2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Victoria police services

S. Orr

Burquitlam Lions Care Centre

H. Bloy

Economy of interior B.C.

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Services for women

J. Kwan

Hon. L. Stephens

Qualification for disability benefits

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Cheema

L. Mayencourt

Hon. G. Hogg

Forest industry markets in China

H. Long

Hon. M. de Jong

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a Police

Complaint Commissioner

Committee of the Whole House

Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr403)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr403)

Committee of the Whole House

Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr404)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr404)

Third Reading of Bills

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74)

Committee of the Whole House

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 72)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 72)

Committee of the Whole House

Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act (Bill 77)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act (Bill 77)

Committee of the Whole House

College of Applied Biology Act (Bill 76)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

College of Applied Biology Act (Bill 76)

Second Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75)

(continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73)

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

J. Les

Royal Assent to Bills

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2002

(Bill 68)

Open Learning Agency Repeal Act (Bill 69)

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 72)

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74)

College of Applied Biology Act (Bill 76)

Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act (Bill 77)

Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr403)

Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill

Pr404)

[ Page 4579 ]

THURSDAY,

NOVEMBER 21, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Today we have two guests in the House, Joop and Agnes Corijn,

from Holland. Mr. and Mrs. Corijn have just arrived from Holland to take on the

post of consul general in the province of British Columbia and are visiting us

today to make themselves known to us here in Victoria. I ask the House to join

me in welcoming them to their new home and to British Columbia.

MacPhail: We really have to do something, Mr. Speaker. I have news to

announce, again.

Interjections.

[1405]

MacPhail: Well, how many times do I have to bring it to the Speaker's

attention? It is surprising how quickly this came about. Sean Leslie joined the

press gallery weeks ago, and it turns out he's been infected — affected.

[Laughter.] I'd like to welcome both Sean Leslie's wife and his second daughter,

Tessa, born last week.

An Hon.

Member: We're going to have to put the stork report on the orders of the

day.

Mr.

Speaker: Not only that, but now it's a communicable disease.

Locke: It is my pleasure to welcome in the precinct today 25 grade 11

students from L.A. Matheson Secondary School in Surrey and their teachers,

Cheryl Paul and Peter Hatto. Chaperoning this great group of students are Connie

Lucyk, Shelley George and Corri George. I want to especially welcome these

students. They face some significant challenges in their student body with the

tragedy of a former grad, Ms. Sandeep Sangha, and two nights ago the collapsing

of their school gymnasium roof. This school has faced some difficulties, and

they deserve our praise for their strong community and school spirit. They are a

class act, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Bray:

Joining us today in the House are several members of the Engineers Wives

Association of Victoria. These women are the real partners of some of our local,

hard-working engineers. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) VICTORIA POLICE SERVICES

S. Orr:

I rise today to share my experience on my drive-along with the Victoria police

chief, Paul Battershill, and his team on Halloween night. I have been out with

the police many times before, but never on a really busy night. My experience

started at 9 p.m. and continued until 4 a.m., when I bailed — exhausted, cold

and frustrated — feeling a little guilty, as the team I was with was still

going full tilt.

We started

at a Halloween family fun evening in the Fernwood area that everyone was

enjoying and, sadly, saw it turn into an angry crowd of young people as the mob

mentality started to take over. They became even angrier as police arrived.

However, had police not arrived and carefully kept breaking up the crowd, the

evening could have ended up quite differently.

I saw the

Fernwood Community Centre sustain fire damage from fireworks thrown into a bush

that caught fire, which moved into the roof of the centre. The police and fire

department did an excellent job of containing it quickly. I saw a police member

sustain a burn when a person threw a firework directly into his face.

We moved

swiftly through the night, dealing with such issues as children who'd had their

candy stolen by a person threatening them with a knife, a beating that left a

man unconscious and bleeding from severe head wounds, several swarm beatings, a

cocaine overdose, domestic disputes and several impaired drivers. We then moved

to dealing with the nightclub crowd exiting the clubs at 2 a.m. It was amazing

to watch our police handle call after call.

When I

finally lay my head on my pillow, I had the sad realization that virtually all

the evening's criminal activities had been precipitated by drugs and booze.

I take my

hat off to the Victoria police. They do a commendable job.

BURQUITLAM LIONS CARE CENTRE

H. Bloy:

I want to tell the Legislature of a movement that is bringing a commonsense

approach to caring for our seniors. The Burquitlam Lions Club, which operates

the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre, recently adopted the ten principles of the

Eden philosophy at its long-term care facility.

There are

ten guiding principles in the Eden philosophy that encompass real-life concepts

like dignity, trust and companionship. The aim is to eliminate loneliness and

boredom to allow our seniors to be active and engaged. The results are

far-reaching — busier, happier, healthier seniors. Healthier seniors will

erase some of the strain we are currently facing in our health care system.

[1410]

The

Burquitlam Lions Care Centre in my riding of Burquitlam, the New Vista Society

in my colleague Patty Sahota's riding of Burnaby-Edmonds and many others in

North America are trying to change the way we approach seniors care. They

recognize that seniors do have the same aspirations and goals to participate in

the community as they did when they were young. Not only do they have those

goals, but they need them. This makes perfect sense to me. I know that our gov-

[ Page 4580 ]

ernment also cares about the health and well-being of seniors and is looking

for new models of care, like supportive living, that give seniors the

appropriate levels of care while maintaining their independence and freedom to

be active members of our community.

