalla Wilderness Society and our excursion to the Incomappleux headwaters about 12 days ago.

As a city slicker I knew, when the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and one of our guides compared their grizzly mauling scars — and the fact that I was one trek member who didn't carry any bear mace — that this venture could become exhilarating. During our hike between the headwaters and the isolated ancient rain forest, one of our team members took a tumble off a fallen tree. At about 3:30 she had dislocated her elbow and had a spiral fracture in her right tibia.

It was raining, and in an hour the dank, wet forest was going to get darker. While the injured party received first aid treatment by my esteemed colleague, two members hiked down to our base camp for a stretcher, thermal bag and blankets. By 5:30 we began our slippery descent.

It took the full team to assist. Along hazardous terrain, two members were harnessed at both ends of the stretcher while two more were on the other side steadying and propping up the poles, and two others were there for navigating purposes.

While the slender, lankier MLA took his place in the front harnessed, the pudgier fellow took up the rear, weighted down with the others' backpacks and flashlight in hand, sometimes crawling on hand and knee, instructing team members on their footing on rocks, stumps, snags and up and over massive logs.

We inched our way step by step over a long precipice to the river canyon below us. It took us more than three hours to reach our all-terrain vehicles, which then carried us over boulders and debris from avalanches, through washouts and partial bridges. By ten o'clock our injured party was admitted to Nakusp hospital.

I would like to thank our guides, forester Craig, bear biologist Wayne, lichenologist Toby, guide and mountain hostel owner Pat and, at the base camp, Ruel for their skill and poise during a mishap that could have been disastrous. They were experienced, ready and equipped. Today Ann is recovering from her injuries, but her and the members of the Valhalla Wilderness Society's resolve is stronger than ever to protect this ancient rain forest.

Oral Questions

HOSTING OF OLYMPIC GAMES

DIGNITARIES AT TERMINAL CITY CLUB

K. Corrigan: New documents reveal the government has spent half a million dollars to entertain select guests at Vancouver's Terminal City Club during the 2010 games. My question is to the Premier. During a time when the government is cutting funds for kids' sports, hospitals and schools, why is it spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at one of the most expensive venues in Vancouver without public knowledge?

Hon. I. Black: If you look at the Olympic logo, it says: "British Columbia, host province." That logo says it all.

[1355]

Our job is to host this $4 billion revenue-generating spectacular event, and that means we will host international dignitaries. It means we will host community and national leaders. It means we will host international investors and leading academics from around the world. This is our opportunity.

We have a job to do. It's to show the world the very best of British Columbia, and we're going to do just that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, it's an opportunity for a lot of private parties, it sounds like to me.

Last week we learned that close to a million dollars had been spent on taxpayer-funded luxury box suites for B.C. Liberal MLAs and their friends. It took an FOI request…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: …after question period before the government agreed to come clean.

This week it's half a million dollars to "entertain business representatives and foreign dignitaries at an elite private club in Vancouver." Again, how did the B.C. Liberals justify spending millions of tax dollars to entertain a select few without any public oversight or accountability?

Hon. I. Black: This is about economic development. It is about economic development, which means one has to be able to do economic development. It means you want to do….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 1683 ]

Just take your seat for a second, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Black: Now, I know the opposition has been against the games and continues to be against the games all the way through. That

part is not new. It's not new to this side of the House. It's not new to the people of British Columbia, who I suspect are enormously disappointed in that stance, but nonetheless.

This is about economic development, which means it's about doing business. When you do business, you generate taxes which, if I may point out the obvious, generate the ability to deliver health care and education to the record levels that we are in this province.

So yes, we need facilities to host people in business. We have the opportunity to have one of the most centrally located business-hosting venues in Vancouver, the Terminal City Club.

But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? It doesn't stop there, and I'll tell you more in a minute.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: My question is for the new minister for the Olympics. Last week his colleague the former Minister of State for the Olympics admitted in this House that she had no plan whatsoever for almost a million dollars in luxury suites and luxury box tickets that were going to be handed out to government MLAs and their friends — no plan. She admitted she had no plan until it was raised in this House, and the damage control was undertaken over the coming days after that.

Will the minister, or whoever, stand in this place today and tell us why, if this is such a good way to conduct business, the government is conducting business and giving out a large untendered contract worth $500,000 that puts more food and drink in the friends of the government — in their mouths?

[1400]

Hon. I. Black: Clearly, the member is not familiar with team sports, because it takes a big team on this side of the House and across this province to put on one of the best events that this province has ever seen.

I don't know if the member has had the opportunity to look out onto the front lawn and see the excitement that's building for the torch event that's coming this Friday, but the excitement's building, and everybody seems to understand that.

But you know what? That same excitement is felt in the venues where we've got the opportunity to play host. They're not just limited to the Terminal City Club, a venue that is needed for its size.

Oh yes, it's also at B.C.-Canada Pavilion, one of the most exciting and energizing areas. We will invite that member and all British Columbians to B.C.-Canada Pavilion, which has been the showplace of excitement and opportunity at the last two Winter Olympic Games and which will be at this one as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: You know, taxpayers might have a little more respect for this government if they got an explanation, if they got information about how government is spending the money. Right now they're getting an explanation from this government about why kids' sports are being cancelled in British Columbia — because there's no money — and why health care services are being cancelled — because there's no money in British Columbia.

The minister should tell the House today, if he has a plan for how this Terminal City Club hosting business is going to provide value to British Columbians, why other British Columbians should go without public services while this kind of activity is going on, and then table that plan in the Legislature.

The question for the minister is: will he do that today? Will he show who's coming to dinner and why and what purpose it's serving for the people of British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not going to continue, Members.

Hon. I. Black: Well, there are 250,000 people coming, and they're coming for more than dinner.

You know, the member speaks of the expectations of British Columbians. Well, I can tell you that British Columbians expect us to leverage the greatest opportunity that we've seen in economic development in a generation, and we plan to do that.

But you know what? It's not just British Columbia. Every province in this country is setting up pavilions in British Columbia because they recognize the opportunity. The part of it that may be instructive to the members opposite is that that also includes the NDP province of Manitoba. They understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[ Page 1684 ]

Hon. I. Black: There's not a jurisdiction in the world that wouldn't give its eye teeth to host the Olympic Games. We're proud it's us, and we plan to take full advantage of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Member.

Members.

B. Ralston: Will the minister explain why this half-million-dollar contract was not tendered?

[1405]

Hon. I. Black: The NDP's approach to this situation is absolutely shocking. You are going to be seeing, in 107 short days, the best and brightest athletes in the world, but also the best and brightest investors, researchers, scientists and potential customers of British Columbia products and services coming right here to British Columbia. Yes, indeed.

Our job is to open the door, not to close it. We saw for ten long years what happens when you close the door to business, when you close the door to opportunity and when you close the door to jobs. My goodness, there is nothing like the Olympic Games to open a door, and we're opening it widely.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Will the minister explain why this half-million-dollar contract was not tendered?

Hon. I. Black: There are some great venues in downtown Vancouver where we plan to do some hosting. We've talked about the Terminal City Club — a venue which, incidentally, is one of the few venues of its size that can accommodate the vast majority of the larger events that we plan to host.

But beyond having the B.C.-Canada Pavilion, we're also welcoming the world to Robson Square to see the B.C. Showcase. We're welcoming them to the Asia-Pacific Centre, a venue that's very close to Robson Square.

For years the Asia-Pacific Centre has been doing precisely what the Olympic Games represent, which is saying to the world, "Come to us, invest here, create opportunities here and create jobs here," and that's what we're going to do.

M. Farnworth: The question was pretty straightforward. We don't need the boosterism speech. We just want to know what 4½ million British Columbians want to know, which is…. Good business practice thinks you'd put something like this out to tender. So can the minister tell us why the contract was not put out to tender? It's straightforward.

Hon. I. Black: I accept the fact that the members opposite don't understand the benefits associated with the games. Most British Columbians seem to get it, but so does the vibrant small business community in British Columbia. Let me express…. Because the member comes from a community that's got some fantastic small businesses, in the middle of Small Business Month let me shamelessly take advantage of that to tell you the small businesses that are benefiting from the Olympic Games.

How Canadian is this? Blade Pro Products Inc. of Vancouver has got the contract for a licence agreement to produce branded hockey blade tape, and they're going to use this to accelerate their goal of becoming the number one way to tape a hockey stick.

The Olympic Games are affecting the small business community as well.

DISTRIBUTION OF GAMESTOWN 2010

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

V. Huntington: My opportunity now being here.

Last week the Minister of State for the Olympics told this House that the Olympic secretariat had purchased 3,000 tickets to the 2010 games. Of the 3,000 tickets, she stated that the communities will be receiving some of these tickets through GamesTown 2010.

My particular interest was piqued when she added: "We have members from Delta South. We have tickets to Delta North."

However, on the GamesTown 2010 website, there is no mention of Delta winning any tickets, no mention of any community that won tickets. What it does say is that 600 communities participated in an early-bird draw for 24 pairs of tickets — 24 pairs.