I want to

congratulate the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre; the driving force behind bringing

the Eden philosophy, Ms. Renee Danylczuk; and all the staff at the centre for

working together at one level to make their place a place to come to live.

ECONOMY OF INTERIOR B.C.

D. Hayer:

It is easy to identify problems and offer no ideas on how to correct them.

That's why today I want to talk about solutions and how people who live and work

in the interior of our great province want to be part of those solutions.

Last week I

toured the Cariboo on my way to the first annual B.C. Natural Resource Forum,

held in Prince George and hosted by our MLA for Prince George North. I have read

many stories about economic situations and met with various delegations who have

travelled to Victoria, but I wanted to experience for myself the conditions up

there.

My first

stop was in Williams Lake, home to the members for Cariboo South and Cariboo

North. While there, we met with people in the community to hear their concerns

about the softwood lumber dispute, about the miles of red tape holding back

prosperous mining industry and about challenges in the ranching industry. The

next day I was in Quesnel to meet with members of the Cariboo Gur Sikh temple,

and I spent time discussing what is needed to rejuvenate a stalled economy up

there.

In Prince

George I was at the Guru Gobind Singh Sikh temple and then met with people from

Fair Value Homes and Hayer Homes, along with many others. While in Prince

George, I also had the opportunity to take a helicopter tour and see firsthand

the magnitude of the destruction caused by the pine beetle epidemic.

My final

stop was the natural resource forum. The turnout was impressive. More than 1,400

people attended. Sixteen MLAs, including four cabinet members, were also there

in attendance, because we care about each and every community in the province.

This forum

was about opportunities. That's what the residents of the interior, the Cariboo

and the north want: an opportunity to succeed, the right to raise their families

in their communities and an opportunity to contribute to B.C.'s success. Despite

the bumps in the road, together we can make B.C. number one again.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

SERVICES FOR WOMEN

J. Kwan:

Within blocks of the Legislature, the Sandy Merriman house provides a vital day

service to some of the most vulnerable women in our society — homeless women,

street workers and women fleeing abusive relationships. It provides a place for

women to have showers, to do their laundry and to get a break from the streets.

Because of the Liberal cuts, Sandy Merriman's day program is closing.

To the

Minister of State for Women's Equality: could she tell these women where they

are supposed to go now that the government has taken away the only support

service or source of support that's available to them?

Hon. L.

Stephens: This government is committed to making sure that the women in the

province get the kind of services that they require, and that's why we have

protected all of the essential priority services to women. We are making sure we

have funded all of the transition houses, all of the safe homes, all of the

counselling services for women and for children who witness abuse. We are doing

everything we possibly can to make sure that women are well served in the

province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

[1415]

J. Kwan:

Certainly, the cuts to the Sandy Merriman place do not serve well the women who

need and use the program. Forty women a day use the Sandy Merriman's day

program. As I said, these are the poorest, most vulnerable women in our society.

They didn't get a tax cut. Many are just struggling to stay alive. Now they have

nowhere to go except back into the streets.

Will the

Minister of State for Women's Equality ensure that every dime her government has

cut from the Sandy Merriman Shelter is given back before there's a tragedy in

our community?

Hon. L.

Stephens: This government, frankly, shares the member opposite's concerns

about women and the difficulties they are facing. I think all of us understand

that there are individuals in our society who do need all the help we can

possibly provide. That is one of the reasons why this government is going to be

introducing a safer community strategy to deal with these kinds of issues that

we have all identified, and we all believe strongly that we need to make sure

that those vulnerable people in our society are indeed cared for.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

It certainly is a strange way for the minister to show and share the concern —

by taking away services for women who live on the streets. That sure is a

strange way to show you're concerned.

The

minister is not only cutting Sandy Merriman centre's funding. In Kelowna,

services for women are on the chopping block as well. For 14 years the Belaire

[ Page 4581 ]

Women's Recovery Centre in Kelowna has been providing a superb service to

women recovering from alcohol and drug addiction. It provides a safe,

professional and caring place for women to get back on their feet. This weekend

the Belaire Recovery Centre is closing because the government refuses to pay the

workers who care for these women a decent wage. They refuse to recognize the

contribution they make to the lives of the women living with addiction.

Can the

Minister of State for Women's Equality tell these women, who are losing their

detox centre, where they are supposed to go to get well now?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Again the member opposite has highlighted an issue that is of

grave concern. I think all of us will understand and agree that the services for

individuals and women who are dealing with these very, very serious issues of

addictions and substance abuse are ones that we are all struggling with. I think

what we are doing is making sure that through the health authorities and the

other ministries of government, we are making available these services to these

vulnerable people — people, really, who do need to have those kinds of

services to make sure they can face the future with confidence.

QUALIFICATION FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

MacPhail: Can the Minister of State for Mental Health please tell us whether

he or anyone else in his government has determined the extent of the human

misery that has resulted from his government's misguided and mean-spirited

policy attacking people with disabilities?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Let me just explain to this member that the issues of mental health

are important to us. The Ministry of Human Resources is now transferring 5,000

mental health clients to the new "persons with a disability" category.

That's good news for mental health.