[1410]

We also know that the average value of the secretariat tickets is $300. However, the minister informed the House that the GamesTown 2010 tickets were valued from $20 to $200.

My question is to, I guess, the Minister of Economic Development. Can he please advise all the members of the House which of the ridings among the so small list of 24 communities have been recipients of the GamesTown tickets? Can he tell the House how many tickets in total are being distributed to the communities, and can he explain why the secretariat is not sharing the more valuable tickets with the communities of B.C.?

Hon. I. Black: The distribution of whatever Olympic tickets are touched by government will be fully accounted for.

[ Page 1685 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: The minister and my colleagues might be interested in knowing that there are only 80 tickets available through GamesTown 2010. That's 40 pairs of tickets to the 600 communities that have applied for them.

Meanwhile, there are volunteers in my riding and in every riding in this House who have for several years given their time and energy to the Spirit of B.C. program, promoting and championing the Olympics within their communities. Moreover, there are former Olympians in Delta South that have not, unbelievably, been offered tickets to the very event they embody, the very event that wouldn't exist without them.

Will the minister commit today to offering some of the 3,000 secretariat tickets both to B.C.'s former Olympians and to the dedicated Spirit of 2010 volunteers?

Hon. I. Black: There's no doubt that the Olympic Games are for all British Columbians. The government's job, as we get ready for this exciting event, involves a lot of different activities. Part of it involves running the contest that the member opposite has discussed and making people from across the province feel as though they are very much a part of this great event and that they will benefit as a result.

We have, through the efforts of our government, got a great hosting program planned to reach out to those people around the world who can make a unique difference in British Columbia through additional economic development. We accept that responsibility of hosting them appropriately. Again, any tickets involved with this effort will be fully accounted for.

Waiting times for surgeries in B.C.

A. Dix: The health authorities, under the direction of the Minister of Health, have announced the cancellation of more than 10,000 surgeries between now and March 31, 2010, the end of the fiscal year. This will increase wait times for B.C. residents across surgical categories.

Now we learn that the B.C. Liberal government is in discussions with the province of Saskatchewan to use the capacity created by the cuts to welcome their patients for surgery at a price. Why is it acceptable for the Minister of Health to cancel surgeries in Surrey and Kelowna to make room for people from Regina and Saskatoon?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm very glad he asked the question, because as a result of the investments we've made in British Columbia in innovation in facilities throughout the province — by the way, innovations and dollars the NDP opposed — we have seen the average medium wait time for hip and knee surgeries decline by 50 percent in the province of British Columbia.

Not only that, we have seen the volumes of hip and knee surgeries over doubled, to over 12,000 operations that are performed annually in British Columbia. That is a record level that we never even got close to under an NDP government.

Here is the thing. Because of this and because of the investments we've made, we actually are in the situation where other provinces, including Saskatchewan, are saying to us: "With the innovations you've made, the investments you've made…. We've got wait-lists. Could you help us?"

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker. We ought to be proud that other provinces are looking to B.C.'s leadership and looking at ways that they can also help their wait-lists and deal with the excellent services, excellent facilities and excellent doctors we have in the province of British Columbia.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I know the Minister of Health is operating without a binder today, but the fact of the matter is that if he's on the distribution lists for the cuts in surgeries announced in Fraser Health, the cuts in surgeries announced in Vancouver Coastal Health and Vancouver Island Health, he gets all those notes. In fact, he approved them — 10,000 surgeries cut. Those are only the announcements so far — tens of thousands of people on a waiting list in British Columbia.

Is it really the Minister of Health's policy to sell off the spots that he's cancelled for people living in British Columbia — in Maple Ridge, in Mission, in Surrey, in Kelowna — and offer them to other provinces? Is that the new position of the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health?

Why doesn't he use the surgery time in British Columbia to close the wait times…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just….

A. Dix: …in British Columbia? Why doesn't he do that?

Mr. Speaker: Member.

A. Dix: And why doesn't he explain to British Columbians waiting for surgery across the province why he's selling off their care to the highest bidder?

Mr. Speaker: Minister, before you start speaking, I think there's an apology in order.

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize for whatever it is the Speaker is asking me to apologize for — absolutely.

[ Page 1686 ]

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, sit down for a second, please. The comment that was made is to be withdrawn. Now, would the minister please withdraw the comment that he made to the opposition critic.

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: So let's understand. I think it might be helpful to read something out of a newspaper

article that perhaps will inform the member opposite. "'The wait-lists are horrendous,' said Victoria clinic director Dr. Brian Weinerman. We're sending people to Bellingham just to reduce the pressure" — this was in reference to an

article in the Vancouver Sun about hundreds of B.C. cancer patients having to travel to Bellingham to avoid waits of up to six months for radiation treatment — "cancer experts said Wednesday."

Now, the interesting thing about that is that that actually took place on August 22, 1996, while that critic was the chief of staff to the government that was sending patients, cancer patients, out of the province to receive care.

The difference with us is that we have reduced wait times by 50 percent in British Columbia. We've got provinces looking to us to say: "Can you help us with our wait-lists?" That's the difference.

Here's the best part. The best

part is that not only, in the discussions we have as we engage in this discussion, do we have the opportunity to have our costs covered for doing the procedures, but we can charge a premium that makes sure that British Columbians have the ability to get additional services quicker and faster right here in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Well, only in Liberal bizarro world would cancelled surgeries be good news for British Columbians. George Orwell would be proud of the minister for that remark just a minute ago.

What is the message he's got for the thousand people on Vancouver Island who have had their surgeries cancelled because this government won't adequately fund health care? What's the message to them? Move to Regina? Move to Moose Jaw? Is that the message from the minister?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, the message from the minister will actually be the facts. I know the members are always uncomfortable with facts, particularly numbers. So I'll give the member some numbers that he might find interesting.

In 2001, which is the year we came into power and the year following up the NDP government, there were 2,908 knee replacements in the province. This year — 6,975.

Hips and knee surgeries are at record levels in the province of British Columbia. They are not being cut. They are at record levels, and that has been a record that this government has invested in as a result of innovations like the UBC Centre for Surgical Innovation, which is being recognized across the country for the work they do. And they opposed it. That's what they always do. They oppose good innovation.

[1420]

EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM

FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

M. Karagianis: Today hundreds of families in 20 communities across British Columbia have gathered together to protest the cuts to autism funding for their children. These parents are protesting the cuts that have reduced therapies to the very lowest level, a level that will not allow their children to experience successful outcomes.

To the Minister of Children and Families: I would like the minister to explain to these families how any of her decisions are fair or equitable.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm happy to say that the member is absolutely wrong. There has been no reduction to the autism program. In fact, it's increased this year by $1.6 million. That brings it to a level that is ten times what it was in 2001.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: That information from the minister is actually just not factual. The early intervention program in this province has been cancelled for the 70 children at a time who experienced that intensive intervention behaviour. It's gone, cancelled.

B.C. has one of the lowest spending levels anywhere in the country. So 70 children at a time…. Now, 600 children successfully have gone through this program. Hundreds are on waiting lists now to get this program so that their children can very successfully enter school and go on to achieve excellent outcomes.

To the families who have come here to this House, I would like the minister to please explain why increasing hardship to families with autistic or special needs children is the priority of this B.C. Liberal government.

Hon. M. Polak: In British Columbia, unlike other jurisdictions in Canada, we have a commitment to ensure that every single child and youth with a diagnosis of autism is provided with financial support to help their intervention, and for that, there's no wait-list.

The member well knows that the entire budget that was devoted to the EIBI program is being returned into the autism budget, and that will help to serve hundreds of families all across British Columbia. Right now the EIBI program services 70 children in approximately seven communities in British Columbia.

[ Page 1687 ]

We are working with those service providers, and we are ensuring that, contrary to what the member is saying, those families will continue to be provided with the proper intervention for their child. They will receive the funding support that the rest of the autism families in this province will receive. We are committed to ensuring that they all receive service.

M. Elmore: Today hundreds of families are speaking out against the cancellation of the early intervention program and the decision to leave autistic children without the level of support that can make a difference in their lives. These cuts are senseless and shortsighted.

We know that we will pay more in the long run for supports for these and other special needs children because we didn't give them the strong start in life that they deserve. Their voices are being ignored by this government.

At a time when this government is squandering tax dollars on luxury boxes for a hand-picked few, these families are asking why their children are at the bottom of the priority list.

To the minister: why are autistic and special needs children paying the price, and why is the government cutting this effective program?

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, to suggest that children with autism in this province will not receive intervention, and to frighten parents in that way, is absolutely irresponsible.

[1425]

We are working with community development centres around this province — those that have had the EIBI program and those that have not — to ensure that not only are we creating a transition plan for those 70 children but also that we are able to best serve the 6,000 children with autism that we serve all across this province.

[End of question period.]

K. Corrigan: I seek permission to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: I'm very happy to see that we have in the gallery today Ken Robinson, who is the president of HEU, a former colleague and a friend of mine. You'll make him welcome, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in Committee A I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 17.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — HEALTH STATUTES

(RESIDENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

(continued)

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to continue my comments on Bill 17. Just to recap my earlier comments on this debate, I certainly see Bill 17 as being a rather weak replacement for the seniors advocate that the Leader of the Opposition and the B.C. NDP have been calling for.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Certainly, the fact that government feels that it needs to establish a bill of rights for seniors says to me that the need for seniors to have some kind of advocate is greater than ever. Unfortunately, I think this is a weak replication of what is really needed.

Certainly, in looking through the terms that are laid out here on what the rights of the seniors will be…. I alluded towards the end of my comments yesterday that for eight years we have seen a reduction in the quality of services provided to seniors here in the province of British Columbia. We have seen a reduction in home supports and other things that would have allowed seniors to live a longer, healthier life in their own homes before requiring residential care. It certainly begs a lot of questions about all of the various items included in this bill of rights for seniors.

I talked yesterday about the change in the kind of residential care that's being offered to seniors. Certainly, many of the options available to seniors in the past have slowly been eroded away to kind of a one-size-fits-all assisted-living kind of care provision, with residential care sort of morphing out of that kind of assisted living and costs going up for seniors all the time.

One of the other aspects, I think, of this Bill 17 and the need for this bill of rights for seniors that flies in the face of reason somewhat…. Some of the language that's contained in here is, in many ways, kind of motherhood statements around the kinds of things that seniors should expect — you know, their rights to health, safety and dignity. One would always assume that that's exactly what all families hope for their senior members who are put into residential care and that all seniors, frankly, should be expecting that would be the minimum they could expect in the way of treatment.

[1430]

But I go on, and when I go through the various items here in the bill of rights for seniors, I see that not only are seniors to be treated in a manner that promotes their

[ Page 1688 ]

health, safety and dignity, but seniors are being guaranteed now to have their lifestyle and choices respected and supported.

I have to say, again, that flies in the face of reality here for many seniors. We've seen over the last eight years this propensity from the government to begin to erode away the public facilities here in British Columbia in favour of privatized facilities, or this need to move seniors around to fulfil contracts with privatized companies.

I know that within my own community, many seniors have been stripped away of some of their choices. The Priory in Langford, which has long been a very superior and excellent environment for seniors, has recently had a number of their seniors units taken away from them. The number of units has been reduced at the Priory. Those units, when I contacted the health authority, it turns out, have been moved over to a new facility that just opened over on Gorge Road in the new Selkirk facility for seniors.

If we're truly going to allow seniors their choice of lifestyle, then it means that if they want to stay in their communities, that should be one of the first priorities for those seniors.

Yet the seniors that were in the Priory, taking those spaces in the Priory, have now been denied the choice for them to stay in their community, where their families can live nearby and the families can see those seniors on a regular basis. Now, instead, those seniors have to live downtown, if in fact they want to take advantage of those spaces.

It would seem to me that this movement out of public facilities into private facilities, or out of residential care in your community to residential care units miles away from your family, does not in any way support this bill of rights, where the government is now claiming that the seniors will have a choice in where and how they are supported and what kind of residential units they will be able to access.

This goes on to talk about their right to have their personal privacy respected, to have visitors and to communicate with visitors in private, to keep and display personal possessions in their rooms. Why in the world would we not assume that a caring and compassionate residential care situation would automatically provide that for seniors?

The fact that we have to embed this into a bill of rights speaks to me very strongly of the fact that we have lost touch very much with the control over some of these new privatized seniors care facilities. That, unfortunately, is a tragedy for many seniors.

The reality here is that we have got a huge loss of residential care spaces, particularly in this area here in the south Island. That is a huge jeopardy for many seniors, and they feel threatened by this.

We're seeing many closures of programs, support programs and residential care facilities here. Many of these will be in favour of privatized units.

I see that as one of the driving forces here in having to establish a bill of rights. We no longer have that control over how privatized residential care providers treat individuals.

We've seen some horrendous examples coming out of Cowichan Valley, where the Cowichan Lodge was closed. Seniors were then forced into a privatized facility. They've now had their cost of living jacked up over and over again. They're now being charged for all kinds of things they never were before.

Is that one of the reasons we need to provide a bill of rights — to go in and find a way to protect those individuals? We can't. Everybody in this House knows that we've had long and deliberate debates about privatization and about our ability to provide oversight and direction to these residential care providers.

It seems to me that when I look at all of the things that are included in this bill of rights, this is what it's about. It's about trying to assure seniors that if they go into a privatized facility, they're not going to end up having many of their personal and private privileges taken away from them, or they're not going to find themselves charged for every little thing that they do and use.

[1435]

I've heard some stories out of Cowichan Lodge. Certainly, the seniors in my community are very concerned. As we've seen the erosion of some of the options for them, I think that they see this as kind of thin gruel, to think that a bill of rights is in any way going to provide the security and sense of safety and dignity that they are hoping for.

The reality here is the lack of government action on long-term care beds. I know we canvass this frequently, but the BCMA, which is hardly considered a faction of New Democrat research, have themselves come up with the real factual evidence of what's happened here around seniors care in British Columbia.

We know that the B.C. Liberals continue to insist that they have built all kinds of long-term care beds, but according to the BCMA, there has been a net decline of 552 beds, up to and including 2007, here in British Columbia. That's just a fact. BCMA is supplying this.

The number of people receiving home support dropped by 24 percent, and the government has broken their promises to work with non-profit societies to build and operate new beds. In fact, it's all gone to privatization. Beds have been closed in government and non-profit-operated nursing homes to be replaced by beds opened in private facilities. That's evidence from the B.C. Medical Association.

Rightly, I can see that the government has been forced to the wall here to try and create a bill of rights to rectify some of the problems that they've created with their own impetuous desire to do away with public and non-profit seniors care and replace it with privatization.

I'm not going to get into the debate at this point on how assisted living is, in fact, not a substitution for residential

[ Page 1689 ]

care, because I think that will be canvassed at length by other members of this House. I am very concerned about the fact that so many of the options that we actually do need here in the province are not being supplanted in any way by this bill of rights.

It's the fact that we actually have to embed in language the rights of the senior to participate in freedom of expression. "An adult person in care has the right to participate in his or her own care and to freely express his or her own views, including a right to the following," and there's a list here. I want to just go back to this. A senior has a right to participate in his or her own care. How can they participate in their own care if the choice is only one option?

In the case of Cowichan Lodge, those seniors had no option. It was either have no care or have privatized care. In the case of those citizens and seniors in my community who have seen units within the Priory closed, they have been forced to either take units at the Selkirk home or take — what? — nothing. What are the options?

If you give seniors only one choice — you can't stay in the publicly run facility or non-profit-run facility because we're shutting that down; you're going to have to move to the privatized facility whether you like it or not — and then we have government trying to embed language in here that says, "An adult person has the right to participate in his or her own care," how is that possible?

You could participate in your own care, but you only have one choice. Go out of the publicly run facility and into the privatized one, where, frankly, government says: "Oh, we don't have a lot of control over that, because that's privatized." Certainly, the public has no way of finding information out, because that's all protected by freedom of information from any kind of disclosure. It seems to me that this bill of rights is a lot of language with no substance.

It reminds me of many of the slogans we've seen from this B.C. Liberal government over eight years, where they march out a fancy-looking slogan or a fancy-looking program, don't fund it, don't give it any substance and make sure all the activities around and supporting that system are contrary to the slogan. That somehow is considered to be satisfactory.

[1440]

When you look at the choices that are being given to seniors in this bill of rights…. We talk about their ability and their freedom to choose the kind of care they want, "to participate in the development and implementation of his or her care plan." Well, for those individuals who are now stuck in privatized residential care and being billed for Kleenex and aspirin, anything that they take, in a way that they never were before, how are they able to develop and implement their own care plan?

How can you fulfil this when government has not made any effort to protect the public seniors residential care system, has foisted all of it off into privatized hands, where seniors are now paying more than ever before?

I mentioned this yesterday. The government at one time were protecting seniors by saying that only 70 percent of their income could go towards their care. Now they've jacked that up to 80 percent of their income that can go towards their care. More money into the privatized caregivers' hands and less for the senior. When we talk about a senior's right to participate and develop their own plan, the choices are few.

"To establish and participate in a resident or family council to represent the interests of the person in care." Well, that's now saying that others can step in. Granted, that sounds very good on the surface, but again, how is a family to intervene — right?

The next point on the step is that his or her family or representative can participate in a resident or family council on their behalf. If so much of this is eroded service, and families object to this, where are they to go, and who are they to speak to? Frankly, you know, this continued erosion of services to seniors….

Families have been fighting back and complaining for a long time about the reduction in home care, about the reduction in the number of services that their seniors are receiving, and now we have a bill of rights that's embedding language in here that, frankly, I don't think the government can actually make good on. I don't think that the government can enforce this because they're not enforcing it now, and the options are not there for many seniors.

It goes on to talk about the senior having the right to be informed of "how to make a complaint to an authority outside the facility." Well, we have seen here in the province of British Columbia — in fact, only steps away from this Legislature — abuse foisted on seniors who were unable to speak out for themselves. That was at the hands of approved residential care providers who are still providing care here in the province of British Columbia. So how in the world is this bill of rights going to protect them if seniors are being mistreated, abused or neglected, especially by privatized residential care providers? What good does this bill of rights do for them?