My office,

the Ministry of Health Services, my advisory council and provincial advocacy

associations like the Canadian Mental Health Association have been working hard

with the Ministry of Human Resources to resolve this issue, and my office has

received positive feedback. This afternoon the Coast Foundation sent me a

positive message, saying: "Thanks for the great news. This will be a great

relief to many thousands of patients with mental illness in this province. Many

thanks for working so hard behind the scenes to make this happen." That's

what we do.

Mr.

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

[1420]

MacPhail: Despite how much the ministry of truth tries to put a positive

spin on their own news release, here's what happened. This government, this

Minister of State for Mental Health, put people with mental illness through

incredible pain and anxiety by subjecting them all to an unbelievable review, a

23-page review, merely to once again have to prove that they do have a

disability. These are people with mental illness. Here's what happened after

this government saw the pain that they were putting on it. For people who were

on disability and subject to the review, the ministry said: "The Ministry

of Human Resources, upon further review, is now able to exempt 5,000 of

these…clients with a mental illness from that review." Weeks after

putting them through the pain and anguish, today that's what's announced.

Will the

Minister of State for Mental Health apologize today to the thousands of people

he represents, the thousands of people that he is supposed to represent at the

cabinet table who have been hurt and abused over the past months?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The only cruel thing, the only cruelty, was what happened to mental

health when they were in power. This is the government which did not….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Let us hear the answer.

Hon. G.

Cheema: That was the government that did not fund the mental health plan.

This is the first time in B.C. 's history that the mental….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to

order. Order. Order.

Please

continue.

Hon. G.

Cheema: This is the first time in B.C.'s history that mental disorders are

now defined in the legislation. For the first time, social functioning has been

recognized in the regulations. The episodic natures of mental illness are

recognized in the performance of daily activities. Eating disorders, anxiety

disorders and substance-related disorders are now recognized in the process.

These are all important for us. We have made a lot of progress. The only

complaint from the NDP is that they did not deliver what they said. They are the

only ones who deceived the patient with the mental health in this province.

Mayencourt: There are British Columbians living with other forms of

disabilities who have also received reassessment forms and are worried about the

impact this will have on their benefits. Can the government please tell us what

is being done to ensure all individu-

[ Page 4582 ]

als currently on disability 2 status are able to adequately complete their

reassessment forms?

Hon. G.

Hogg: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Human Resources, who is at a

national conference with respect to these matters with other ministers, he

understands there has been some unease with respect to the problems in the

community process. As a result, he and his staff have been working on this

matter for some time, and they have announced there will be an extension of the

deadline for the completion of these forms from January 15 until March 15. There

will be two months further for those forms to be completed.

It should

also be pointed out that with this 23-page form, which has been referred to, the

client actually fills out three pages of that, and the MHR offices are there,

able to assist and direct people to appropriate community resources for filling

out the forms.

There's a

1-800 number which is available. The number has been printed on all

correspondence. The ministry also funds the Canadian Mental Health Association

to assist ministry clients in filling out the forms.

Finally,

there is an extensive list of health professionals who can complete sections 2

and 3 of the forms, the 20 pages. For filling out those forms…. Health

professionals, the doctors who they primarily have contact with on a regular

basis, receive $130 for filling out that section, and health professionals, for

the final section, receive $75. They've been well compensated and supported and

given more time for those forms.

Mayencourt: I'd like to go back, if I may, to a question to the Minister….

Interjection.

[1425]

Mr.

Speaker: Order. We'll wait until the Leader of the Opposition settles down.

Then we will continue with question period.

Mayencourt: I'd like to go back to a question to the Minister of State for

Mental Health. Under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities

Act…. There are a large number of British Columbians with mental illnesses

with the assessment form that they're filling out. I've spoken to people with

the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Coast Foundation in my

constituency, who have been advocating on behalf of those patients. Can the

Minister of State please clarify how the government is resolving the issues for

those 5,000 clients?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Thank you for the question. This member has been working hard along

with the Ministry of Health Services, my advisory council, the Coast Foundation

and Canadian Mental Health Association. We are, as of today, transferring these

5,000 clients with a mental illness to the new "person with a

disability" category. This is great news for patients.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. We cannot hear the answer, so I would ask the

minister to please start over. Would you please say it again.

Hon. G.

Cheema: The Ministry of Human Resources is presently transferring 5,000

patients with a mental illness into the new category of "person with a

disability." That's good news for patients. This will help the patients

with mental illness. This has been done because we have been consulting. We have

been consulting with the advocacy organizations. We've been consulting with the

Coast Foundation. We have been consulting…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …with the Canadian Mental Health Association. We have done the

consultation, and the Ministry of Human Resources has resolved this issue. This

is great news, and we should move on.

FOREST INDUSTRY MARKETS IN CHINA

H. Long:

My question is to the Minister of Forests.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

H. Long:

The ongoing softwood lumber dispute….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, order, please.

Please

proceed.

H. Long:

My question is to the Minister of Forests. The ongoing softwood lumber dispute

has painfully illustrated the dangers of being overly dependent on one market.

In order to diversify B.C.'s forests markets, the ministry has recently

travelled to China, where last year alone there were over ten million housing

starts. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what progress was made on his trip?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Last week, in fact, along with the member for Vancouver-Kensington,

I was in China, and I'm obliged to him for leading me around his ancestral

homeland. I was pleased with several features of the meetings that took place

and pleased with the invitation we received from the Shanghai government to

participate — that is, B.C. companies — in the establishment of a satellite

community based on Canadian urban planning, Canadian wood products, Canadian

design.