It certainly didn't help many of the seniors here at Beacon lodge. Are we going to see more stories like this, or is this a way to keep the cap on them? "Oh, they have a bill of rights now, so they have the right to complain." Well, I have a father who's in the very advanced stages of dementia, and he could no more speak out for himself if he was being neglected than could my cat.

So what happens, then, with these seniors? It seems to me that as you go through each piece of this bill of rights…. "The Rights to Transparency and Accountability." Well, when did that ever stop this government from privatizing away, protecting the privatized partner from any kind of disclosure?

If this is going to be a real, supported and accountable bill of rights for seniors, then the government is going

[ Page 1690 ]

to have to really change their attitude in a big way about how they've been treating seniors for the last eight years and how they intend to treat them in the future, because most of this is fancy language that in no way bears a resemblance to what's really going on in the world for many seniors who are losing their rights. It's costing them more for services. They are feeling less secure about their choices in the future as they see government close down many of the facilities that we've just seen.

Under VIHA we're seeing huge closures right across the south Island here. That gives seniors a great deal of concern in my community. This bill of rights in no way whatsoever will give them comfort because the government simply can't back it up. It's fancy language with no substance behind it.

[1445]

You know, this goes on to say that the scope of rights here, set out in this bill, the rights set out in these clauses: "are subject to (

a) what is reasonably practical given the physical, mental and emotional circumstances of the person in care" — absolutely; that is critical — "(

b) the need to protect and promote the health or safety of the person in care or another person in care, and (

c) the rights of other persons in care." Absolutely.

For seniors who are selecting their own care and managing their own lives…. Let's be honest. Many of us are headed in that direction sooner than later, and I would hope that a bill of rights will really protect me as a senior, the seniors in my community, and give some security to the families who are looking after their seniors' care.

L. Krog: One gets the impression that what we really have here is the political equivalent of a band-aid over a very seriously infected cut. It's all about covering it up. It's not really about assisting and dealing with the serious problem that exists underneath. It won't make anything better, but it will provide cover. It will provide cover, and that's about all it's going to provide.

My grandmother spent the last years of her life in a facility in Parksville. Trillium Lodge, a not-for-profit facility built by the community, supported by numerous volunteers, provided excellent care. She was often fond of quoting old Pope John, who very kindly used to say: "God bless the very young, and God bless the very old."

The reason the Pope said that, I think, is self-evident. Because at those stages of life, that is when you don't necessarily have any ability to protect yourself, to look after yourself, to control events around you, to even request or express in an intelligible way what your needs are, what your concerns are, what your cares are, whether you're sick, whether you're healthy, where it hurts even.

My father-in-law ended up in a facility in Nanaimo — Malaspina. It was the old hospital. He died with Alzheimer's, unable to express himself. Able nurses would be able to perhaps determine whether he was in pain or where it hurt.

So I have incredible respect for the people who work in long-term and health care facilities generally, and I understand the pressures that they face every day. This bill is a recognition, however, that seniors don't always get the care that they deserve or the care that they need. This bill is a recognition that there is a political problem for the government as well.

My leader, during the last election campaign, advocated strongly for the appointment of a seniors representative, someone who would be an advocate on behalf of seniors in the province of British Columbia, someone who would ensure that seniors received good care, someone who could deal with investigations into the care that was provided.

The member from Esquimalt has just finished listing a number of facilities within, literally, walking distance of this very Legislature where seniors didn't get the care they deserved, where seniors didn't get the care that this bill describes now as a right.

You know, on one hand I've never been fond of the use of the term "rights." We throw it around in common parlance nowadays as if there were rights to all kinds of things which, from a legalistic perspective, we don't really recognize. But there are expectations.

There are expectations in a society as wealthy as ours that when you're a senior, you're going to be cared for. You'll be sheltered. You'll be provided with health care appropriate to your needs. You will be somehow safe. The blessings that the old Pope called for would be, in fact, delivered to you. You wouldn't have to worry about who cared for you. You would have supportive people around you.

The reality is that in British Columbia today we have worked very hard, particularly on Vancouver Island, particularly in the Interior within Kelowna, Penticton areas, at encouraging retirees to move to British Columbia. We have strongly encouraged it. The business community has asked for it. Government policy has helped support it, arguably. We want people to retire here.

[1450]

But the reality for many of those seniors, let alone those who are native-born British Columbians who spend their whole lives here, is that when they have come and when they get older, when they become infirm and unable to care for themselves, there is no family available to care for them.

Their children are back in Regina or Moose Jaw or Mississauga or St. John's. They're not there to go in and check and see if mom and dad are okay, if they're getting the care they need. The only support system you will have at the end stage of your life in a facility will be the support system provided by the paid staff, by the people who work in that facility. You won't have the benefit of family to comfort you.

So what you will be is — quite simply, in many respects, as you often are living to a ripe old age — isolated, alone,

[ Page 1691 ]

unable to fend for yourself, not capable of expressing in many cases what your needs are.

It's entirely appropriate for patients, for people at that stage of life, people in care, to have rights. I would call them more expectations than rights. We will call it a bill of rights, but it's not quite the same. Let's not pretend we're going to give it the same strength and authority that we do for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We recognize in our legal system that the right to a trial will guarantee you…. A free trial in a serious criminal case will entitle you to legal counsel. There's no question about that. The state is going to ensure that you get your defence. The state, through our justice system, will ensure that you have the right to free speech.

But the rights that are enumerated in this statute — in this bill, rather — are ultimately subject to money. That's what it really gets back to. It's fine to talk about the rights to health and safety and dignity, but if there isn't sufficient funding, the rights almost become meaningless.

I'm not suggesting this is part of some government plot or anything like that, but the fact is that without appropriate funding, the rights that are enumerated in

section 1, which would add the

schedule which will be entitled

schedule 7…. Those rights are dependent on cash. Those rights are dependent on the ability of government to fund. Those rights are absolutely dependent on the government's willingness to make seniors care a priority.

The law is a funny thing. Anatole France once said: "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, to steal bread and to sleep under bridges." It's a lovely phrase.

We're going to, presumably, pass this bill. I don't think there's any question the opposition is going to oppose this bill. This does move us forward, however slowly and however tentatively. We're going to support this. But it becomes quite meaningless if it isn't accompanied by the real political willingness to pay for it. These rights really are something that has to be supported by money, by budgetary priorities, by a government that is serious about this.

I come back to my point. Some of us in the opposition just have the feeling that this is a political band-aid. This is exactly what I said it was. This is a reaction to an enormous political problem this government faces, and that is the strongly held belief by many British Columbians, seniors in particular but their children as well, who believe that, in fact, seniors are not getting the level of care that we as a civilized society believe they're entitled to.

That's what it really comes back to — a growing sense in British Columbia that we aren't treating our seniors, the most vulnerable of our seniors, in a way that befits a civilized society. That's the problem. I sadly suspect that that's really what this bill is all about. There's nothing in here that says the government's committed to spending money.

[1455]

It even has a

section referring to the scope of the rights. It says that the "rights set out in clauses 2, 3 and 4 are subject to (

a) what is reasonably practical given the physical, mental and emotional circumstances of the person in care, (

b) the need to protect and promote the health or safety of the person in care or another person in care, and (

c) the rights of other persons in care."

What it doesn't include is a

section (

d) that tells us the truth. These rights are subject to the Treasury Board approving the appropriate funding to ensure that there is staffing that can actually deliver on these rights.

It's all well and good to talk about the right "(

a) to be treated in a manner, and to live in an environment, that promotes his or her health, safety and dignity; (

b) to be protected from abuse and neglect; (

c) to have his or her lifestyle and choices respected and supported, and to pursue social, cultural, religious, spiritual and other interests."

How can you protect someone's lifestyle if they're suffering from dementia and in a wheelchair that they can't operate themselves — if they're absolutely dependent on someone to push them everywhere to participate in any of these events? How is that right to health and safety and dignity supported?

It puts me in mind of something that President Johnson once said, I think around the passage of the Civil Rights Act. He said basically it wasn't enough that you could take a people who had been held in chains their whole life and set them beside another runner in the great race and say, "We're equal" and "go for it," and pretend that that was equality. It didn't work.

So when we talk about these rights, there are no rights unless there is support. Without that support, the rights become meaningless. They become a sort of salesman's puffery, if you will — the kind of language that's used all the time by people who want to sell you a bill of goods and disappear. That is what many of us think we're being sold. It's a bill of goods.

We don't have a Charter right to health care, but as Canadians it is probably our one strong universal public value — that we will have the right to health care. We have an expectation that it'll be delivered in a timely way and that seniors in particular — again, amongst the most vulnerable amongst us, those in care and facilities — will get the treatment that they deserve and the treatment that many of us are going to come to expect.

As are the vast majority of members in this chamber, I am part of that great postwar baby generation. The statistics say that by 2020 in British Columbia the proportion of seniors will grow from 14.2 percent in 2007 to 19.2 percent in 2020. By 2030 nearly one in four British Columbians is going to be over the age of 65. That's from the report of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues, November 2006.