I was

impressed with the negotiations that have taken place with a B.C. company,

Spruce Capital Homes, and their active participation in the establish-

[ Page 4583 ]

ment in the Beijing area of a community called Vancouver Village. I was also

encouraged by the discussions we had with the Beijing Olympic Committee around

our proposals and encouragement for the use of wood, specifically B.C. wood

products.

But I'm

also realistic. It's a big chore. Cracking that market in a meaningful way is

going to require a lot of work, and key amongst the things left to be done is

the achievement and finalization of a wood standards building code. We are

working actively with Chinese officials to ensure that that takes place.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Nuraney: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to

Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner. I move that the report be taken as read

and received.

[1430]

Motion

approved.

Nuraney: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

Nuraney: In so moving the adoption of the report, I wish to make the

following comments.

On behalf

of Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner, I'm pleased to

submit this report to the House, which recommends that Dirk Ryneveld, QC, be

appointed the police complaint commissioner for the province of British

Columbia.

Mr.

Ryneveld has more than 30 years' experience in the legal profession, most of

which was spent here in British Columbia as a deputy regional Crown counsel. For

the last four years, he has been serving as a senior trial attorney with the

United Nations at The Hague. It is the belief of the committee that Mr. Ryneveld

meets the overall objectives to fully implement the spirit of the police

complaint legislation and the recommendations made by the Special Committee to

Review the Police Complaint Process. He is fully conversant with

part 9 of the

Police Act. He has the ability to promote community outreach programs, and he is

an advocate for alternative dispute resolution processes which were recommended

by the committee.

Throughout

his career, he has demonstrated great sensitivity in working with people from

all walks of life and bringing them together to resolve their differences. We

believe that Mr. Ryneveld is eminently qualified to undertake the

responsibilities of the police complaint commissioner. I am confident that the

province will be well served by his appointment.

I would

also like to thank the members of the committee for their hard work and

cooperation throughout this exhaustive process.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that this report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

Nuraney: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion requiring

the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Mr. Dirk Ryneveld, QC, as the police

complaint commissioner for the province of British Columbia.

Leave

granted.

Nuraney: By leave, I move that this House recommend to Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Mr. Dirk Ryneveld, QC, as a statutory

officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the

police complaint commissioner for the province of British Columbia in accordance

with

part 9 of the Police Act.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill Pr403.

Committee of the Whole House

HANSLER OZONE CANADA INC.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr403; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:35 p.m.

Sections

1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Jarvis: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:36 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

Pr403, Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill Pr404.

[ Page 4584 ]

Committee of the Whole House

GOLD STANDARD RESOURCES

LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr404; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:37 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Nijjar: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:38 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

Pr404, Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call third reading of Bill 74.

Third Reading of Bills

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT

Bill

74, Forest and Range Practices Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 72.

Committee of the Whole House

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 72; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:40 p.m.

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:41 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

72, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage of Bill 77.

Committee of the Whole House

ACTING POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

CONTINUATION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 77; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Sections 1

and 2 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

77, Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 76.

Committee of the Whole House

COLLEGE OF APPLIED BIOLOGY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 76; H. Long in the chair.

The

Chair: The committee will take a short recess.

The

committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:56 p.m.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

On

section

[ Page 4585 ]

J. MacPhail:

Yesterday I indicated to the legislative chamber that we would be supporting

this legislation — for the benefit of the government, just so they know, in

terms of the questions I'll be pursuing.

One of the

questions I had for the minister, and I thought maybe the definition…. Oh, I'm

sorry — it's under the applications. I'll let

section 1 pass.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: I'm looking for a place in which I can explore this area with the

minister. I thought perhaps this was the best area. Perhaps the minister can

tell me if this is the first jurisdiction that has a college of applied biology.

Hon. M.

de Jong: That's my information.

MacPhail: Yes, and that's my information as well. Can the minister perhaps

outline for us some of the challenges that exist? Or has he had any reports

about the challenges that exist in other jurisdictions in terms of bringing in a

college of applied biology? The profession has been urging this across the

country — the setup of such a college.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there are probably two issues. One relates to the practice

of biology itself, and it's reflected in the

definitions section. The breadths

of scope…. There are so many different types of biologists that bringing a

sense of coordination to a professional group with such a diverse range of

involvement has apparently complicated the matter.

[1500]

I'm also

told that one of the things that distinguishes British Columbia from other

jurisdictions, happily, is that we actually have something of a history around

professional accountability legislation for resource professionals. For example,

most other jurisdictions do not have a Foresters Act.

Now, that

is right-to-practise legislation, and this is right-to-title legislation. But

there is a history here in B.C. that lends itself to this kind of statutory

recognition around a particular resource profession, which simply doesn't exist

in other jurisdictions. I think our expectation, and certainly the expectation

on the part of biologists in other jurisdictions, is that this will represent

something of a breakthrough and may be duplicated elsewhere in the country.

MacPhail: What process did the minister go through in order to ensure that

the challenges around this matter ? although I always put this in the context

that we support this ? are met?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In terms of the development of this legislation, two things are

probably most relevant. It won't, I'm sure, surprise the member that we worked

pretty extensively with the biologists association itself. The process was

assisted to a certain degree by the fact that they existed and continue to exist

as a society and, within that guise, had extensive interaction with other

resource professionals. That's where the second component to this to address

some of those challenges that the member was referring to….

Always, I

think, when governments embark upon these kind of exercises, it elicits a

reaction from others, who begin to worry about how the recognition of one

jurisdiction is going to impact on their jurisdiction or their historical

jurisdiction. I think I can report, with relative certainty, that the foresters,

the agrologists and those other resource professionals with whom we also worked

in the development of this…. I don't think it's any great secret that we are

also looking at updating the Foresters Act and legislation for the agrologists,

so it very much was something of a package — not a package deal but a package

bit of work. All of those professionals seem content with how we have addressed

the component parts and the collective.

MacPhail: I've had experience in establishing one professional council, the

midwifery professional college. Is there anything in place for monitoring and

review over the course of the next 12 or 18 months of the establishment of the

college and perhaps allowing for change if necessary?

[1505]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, to answer the question directly, there isn't a statutory

provision that speaks to the issue the member has raised. There is, however —

and there is a clear understanding on the part of the members — a council of

resource professionals who were intimately involved in the development of this

regime and an understanding between that agency and government that at the

conclusion of a year of operation, there will be a review of the application of

the law and an enumeration of any difficulties that have arisen.

MacPhail: What's the time frame for establishment?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There are, I am advised, some transitional measures for the

biologists — who are now a society — to attend to, and we're anticipating

full implementation in the spring.

Section 2

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This is the

section where it establishes the College of Applied

Biology. Can the minister point me to another college that would be a model for

how this college is established?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize for the delay, hon. Chair. The presence of the word

"college" — it's why I was having the discussion with Mr. Grieve —

would suggest you could look to a body like the College of Physicians and

Surgeons. Of course, it exists at a different scale, although it does function

in part as a self-

[ Page 4586 ]

regulating body and as an advocacy body for its members. However, it might be

more appropriate to examine a body like the agrologists association or even the

foresters association. I will — and we may get to this later in the discussion

— alert the member to the fact that when we got to the disciplinary components

of this, we did look at models such as that which exist within the Law Society

and that type of body and did draw from that.

Section 3

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Can the minister explain the relationship between the council and

the college?

[1510]

Hon. M.

de Jong: The corporate entity, as it were, is the college, but the council

operates on a day-to-day basis to enact, rescind or amend rules. The council is

responsible for establishing the guidelines and the set of rules by which that

corporate body, the college, operates.

Section 4

approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 5 is the organization of the council. It is my experience

that a council has members who represent what is sometimes called the public

interest. Is there such a group here?

Hon. M.

de Jong: If I understand the question correctly, I think the answer lies in

subsection 5(2), which contemplates the appointment of what I will call lay

members.

Sections 5

to 19 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This was my other and last major area of interest.

Section 20 is

part of

part 4, which talks about the protection of the public interest. Clause

20 is the standards of conduct and competence. This College of Applied Biology

is self-regulating, I remember. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: I await the day where a head nod can be translated verbally, but

you probably have to have hair to do that.

Perhaps the

minister, then, could explain, just in general terms, how the self-regulating

college will set standards of conduct and competence while protecting the public

interest.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Just to help me, is the member interested in the procedure by which

that occurs? I think she's indicating that she is. Excuse me.

[1515]

The rules

will exist at different levels. I think the member's primary interest at this

stage of the discussion relates to rules of professional conduct, which most of

these self-regulating agencies have. The process, I am told, would involve an

initial establishment by the council of those rules of professional conduct. My

discussion, and what I wanted to be able to provide to the member, was an

indication of how the membership itself is involved in the initial establishment

of those rules of professional conduct.

What the

act contemplates is the establishment by the council. It doesn't stipulate at

the initial stage what the involvement by the members would be. There is,

however, under

section 7, I think, a provision by which the membership or a

member could challenge a component of those rules or other rules or challenge

the council on a matter. There's a process laid out by which that could occur

involving 50 members petitioning for a meeting. So the council will then,

presumably in concert with the membership, have initial responsibility for the

establishment of that code of professional conduct. Thereafter it will be an

evolutionary process involving exchanges between the council of the day and the

members.

Sections 20

to 33 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 34 deals with appeal, and it's the right of appeal for the

member of the college who has, I assume, had some action taken against him or

her, probably disciplinary. I note that prior to that, there's statutory

requirements for panels to conduct hearings, what happens if there's a failure

to attend, the right to counsel, witnesses, costs, review on the record. So all

of those issues are addressed.

The appeal

is to the Supreme Court, which perhaps the minister…. It makes sense to have

it appealed to the Supreme Court, but in terms of administrative law and

establishing new administrative law, is this the current or common way of

allowing for appeal?

[1520]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am advised, first and foremost, that this is the mechanism that

exists in the Foresters Act, but I'll go further than that. Generally speaking,

my recollection from years ago is that there are two routes one can take in

providing for an appeal. This provides a right of appeal in specified

circumstances. It does restrict that right to the situation or circumstances

that are called for and talks about restricting the appeal to questions of law

or jurisdiction, so that privative clause exists. Absent this section, and an

applicant or respondent who wants to be an appellant would be forced to invoke

provisions of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The

intention here is to provide a right of appeal. I agree with the member that in

circumstances where ultimately the right to ply one's trade is serious enough

[ Page 4587 ]

that providing that right of appeal is justified, though we do define the

circumstances under which that right of appeal can be exercised, there is a

broad body of law defining the application of these types of privative clauses.