It's a staggering figure. Where does this bill of rights figure in a future where one in four of us are over 65?

[ Page 1692 ]

Where does this bill of rights figure in a world where, based on present expectations, fully a quarter of us will be retired or expect to be retired? Realistically, I'm not sure any of us will be retired. We'll probably all still be beavering away in this House on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I hope we all have the good health to do it.

I see the member from Mission has poked his head up. He's interested in that concept, too — that he'll be here for a very long time. And I'm delighted to hear that.

But the reality is that we're not all going to enjoy good health. Many of us are going to end up in facilities of various kinds requiring various levels of care. So when I hear the government wax so eloquent about solving the problem with a bill of rights without any commitment to the funding and support that's needed, I have to ask myself: "Just how sincere are they?"

The Hospital Employees Union, I think, has wisely pointed out, having taken a quick look at this bill, that really these rights are largely dependent on providing minimum staffing levels. These rights are dependent on numbers which, frankly, don't bode well for the exercise of these rights by British Columbians.

[1500]

What do we know? We know that in British Columbia we are not providing the funding at the same level as other provinces in terms of the numbers of hours available for care in facilities. We know, for instance, in 2003-2004 the per-capita spending on home care in British Columbia was $82, below the national average of $91. We had one of the lowest utilization rates for home care in Canada.

Now, what that tells us is that we're not supporting them at home to stay in their homes, which is a very good thing, which should be one of the primary goals of government policy — to ensure that people remain in their own homes, in the security of their neighbourhoods, in the security of a dwelling that they're used to. That would be the best thing.

What we know, in fact, is that seniors aren't necessarily getting that support they need to stay in their own homes, so they are going into facilities. Assisted living at first — you know, a couple of meals a day, a room to stay in, hopefully some companionship — and then on to higher levels of care.

Imagine, hon. Speaker, how difficult it must be if you still have your ability to comprehend the world around you. You have no family. You're dependent on a facility for everything: to toilet you, to feed you, to move you, to engage you in any activity that you might wish to participate in — entirely dependent on the facility.

Imagine, hon. Speaker, what that must feel like if you're in a facility where you know it's essentially a business. It's a for-profit facility. Imagine what that must feel like. This isn't Trillium Lodge where, as I mentioned, my grandmother spent her last years — a not-for-profit with a good union staff, people who retained their jobs for years; people who developed that familiarity with their patients, if you will, with the residents; people who knew each other.

We're talking about for-profit facilities, and we all know what this government did with Bill 29. We all know what happened to a number of people who worked in health care, in long-term care facilities. We know what has happened in Nanaimo, Nanaimo Seniors Village, on various occasions — mass layoffs of staff. Imagine what terror that must strike into the hearts of the seniors in those facilities, hon. Speaker, facing the prospect that staff that they were used to relying on, staff they'd come to know, were going to be gone.

If we're going to talk about the commitment to care, if we're going to talk about rights to health and safety and dignity, rights to participation and freedom of expression, rights to transparency and accountability, we have to talk about those other things. We have to talk about the reality of what it is to be a senior, what it is to be entirely dependent on others, and what kind of a system we're creating if these rights are to have any meaning at all.

Government policy has, without question, encouraged more and more private health care delivery in this province, for-profit facilities. That is what the government believes philosophically is the best thing for our seniors. I don't believe for a moment that it is the best thing for our seniors. The members of the opposition don't believe it for a moment, and hon. Speaker, I suspect that if you polled them, the vast majority of British Columbians don't either.

People understand what the profit motive is all about. You know what, hon. Speaker? Many of us on this side of the House have either run a small business or a professional office, worked in businesses, worked for employers. We understood the necessity of profit. You've got to have a profit. People don't invest; people don't get employment. You know, you can argue that there's no incentive.

But when it comes to the delivery of care for people who have lost control of their lives in every sense because they are entirely dependent on others — the concept of them being cared for in facilities where the motive is profit.... Surely that should strike us as just somehow not in accordance with those great Canadian values around public health care.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that all of the facilities in this province that are for-profit facilities aren't delivering good care. I'm not suggesting for a moment that their owners don't have some interest in providing the care, and think it's a good thing to do and don't actually see it as probably one of the best businesses they can be involved in. But at its root, the facility won't survive unless it makes money, unless it makes a profit.

[1505]

On one hand we've got a facility where there's no interest in making a profit. It's there entirely devoted to

[ Page 1693 ]

delivering a service. On the other hand we've got a facility where someone has to make a dollar, where there are investors who expect a return.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I think it's pretty clear to me what kind of facility I'd like to be cared for in. I think it's pretty clear to me that I want to be in a place where I know the people who are running it and the whole operation are devoted to delivering a service for me when I need it. It's not, at its root, a place designed to make a profit.

If you're going to enforce these rights, if these rights are to have any meaning whatsoever, then they have to be supported by the money, and they have to be part of a system where the primary goal is not for profit. The primary goal is, in fact, assuring that one of the most vulnerable groups in our society, seniors in the end stages of life, get the care that they deserve.

You know, there is, as I said, a difference between expectations and rights. I think most of us who have grown up post-war generation — and, indeed, pre-war — expected that when we got old, if we became so ill or infirm that we required residential care, care in a facility…. Our expectation was that we would receive that care, that we would receive the kinds of supports to ensure that we could live out our last days in dignity. If we are to live out those last days in dignity, then surely we have to do more than just provide what I will call a statement of almost platitudes.

It says in

section 4:

"An adult person in care has the right to transparency and accountability, including a right to all of the following: (

a) to have ready access to copies of all laws, rules and policies affecting a service provided to him or her; (

b) to have ready access to a copy of the most recent routine inspection record made under the Act; (

c) to be informed in advance of all charges, fees and other amounts that he or she must pay for accommodation…."

It strikes me that one of the things I might like to also see is not the most routine inspection reports made under the act but the extraordinary ones, the ones where the facility that I'm housed in are, in fact, in violation. Surely I have a right to know that as well. I don't see that enumerated here.

Forgive my cynicism, but when I see that we talk about the "adult person in care has the right to transparency and accountability," gosh, I've got to tell you, most British Columbians were hoping to get that from this government — this transparency and accountability — but that doesn't seem to be the case. We just went through an interesting question period today where we couldn't get a decent answer around the issue of accountability for an expenditure of a half a million dollars for boxes.

If we do have this right as seniors in care, persons in care, to transparency and accountability, what are the specifics? How's it going to be enforced? Who's going to guarantee that it happens? Who's going to deliver it? Why not a seniors advocate? Why not someone who is independent?

We have figured out in our society that the appointment of independent officers of this Legislature is a good thing. We've got an independent conflict commissioner, we've got an independent Auditor General, we've got an independent ombudsperson, and we have independent persons like the child and youth representative, who we know are there with a guaranteed and fixed position with an ability to protect the interests of the people who they are statutorily required to protect.

This government could have included the appointment of a seniors advocate. It wouldn't have been unreasonable in this bill. I think it would have been, if you will, an acknowledgment of what I've had to say about the good work of my party and my leader around the appointment of an advocate, but it also would have said, I think, in a very clear way to British Columbians, that this wasn't just a political fix.

[1510]

This wasn't just the political band-aid that I talked about. It was a sincere attempt by the government to remedy the problem that they acknowledged by bringing this bill before the House, and that is that seniors care in this province isn't what British Columbians believe is good or right or proper. It also would have been, I think, a more effective solution to dealing with the issues that confront our seniors in care.

But instead, what we have is the whitewash. We've got the statement of rights. I think the member from Esquimalt talked about form versus substance. We've got the form, but we haven't got the substance.

We've got a tiny admission by the introduction of this bill that there's a problem, but we're really not quite prepared to go far enough to actually deal with the issues. We've got a great statement of what seniors are entitled to. I suppose you could call it the wish list. And that's all it will be — a wish list, a statement of higher ideals to which we aspire if it becomes meaningless.

There's a statement attributed to President Jackson when they removed the Cherokee and sent them on the Trail of Tears. The Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall, presiding over the Supreme Court, decided that the removal was illegal. Of course, what happened was…. The response, historically attributed to President Jackson, was: "The Chief Justice has made his decision. Let him enforce it." Well, in fairness to President Jackson, history has finally figured out that he never actually said that, but it's a great story because it illustrates my point.

Passage of a bill like this is meaningless unless there is the government apparatus to enforce it, unless there are designated persons interested in doing their work. We know, for instance, what this government has done around employment standards. We have the shell there. We've got the form, for example. But if an employee has a problem, they go to employment standards, and then they're sent back to discuss the problem with their employer.

[ Page 1694 ]

Well, I'm sure that's of great comfort to a 17-year-old kid who's desperate to help support his family or a 25-year-old single mom with a couple of kids at home. She's going to go back to the employer who's harassing her or making her life difficult and try and solve the problem. It doesn't cut it. There's a real world out there.

What senior is going to feel comfortable trying to assert these rights if they're not satisfied that they've got a government system of enforcement that will genuinely protect them, that will ensure that they're taken care of, that will ensure that the complaint they've made will be supported and a remedy found? Where is that guarantee? It's not in here.

You can submit a complaint to the patient care quality…. Let's see. "In addition to any complaint that may be made under this Act, if a person in care believes that his or her rights have been violated, the person in care or a person acting on his or her behalf may submit a complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act ."

What sort of funding does the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act appointee get? Are we going to guarantee that it's a priority? Is it going to be like funding for the Nanaimo children's festival, through a gaming grant — going to disappear? Is it like funding for parent advisory councils — going to disappear? Is it like support for a whole series of things that this government claims to believe in — going to disappear down the priority list?

So I come back to my main point. The opposition will support this. It's a step forward. But the proof is in the pudding; the proof is in the delivery.

Will this government step up to the plate and provide enough competent, qualified people to ensure that those vulnerable adults and people in care get the care they deserve, get the enforcement of the rights that this bill enumerates, receive and be entitled to exactly what we believe they are entitled to, and that is to security and safety and comfort at a time when they are most vulnerable?

[1515]

Without all of that, what we are doing here is essentially engaging in a public relations exercise. The people of British Columbia expect and deserve better. Most particularly, seniors, adults in care, deserve better because if they don't get it, all we are doing here is contributing to the growing cynicism around government and its ability to deliver services and protect its citizens. That's all we're doing.

I sincerely hope that the government, either because it's a political problem or because they sincerely believe it, are going to back up this bill of rights, if you will, with the kind of support that is required in order to ensure that the lofty ideals set out in it are, in fact, implemented, that our seniors are protected. They deserve to be protected. They helped build this province, and God knows, we're all going to get there some day.

Deputy Speaker: Members, with your indulgence, I would like to take a moment to recognize someone who has just come into the public gallery. A dear friend and former colleague, Mr. Alex Campbell, has joined us from the district of Richmond. He and I were school administrators together, and I would ask the House to please make him very welcome.

N. Macdonald: I, too, will take my place to speak about Bill 17, which is the residents bill of rights, an amendment to the health statutes act.

Section 3 in this bill lists the rights of adult persons in care. There's a fairly extensive list, and most of the things that would be listed here are fairly self-evident: to be treated in a manner and live in an environment that promotes the individual's health, safety and dignity; protection from abuse or neglect. It lists pretty well, with a dozen statements, things that people should be able to expect in care in this province.

The difficulties that you do have with the bill…. I think the sentiments expressed are so self-evident and so reasonable that you're not going to get anybody voting against them, but I think that we have to look at the context in terms of what's being put forward here.

First, when you look at the bill, there are modifiers. There are things like "if practical." So a statement like: "Somebody should be treated in a manner, in an environment, that promotes the individual's health, safety and dignity…." It modifies that where it says "if that's practical."

Then it also makes it clear — it's explicit in the amendment here — that there's no right of action. So there is nothing here that really allows anyone to act upon any of these expressions of standards if they are not kept, because first it modifies…. It allows an out with "if it's practical or not," and then it is explicit in saying that there's no right of action.

Essentially, what you have with this amendment is something that is — I think many of my colleagues have said it — a communication piece. It solves a political problem, and I would make the case that it really does not in a substantive way correct the problems that are there for people that are depending on residential care in this province. Those people are predominantly seniors.

I think what people know is that in any society, you really judge the quality of that society by how it organizes itself to look after those that are vulnerable. In many parts of the world the family structure does that. In Canada it's not only the family, but also the wider society pools the resources to look after those that are vulnerable. Those include children, of course; those that have fallen sick or are disabled in some way; those that have fallen into poverty; and of course those that find, because of age….

They're seniors, and they're in a position where there is a certain vulnerability, especially as they move on. Very often the physical constraints become such that they have to move into care or else one of the things

[ Page 1695 ]

that many of us see with people as they grow older is the onset of a very difficult situation related to Alzheimer's, which is increasingly common.

[1520]

It is something that is very difficult, not only for the individual who suffers from it but also for family members and the wider society trying to help those people. It creates real challenges. I think that as politicians, we have the ability to interact with a large number of people. Certainly in rural areas, and I suspect for most of us, the election process is a process of going door to door, talking to an awful lot of people and getting a pretty clear sense of what people think about provincial politics.

My experience over the past four years has also included all of the community meetings that you attend. I can say with absolute sureness that the values that are there for the people that I represent…. One of the strongest values, articulated most clearly in 2005 during that election, but again in 2009, is that people want seniors treated with dignity and respect. To do that, we need to get the residential care piece right.

What I would assert and certainly what I heard door to door is that it is a piece that this government has consistently failed on, that there is a consistent problem with residential care in B.C. for seniors and that people don't accept that that is the way it should be.

So what I would suggest and, I think, what most who would look at this would suggest is…. What you have is, essentially,

an act that is to solve a political problem. It really is not going to make a difference for anyone in terms of the care that they receive. The problems that are there are not going to be solved by this.

All that it does is provide an opportunity for the government to stand up and say, "Oh, don't worry. There's a bill that somehow looks after that," and hope that people don't ever have to experience it and find out that it actually doesn't provide any of the protections that one would presume were there with the legislation.

It's in no way a bill of rights. It is an expression of sentiment, and I would say that it's a cynical expression if you don't have the resources that are needed to provide things like the dignified care — the environment that promotes an individual's health, safety and dignity.

If you don't have those things funded properly and put in place, then a statement which gives the impression that you have a right to it, I think, is cynical. It wouldn't be the first piece of cynical legislation or cynical communications from this government.

I think all of us who worked here between 2005 and 2009 remember the stage where we went through the five great goals. It was essentially a statement — five things that the B.C. Liberal government was failing on. You had this statement that they would say again and again and again to try to get the public to believe that there was going to be some movement on those issues, and there wasn't.

I think you could go through a long list. The heartland strategy — it was the same thing. This expression, this communications plan, about what was going to happen — in the end, there was nothing to it.

That's the problem with this bill too. To make these statements, even if you do it in the form of legislation, is meaningless if it doesn't come with some of the resources to find solutions to real problems that seniors have.

What I would put in front of people is that the values of the people that I represent…. I know that those values include looking after our seniors properly. What they expect is that the real problems that are there are fixed and that we should not simply substitute an expression of sentiment and say: "Well, that's the problem solved."

That's the concern that I have. Expressing this is an attempt by the government to make it look like they are actually doing something or are serious about something, when in fact, the problems that are to be solved will take resources and they will take work.

[1525]

I think the context that we have to look at when we look at this bill is an understanding that what we will get shortly is a report from the Ombudsman's office — or the ombudsperson, if that's what they're going to be called — where it lays out some of the challenges for seniors.

Regardless of what is laid out, I think there's no question that in the public mind those shortcomings have been pretty clear. The area that I represent, from 2001 on, when this Legislature was filled almost entirely with B.C. Liberals…. The area that I now represent had one failing for the seniors after another.

I said during the 2005 election that the failure of this government in looking after our seniors was consistent and that it was comprehensive, and everybody knew that that was the case. Residential care beds were closed in Invermere. They were closed in Golden. You had the whole hospital closed in Kimberley. The impact of those closures was profound.

It wasn't just the closures. It was the fact that people were forced to move from the community because beds that had been there were no longer there. It was additional costs. It was changes to the supports in home that hadn't been thought through. It was a significant problem for one senior after another.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

People in the area that I represent, in Columbia River–Revelstoke, simply rejected the idea that you should be making those changes and impacting seniors in the way that they have been impacted. I think it's significant to know that that was not what people had voted for in 2001. There was a pretty clear promise — again, speaking to the emptiness of words; in fact, it was there in the New Era document — about providing additional units.

[ Page 1696 ]

I think the promise in the 2001 document from the B.C. Liberals was that there would be 5,000 residential care beds by 2006. Well, there weren't. There still aren't. There has been a net loss in residential care beds. Now the government mixes up all sorts of different things that they've built and tries to say that in some way they've met that commitment, but they haven't. There is the lowest number of residential beds per capita in the country here in British Columbia.

Certainly, the experience in the area that I represent is that the residential beds that are there simply are not adequate. Facilities that were built by not-for-profit and then by the government were closed. If they were to be replaced, they tended to be replaced by privately run facilities. That's something that runs contrary to any suggestion that seniors' interests are being seriously looked after.

So you had and you continue to have — but especially in that first number of years — a reorganization of seniors care that was high-handed, and it was sloppy, and it caused real hardship. The stories are well known by people in this House and by people in the province. It caused real hardship for seniors. Clearly, that's something that has been spoken of many, many times here.

Between 2002 and 2004 there were 26 residential facilities that were closed, which is 15 percent of the beds. What it created, of course, is not only real problems for seniors but a political embarrassment for this government and a weakness for them that continues.

Now we have this act, which is a number of statements that talk about how seniors should be treated. In fact, if you're going to find solutions, then you have to put the resources where they are needed.

In 2009, again, you had promises by the B.C. Liberals, by this government, around health care. I guess, to put it in context, essentially — just to go back to this most recent election — you did have four main commitments.