Sections

34 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:22 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

76, College of Applied Biology Act, reported complete without amendment, read

a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call for continued second reading debate on Bill 75.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

(continued)

MacPhail: I adjourned debate last night. I just have a few other comments to

make just to reiterate that Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, is the

bill — there is a piece — that provides for the direct awarding of a major

licence to first nations, and we will debate that at committee stage. The other

part of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act accomplishes two other things: to

provide for a transition and a blending of the dual process — which will exist

until I think March 31, 2004 — of the use of the Forest Practices Code or the

use of the Forest and Range Practices Act. I will, at committee stage, be

ensuring that that transition process works, is fair and is actually making both

processes less cumbersome. That will be the nature of the debate.

The third

aspect of the bill is that there will be a transfer of responsibility to the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management for land use planning in this

province. It was a triple responsibility before under the Minister of Forests,

the then Minister of Environment — now Minister of Water, Land and Air

protection — and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. I will be

noting that with interest.

[1525]

I thank the

minister for providing me with the up-to-date progress report on the land use

planning process. There's a lot of work to be done still in the area of making

sure that land use plans prevail in our province. That work is not easy work.

Each and every one of us knows that concluding land use plans in this province

takes a huge amount of commitment from each and every stakeholder, whether that

stakeholder be a community leader, first nation, environmental or

non-governmental organization, forestry worker, union, forestry company, mining

company, natural resource company or tourism association. There is a huge amount

of commitment from all of those people in society to bring about a land use plan

that works for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Some may

say that the progress to date has been slow. I don't accept that. It has been

challenging to sign off on land use plans. This morning I met a man from Anahim

Lake who was extremely proud that his area has led in the land use planning

process and can serve as a model to everyone else. He was extremely proud of it.

Their commitment as a community and as all the stakeholders grows every day to

deliver on their land use plan. But there are areas where progress has been less

speedy. Without assigning any responsibility or blame for that, I hope it is the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's commitment to conclude land use

planning in a way that allows every proponent, every stakeholder in our

province, to have a say and feel comfortable about the outcome of the decision.

In my view, speed and imposition from on high, imposition from executive

council, on land use planning simply does not work.

The last

point I want to make to the Minister of Forests is that while all of this work

proceeds and will continue to proceed as the regulatory regime for both Bills 74

and 75 takes place, there is much work left to be done in reinvigorating a

fragile forestry sector. There are outstanding matters that are affecting our

communities every day: the lack of resolve in the softwood lumber dispute; the

awaiting by everybody of tenure reform and a move to market pricing and, as

importantly as anything else, this government's resolve to not allow abuse of a

ban on raw log exports. This becomes increasingly important as I visit

communities, particularly on the northern Island and in northwest British

Columbia, although it is an issue for everyone in the province — the

increasing permission to allow raw log exports.

Those

issues face the industry, face the government and, most importantly of all,

demand resolve in a way that stimulates our economy not just for the immediate

future but for the generation of our children and then our grandchildren as

well. Whenever we refer to our children and our grandchildren, it has a hollow

ring to it sometimes, coming from politicians — the lofty ideals that we often

don't engage in — but in this particular case it's absolutely necessary.

[1530]

While many

talk about the emergence of the new economy in British Columbia and celebrate

that, we must also grasp that so much of our economic activity is still

generated by natural resources. Amongst our

[ Page 4588 ]

natural resource–based economy, forestry stands at the top of the list.

Those are comments that I make only as a way of saying that any priority this

government gives to moving on those issues will be welcomed and supported by the

opposition.

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading debate on Bill 75. The Minister of Forests closes

debate.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I thank the member for her notice of those issues that we will

canvass at the committee stage and for her thoughtful comments on second

reading, and I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 75,

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call for committee stage debate on Bill 73.

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 73; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:32 p.m.

On

section

J. Kwan:

I think the minister is a little bit anxious because she doesn't have her staff

with her. Perhaps we can wait for a few minutes before we start.

Hon. K.

Whittred: Before we start, I would just like to take this opportunity to

introduce my staff who are with me today. On my immediate right are deputies

Penny Ballem and Paul Bailey, to Penny's right is Andrew Hazlewood, and behind

are Kersteen Johnston and Stephanie Sainas.

J. Kwan:

Thank you to the minister for the introduction of her staff that are

accompanying her today to debate this bill.

The first

section of the act, of course, deals with

definitions. There are a number of

questions that I have with respect to that.

My first

question to the minister is: what was the rationale for the switch from the term

"resident" to "person in care," and who was consulted with

respect to this change? Why was "resident" added back in but refers

only to the assisted-living component of the act?

[1535]

Hon. K.

Whittred: "Person in care" and "resident" are used

because, number one, the bill addresses two levels of care. We have added the

section that deals with assisted living. Therefore, to distinguish between them,

"person in care" refers to those individuals who would reside in a

residential care facility, the higher level care facility, and

"resident" would be confined to the assisted living.