[1530]

The first one was that the deficit would be kept to $495 million. Well, it wasn't. It's up to $3.5 billion, if you don't include the HST payoff from the federal government. I think a second point that was made in the election was around having no HST. That's what the B.C. Liberals said. The opposite is happening. You had commitments around education that weren't kept, and you have commitments around health care that haven't been kept.

Again, you have seniors that I represent that are being impacted by the fact that those commitments are not kept. None of the problems that they have are going to be solved by this piece of legislation or the statements of intent that are included in it. The improvements will only come when the resources that are needed are going to be put there.

One of the key difficulties that seniors and seniors' families talk to me about is the fact that they feel there is a lack of staffing at many of these facilities. The hours per day that are available to people in residential care are simply inadequate, and that is something that is said to me again and again.

It's something that we have pushed the government on. If you're serious about improving seniors care in residences, then you have to deal with that issue. The standard for hours per day looking after particular patients is the lowest, in British Columbia, of any jurisdiction in Canada.

What that causes is real problems. You have staff who are expected to dress people. You have staff who are expected to help with toileting, to help with feeding, to do changing, to look after medication. You have staff who have to look after wounds, very often.

You would hope that there would be time, as well, for some personal interaction for people in care. That can only happen if there is adequate staffing, and you only will get adequate staffing if you have in place rules around the amount of time that each patient gets. I think that in B.C. it's something close to 3.4 hours. If it's not 3.4, it's close to that, certainly. What people will tell me again and again is that it's simply not enough time to do the job properly.

It's all well and good to come up with a piece of legislation that talks about an environment that promotes the individual's health, safety and dignity, but if you put no money towards the problem that everyone knows is there, if you're not going to deal with that issue seriously, then they are empty words from a government that has a long history of empty words without the substance to actually solve the problem.

You have, for many, many people, standards that include one bath a week. What you hear again and again are the complexities if somebody misses the bath, having to go for a period of time…. Again, that comes down to standards that aren't high enough and to a lack of staffing, to the fact that you don't have enough people there to provide the care that is needed.

I don't want to give the impression that the challenges for providing all of these services is anything more than a real challenge, but it is a challenge that British Columbians say that they want their government to meet. They want to make sure that seniors are looked after in the way that they need to be.

What we have seen and many in British Columbia have seen is that the public and non-profit care homes that we built in our communities are the homes that the government has tried to close. They instead try to replace them with private, for-profit facilities. Obviously, in certain situations — I would argue that education is one of them and certainly health care is the other — the profit motive is one that can distort how the service is provided, and that's a problem.

[1535]

I think that with seniors care, the care home has to be focused entirely on the service that they are providing to the senior. That has to be the focus, and I just can't see

[ Page 1697 ]

how the profit motive would work in that circumstance. Certainly, it can't work unless you have strict enforcement, and we shouldn't be fooled in any way that this so-called bill of rights for adults in care provides that.

First, as I have said before, it comes with modifiers — like that you can have your safety and dignity looked after if it's practical — and with explicitly no ability to have any right of action. So we shouldn't fool ourselves that this provides any protection as we increasingly get private facilities.

I think we also have to recognize the fact that we have forced many seniors into facilities by cuts to home support. Since 2001 we've seen a 24 percent drop in the number of people that actually receive support, and we've seen a 12 percent cut in the overall hours available to them. That's where the population that…. The government recognizes a population of seniors that is growing.

What seniors are telling me is that they simply don't have access to the support that they used to have and that they need. Therefore, people are forced into facilities in a time before they would choose because they don't get the home support that they've been looking for.

Again, it's an example of where the government is saying one thing….If you look at what they said during the 2001 election and during the 2005 election, the B.C. Liberals talked about trying to keep people in their homes with more home support, but when the time came for them to actually make that happen, the exact opposite happened. You see home supports that had existed removed.

It's always framed — and we see it here in question period — as a change or an improvement or administrative cuts. However it's framed, the fact is that for the person who is actually impacted, it's a cut. It makes their life more difficult, and very often it will force people into facilities before they would choose to go. So that's a problem.

As I said, it's well and good to have statements of sentiment, but statements of sentiment really don't provide any answer for people that's meaningful. You need to have something that's actually going to change somebody's life.

As I said, we were promised just as recently as last May in Columbia River–Revelstoke that we would have no cuts to our health care if the B.C. Liberals returned to government. But what we have now seen is that having returned to government, there's about, in Interior Health alone, $30 million to $40 million worth of cuts coming per year.

Where services were there, where there had been promises that they would continue, those services are being taken away, and they impact people that are in residential care. They are people who had a service, need a service, and it's being removed. So at the same time that you have a government bringing forward a piece of legislation that talks about things that are going to give an individual a healthy outcome, you have the actual service removed.

The example that we talked about recently in the House was the removal of a speech pathologist for Invermere and for Golden, a part-time position — a position that, if you were to believe what the B.C. Liberals said during the election, would be retained. They promised that there would be no health cuts. But immediately after the election Interior Health said: "Well, we have to cut $30 million to $40 million." The government said, "Go ahead and cut," and this is one of the positions that has been cut.

[1540]

The government will frame it as being some sort of an improvement, but the fact of the matter is that instead of having a speech pathologist working with individuals in Columbia House or in Durand Manor in Golden, you're going to have a video linkup where, presumably, somebody looks on TV and somehow the work is done with that sort of a setup.

For seniors or for those that are living in the residential care facility, the impacts are real. The speech pathologist not only deals with trying to help people relearn or maintain their ability to speak, but they also will look at things like swallowing. They will feel, as individuals try to swallow…. For those that have had strokes or those that are suffering from Alzheimer's, what people here will know is that very often one of the real complications that will be there is around swallowing.

What this gentleman did, this Mr. Coe, is he would go…. One of the assessments he would do is around the patient's ability to swallow. Then with his assessments, there would be modifications in the types of foods and the consistency of the liquids that were fed to the people in the residential facilities that I mentioned.

Those are real tangible things. Those are things that if you get rid of that service, you make somebody's life worse. If you retain them, you make somebody's life better. What we have with this legislation will make no difference to anybody's life. It is essentially just there as a communication plan. That's the frustrating part about this legislation — that it won't actually make a difference to anybody's life, and despite promises that there would not be cuts that would impact seniors, there have been cuts again.

Yesterday in the House we talked about a gentleman who is going to be in Columbia House. At the age of 39 he had a stroke. The stroke has been devastating, of course. He had a child on the way. He had family to look after, and now he is going to spend an extended period of time, likely, in Columbia House.

There was hope with a speech pathologist that he would be able to say his children's names. He had made progress. When he had to go to Calgary for more treatment and for a number of weeks didn't have the help from the speech pathologist, he regressed.

Now he has come back and found that the speech pathologist that he needs has been removed. So there

[ Page 1698 ]

are issues for him around the ability to speak, which is hugely important, and there are issues around his ability to swallow and make progress learning how to swallow again.

So you have real problems that aren't addressed. Instead, we get a piece of legislation which essentially lays out sentiment, and we shouldn't confuse the two. The only way that we're going to make progress is if we deal with real issues. Yet again and again, this government goes to expressions of sentiment because they don't want to deal with the real issues.

I made a list of seven things that, if you go to community meetings, seniors talk about. These are the things that seniors who speak to me, that their families who speak to me, feel are important things to do.

The first one would be to cancel the increase in residential care rates. It's unbelievable to me that we have sentiments expressed in this bill about keeping people healthy, and then you try to raise an additional $56 million from seniors by raising their rates. To me, that seems just absolutely incredible. It seems absolutely incredible at the same time that you're cutting taxes for banks $100 million. I think to most British Columbians, that contrast is just unbelievable.

I'll just quickly go through the list, because I see I'm going to run out of time here. The other thing that seniors and their families talk about is improving the ratio, as I've said, of caregivers to residents in residential care. That comes up again and again as an issue that this government has not addressed. As I say, it's one of a long list of areas where this government leads the country in failure.

[1545]

The third is: increase the number of residential care beds. That was a promise in 2001, a promise that wasn't kept. There have been cuts, closures — all the exact opposite of what was promised. And still you have wait-lists. You don't have enough space for people that need it.

The fourth thing is the improved access to respite care. You have families that need this if they're going to retain their own health. They need a place to get a break, and so that's an area that needs improvement.

As I've said, you have to increase the levels of home care services.

A sixth issue is that you have to increase access and improve access to palliative care. We had beds that were there that were closed, and there was something profoundly wrong with that.

The seventh thing is — and I know I'm going to run out of time before I have too much to say about it — that there is a lot of support for the idea of an independent representative for seniors, an officer of this Legislature that is going to do good work fighting for seniors. That is an idea that makes complete sense.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on seniors issues. It's something that I feel is profoundly important.

G. Coons: I rise to speak to Bill 17, the Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act. I notice that the minister, in her opening remarks, talked about their commitment to quality care, their impressive investments and their commitment to 5,000 beds. So in my comments about Bill 17 — about the acute care impacts on seniors, the home care, home support, residential care — I'd like to sort of look at some of the so-called commitments that we've seen over the last seven or eight years.

You know, the purpose of this bill, as the minister said in her remarks, is to give a bill of rights to adults living in care. This looks at seniors and other residents in care, including long-term mental health substitutes, community living, hospice, acquired-injury facilities. The main purpose, as I see it, is having a bill of rights and having a list of these rights for the adults posted on a wall when they move into the residential facility care.

The rights that we see under Bill 17 are basic rights that we would expect to be available without having to go through legislation. Residents in care already have the majority of the rights listed in this bill.

If we look at some of the rights…. It's the right to a care plan developed specifically for them; to be treated in a manner and to live in an environment that promotes their health, safety and dignity; to be protected from abuse and neglect; to have their lifestyle choices respected and supported and their personal privacy respected; to receive visitors and communicate with visitors in private; to keep and display personal possessions, pictures and furnishings in their own room. They're just things that I would think most British Columbians and seniors would expect to have available to them without having to go through this piece of legislation.

I hope this is a sincere effort to improve the care of residents, and with that comprehension, I will support this bill.

Again, I believe we have to look at and analyze how we got to this position with the government presenting this bill and, again, how much consultation happened in this. We haven't heard from any members on the other side, except the minister's opening remarks. How much consultation was done? Who was consulted on this bill? Who are the stakeholders that were brought into the picture? We don't know, and we don't know if anybody was consulted. We don't know whether or not their input has been taken into the components of the bill.

[1550]

I look back to a couple of bills that the opposition put forward a couple of years ago. The Representative for Seniors Act, 2007. Again, I see this bill echoing what the opposition put forward when we tried to improve systems of care and support for seniors and their families and the monitoring of programs and service.

This bill of rights that will be posted at care homes, a set of rules that people need to abide by — who's going

[ Page 1699 ]

to be monitoring it? Who's going to ensure that the impact on seniors is taken into account?

Bill 17 reminds me of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2007, that this side of the House put forward a couple of years ago and that looks at an accountability framework to protect seniors. The bill that we put forward mandated random manual inspection reports and ensured that the reports are public.

The list of rights for safety, health, and dignity is comprehensive. It's very clear. But I believe they're the kinds of statements that we would expect to be in place already wherever somebody is living and whatever care they're currently experiencing.

When we look at seniors care throughout the province…. We went through the Conversation on Health. The closest, as I've mentioned before in this House, in our region was in Smithers, so I embarked on my own discussion on health. I travelled to the communities in the Nass Valley and to Stewart and Prince Rupert, and along Haida Gwaii and the central coast. Person after person, senior after senior, elder after elder, expressed concerns about the impacts of government policy on their care.

What came out of some of these discussions is that a major concern is that seniors and elders are being looked at as forgotten souls. Long-term facilities and especially home support must be a priority. Having an eye for prevention and proactive care will save the system money. Increasing home support hours, including light housekeeping, will keep our valued seniors in their homes longer and out of expensive hospital beds.

Again, the seniors and the people I met with throughout the north coast seemed to look at the policies that this government has put in about seniors care to be a real detriment to seniors. The North Central Municipal Association, before it changed its name…. One of their top five goals was seniors care and services and having long-term beds required in order to free up acute care beds. So it's been a major concern on the north coast.

This act, this Bill 17, is a small step, mind you, but there's got to be the funding to go along with it. If we look at report after report, whether it's from the B.C. Medical Association or other organizations, they've chronicled how over the last eight years there's been a crisis in seniors care.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report, An Uncertain Future for Seniors . They're restructuring home and community care. They talk about how this government…. The minister mentioned their 5,000-bed commitment in her opening remarks, but this report back in 2008 looked at how between 2001 and 2005 this government repeated their pledge to build 5,000 new long-term-care beds, a promise that they did not fulfil and that they continue to break.

The report actually says and uncovers that there are actually 800 fewer beds available now than in 2001 for a growing number of seniors who require residential care in communities all across our province. In the report, the government was criticized for inaccurately reporting statistics on seniors care, including inflated bed numbers and bed-count numbers.

You know, this government, over the last seven years, has ignored calls from seniors, from families, from advocates, including the B.C. Medical Association, to follow through on expanding long-term care. Bill 17 looks at the bill of rights for residents, but again, I believe it's just smoke and mirrors as far as the direction this government needs to take.

[1555]

The B.C. Medical Association says that this government changed the terms of their original commitment and promise, to create the appearance that they did deliver. The Medical Association in July 2007 said: "Since 2001 this government has focused on increasing the number of assisted-living units. However, residential care beds and assisted-living units are not interchangeable, because the care needs between residential and assisted-living patients are different."

So it's recognized by the Medical Association, and this government still puts forth the premise that they've created and kept their promise for long-term-care beds, and that's not the facts.

This government has reduced home support, which allows seniors to live independently at home, cutting the number of seniors receiving the services by 17 percent.

In Prince Rupert we've just had Acropolis Manor built. The old one, to the chagrin of many in our community, was torn down for a parking lot, and it could have been used for other things, whether it's drug and treatment centres or for child care or other initiatives. What's happening in the new Acropolis…. There's residential care happening in there. Again, it just opened in the last couple of months, but there are some dilemmas going on. We see throughout the north the concern from seniors about residential care, about acute care and their home care and home support.

The B.C. Ombudsman launched a provincewide investigation due to what's happening to seniors in this province. Again, reversing the damage done by this government is a priority not only for this side of the House but for the many advocates and seniors who have witnessed and encountered a decade of broken promises.

A care plan, a real care plan, a real bill of rights for seniors, needs to include setting provincial minimum standards for direct care for residents at all facilities — three or 3.2 hours — and building the 3,000 long-term-care beds that this government said they would and has failed to create. A real bill of rights would look at expanding home care and appointing an independent seniors representative to oversee seniors care.

This bill, Bill 17, proposing a bill of rights, comes after mounting controversy over the state of the province's long-term-care facilities. Again, we saw it last year in a series of articles in the Vancouver Sun . Chad Skelton

[ Page 1700 ]

found that nearly one in nine long-term-care facilities in the Lower Mainland had been classified as high risk by government inspectors. Again, high-risk facilities are those considered by health authorities most likely to violate government health and safety regulations and are subject to frequent inspections.

So we start seeing where this bill might be coming from. It might be trying to cover up on the actions of this government over the last seven or eight years. Art Kube, president of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens association said that this proposed bill of rights, in his mind, is largely a media relations exercise. This bill of rights is hard to oppose, but we have to look at the premise for this government putting it on the floor.

Kube adds, "They are flouting the law before they pass it," saying that "the province is underfunding residential care facilities and in some cases forcing seniors to move from one facility to another." He continues: "I'm not saying that beds shouldn't be closed if the facility is outdated, but the trauma of moving old people is so great, it shouldn't be done. The beds should only be closed through attrition when people pass away."

The rights mentioned in this bill, in

section 3, are pretty obvious. I went through a couple of them. We look at "Rights to participation and freedom of expression." You know, an adult person in care has "the right to participate in his or her own care" and to freely express their views, to "participate in the development and implementation" of their own care plan and "participate in a resident or family council" and to have their family representative participating. "Rights to transparency and accountability." "(

a) to have ready access to copies of all laws, rules and policies affecting the service provided…" to them.

[1600]

Now, you would think that this would be available to anybody. We don't need a bill of rights. This is common sense and a no-brainer. So when we look at this Bill 17, the residents bill of rights, it's pretty common sense.

H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the House we have some very distinguished community leaders: Dr. Hakim Bhullar; Dr. Dalbir Singh Bhaniwal; Jaswinder Singh Parmar and his father, visiting them from India, Mr. Surindar Singh Parmar; Gagandeep Gill — they also call him "Dimple." Please help me welcome them to this House.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: Again, I have to go back to the minister and her opening remarks, when she looks at how this bill is just going to strengthen their commitment to quality care in British Columbia for seniors. But, you know, we've seen how this government has failed seniors. B.C. is in seventh place in Canada in per-capita health care funding — a drop from second place in 2002. We've gone from second to seventh place. Code oranges and code purples are signalling that hospitals are so severely overcrowded that they can't admit patients across B.C.

They broke their promise to build 5,000 residential care beds, and they continue to shut down seniors care homes across the province, in spite of the commitment or the statements by the minister in her opening remarks.

While shutting down seniors care homes, the government also cut support to help seniors stay in their homes longer. In Prince Rupert we've seen it over the last four or five years — a decimation of the home support program and cutting the hours. It got to a point where management were getting bonuses for reducing the number of hours that seniors had in the region. The number of seniors receiving home support has dropped 24 percent since 2001.

If we look at the BCMA again, the medical association, in their report of September 2008, Improving Access to Acute Care Services , they look at how a lack of community care has resulted in seniors receiving an inappropriate level of care in a hospital instead of the community. They say it's estimated that at least 10 percent of acute care capacity, and a rate as high as 20 percent in some hospitals, is being used by people requiring an alternate level of care.

So again we're seeing access to acute care being decimated over the last six or seven years. The provincewide acute care capacity has decreased by 15 percent, the B