In response

to her question about who we consulted with, we had a very broad consultation

process over several months — community hearings in several communities as

well as a number of written responses and responses on the website.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be clear, because we're debating right now in the Legislature

the Residential Tenancy Act as well. I am advised by the Solicitor General that

the Residential Tenancy Act would not apply to the residents that are defined

under this act. Is that correct, then? The only act that is applicable in terms

of protection for this group of residents would be, then, Bill 73?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, Mr. Chair. This bill, to the member opposite, applies only to

health and safety. Issues that are concerned with consumer protection and

residential tenancy are presently being looked at by the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services. That will be something that they will pursue

over a period of time.

J. Kwan:

So is that to say, then, there is no piece of legislation that would now

apply for residents who are in, let's say, assisted-living services, which would

provide them any rental protection outside of health and safety protections?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member is correct about the consumer protection for people who

reside in assisted living and other types of supported living. I might add,

though, for the member, that this has been the case for some time, which is why

the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is actively looking

at this. We have a commitment from them that they will pursue it over the next

several months.

J. Kwan:

No, my understanding is that on the rental protection side, the Residential

Tenancy Act actually applied for those living in assisted living. So if there

were residential tenancy issues that became a problem, there would be a

recourse, and that would be through the residential tenancy branch.

Under the

debate with the Solicitor General on the new Residential Tenancy Act, that would

no longer apply for those who are living in assisted-living situations. I had

assumed that that protection would be here under this act. Now the minister has

just said no, that is

[ Page 4589 ]

not the case. That kind of protection would not be afforded to residents of

assisted-living accommodations. So that means there's a lapse in time for which

there is no rental housing consumer protection availability, then, for this

group of individuals.

How many

people does the minister expect would not get any protection, then, during this

period?

[1540]

Hon. K.

Whittred: This act is about health and safety. That is the jurisdiction of

this act, and CAWS has undertaken to look at the consumer protection aspect.

There is a difference of opinion amongst the legal experts as to exactly the

status of the consumer protection, and that is why it is being actively looked

at by CAWS.

J. Kwan:

It's problematic, and I hope the minister sees where the problem lies. Here we

are in the Legislature with a whole bunch of new acts coming forward. We have

the new Residential Tenancy Act that exempts a group of people from consumer

protection in the rental situation. We have a new act that's introduced, and

presumably, as the minister has said, she has gone out and done consultation.

There is still a gap that exists, though, for this group of people who will

still not get consumer protection.

In the

meantime, supposedly, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

is going to bring forward some other piece of the act that will look at that,

but it's nowhere in sight. There's a gap, a lapse in time, if you will, where

these people won't actually get any consumer protection, and in my view, that's

a bit of a problem. You can't look at issues just from a silo point of view and

sort of say: "Don't worry. That will come in time." How many people

does the minister expect would be living in assisted living who would fall under

this act? How many people would be impacted?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Currently at this time, there are about 200 people, publicly

funded, living in assisted living.

J. Kwan:

This is about health and safety. So there are about 200 people that are now

living in assisted living. How many people have been dislocated from long-term

care and intermediate care facilities?

Hon. K.

Whittred: To my knowledge, no one in the province has been dislocated from

continuing care. I would remind the member that we are discussing the

definitions.

J. Kwan:

What the minister has said is simply untrue. In the last while in the

Legislature, the opposition has brought forward cases of people who have been

evicted from their long-term care facilities, and they're without a home. In

fact, it was just this week that I brought forward a case where a woman who is

suffering from advanced Alzheimer's is being evicted from her home to go back to

live with her husband, who also has a multitude of health challenges. He is

unable to take care of her.

So we know

of at least one, and that's actually not the only case. There were many other

cases that were brought to this House. I know there's a constituent of mine I

spoke with, a 105-year-old woman who has been displaced from her home, a

long-term care, intermediate care facility in my community — Cooper Place.

It's not true to say there hasn't been anybody, because there has been.

[1545]

How is this

relevant to this definition of the act? In this definition, the minister says

the term "resident" means a person who resides in a community care

facility. Then you have the other term, "person in care," which means

a person who resides in or attends a community care facility for the purposes of

receiving care. These two categories of people that are supposed to get health

and safety protection are being impacted. What I'm interested in is how many

people would be impacted by this act as it currently, right now, says. The

minister says 220. How many more people who would fall under the "person in

care" category have now lost that status and been moved into some other

category, whether it be "resident" or just a person back home? I'm

trying to figure out what the greater ramifications are with respect to this

act. You can't sort of just look at it by definition purposes; you have to look

at the definition relative to what it really means in the community. That's what

I'm trying to get at. Could the minister try again and give us a truthful

answer?

Hon. K.

Whittred: In terms of the act, the member might want to note that the act

defines two kinds of facilities. A community care facility is where a person in

care lives, and an assisted-living facility is where a resident lives.

J. Kwan:

I do understand who lives where under the two kinds of facilities. I'm asking

the minister how many people live in these facilities. Those who were living in

long-term care facilities that are no longer living there because this

government has actually evicted them from their homes — how many of them have

lost their status as a person in care? It's not that complicated.

Hon. K.

Whittred: This act covers a number of facilities. It covers community care

facilities, which include child care facilities. It includes group homes. It

includes assisted living. It can include other types of facilities where care is

given. In the province we have approximately 25,000 residents who are in

long-term care facilities. We have 4,600 licensed child care facilities. We

have, as I've said, approximately 200 publicly funded assisted-living beds. I do

not have the numbers for the group homes.

J. Kwan:

What the minister has given me is how many units, if you will, or beds exist in

the different

[ Page 4590 ]

kinds of care facilities. My question to the minister is this: how many

people, out of the 2,500 units that do exist in long-term care, have now lost

their long-term care beds?

[1550]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I wonder if the member could give some direction about where this

is going in terms of the definition. I'm not sure what the relevance is.

J. Kwan:

Let me explain to the minister once again what the relevance is. Here we have

Bill 73. Bill 73 is

an act that is entitled Community Care and Assisted Living

Act. Within it there is a whole range of different clauses all the way up to

section 58, which deals with the living conditions of those who fall under this

act. In the definition

section we have two kinds of groups of people who would

fall under this act. One is entitled "person in care." The other is

entitled "resident." By the minister's own admission…. She already

just stated in the House there are approximately 2,500 people who live in

long-term care facilities, who fall under the "person in care"

definition. We also have about 4,600 people who fall into the child development

component in terms of the people in care and then about 200 people that fall

under assisted living, which is the "resident" definition.

What I'm

interested in is how far this act is going to impact the various people under

the different

definitions of the act as it pertains to them. Those who were in

long-term care facilities who are no longer living in long-term care facilities

— I would like to know how many of those people have actually lost the

definition as a person in care, because they were formerly in long-term care

facilities that would fall under this act. Because of the government cutbacks,

because of the eviction that the minister has actually foisted on the community,

there's a bunch of people who no longer fall under this definition. How many of

those no longer fall under this definition? How many of those fall under the

"person in care" definition, and how many of those fall under the

"resident" definition?

Hon. K.

Whittred: In the public system there are, as I said, approximately 25,000

patients. On any given day in the health system that number may change slightly

as people go for tests, go from a bed in the hospital to a long-term bed or any

other number of options. But that number remains fairly constant. There are, as

I said also, about 22,000 child care spaces. There are, in addition to that,

group homes. There are approximately 200 publicly funded assisted-living spaces,

and there are, as near as we can determine, about 2,000 to 3,000 private

assisted-living units.

[1555]

J. Kwan:

The minister can read her list all she wants. She's not answering the question.

My question to the minister is this: how many people has this government, this

minister, her ministry served notice to — the people who were formerly living

in long-term care facilities who are no longer going to get their home in a

long-term care facility? How many people will be displaced, will no longer have

the definition of a "person in care" under Bill 73 applied to them

under Bill 73, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act?

Of those

people who lost their homes, how many people would then fall into the new

category of definition, "resident," under Bill 73? How many people?

That's the question I'm asking the minister.

Do not get

up, please — through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister — and read off a list

of how many beds exist, because that question will come when the beds start to

shut down. I'll come back to that question, but right now that's not the

question I'm asking. I'm asking how many people have been displaced from their

homes, from long-term and intermediate care facilities.

Hon. K.

Whittred: "Person in care" means a person who resides in a

community care facility for the purpose of receiving care. That definition is

broad enough to include all of those individuals who live in the various kinds

of facilities that I have described. We have not evicted a single person from

any facility in this province. There will be no person who qualifies in terms of

needing high-level care, who would be moved to another level of care unless they

specifically wished it. That is the policy that is in place. It has been in

place, and it will remain in place.

J. Kwan:

That is simply untrue. We have cases of people….

The

Chair: Member, I think you have pursued this line of questioning quite

extensively.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I have.

The

Chair: If you could just move on to a new line of questioning. The minister

has given you her answer on what she believes.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The fact of the matter is that the minister did not answer

the question, and she's denying that people have been evicted from their homes.

The reality is that people have been evicted from their homes. Just this week

the opposition raised the question in this House of a woman who is suffering

from Alzheimer's in a long-term care facility bed. She has been given notice

that she must leave, and she has to go home to live with her husband, who also

has multiple health challenges. So to suggest that nobody has been displaced or

is in the process of being displaced is simply untrue.

The

minister says: "Well, okay. It's the changed criteria." Let me perhaps

try the question this way. If it's the changed criteria that have caused people

to not be eligible for the long-term care facility beds, then let me ask the

minister this question. As a result of the changed criteria for those who were

eligible for long-term care beds, who would fit under the definition

"persons in care" under Bill 73? How many people

[ Page 4591 ]

were deemed to be ineligible to date to qualify to stay in a long-term care

facility bed?

The

Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

J. Kwan:

No, I'm not finished with the questions. I'm still waiting for an answer from

the minister.

The

Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

It's not good enough for this minister to sit there and be silent and not answer

the questions. It's not good enough. There are people across the province right

now to whom this act is supposed to apply, under which they're being displaced,

under which

definitions of how they qualify for protection for health and safety

protection would change. British Columbians and members of this Legislature have

every right to know how many British Columbians are being impacted. If the

minister doesn't know the answer, I expect that it is her job to find out the

answer.

[1600]

It is not

good enough to sit down and hide and not provide answers to this House. I ask

the minister once again the question: how many people are not eligible for

long-term care bed facilities under the definition of the Liberal government?

How many have been evicted or displaced or are in the process of being displaced

to date?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I repeat once again: a person in care is one that lives in a

residential care facility, a community care facility. That might be an elderly

person requiring care. It might be a child in a child care setting. It might be

a disabled youth. It might be someone in the community-living sector. All of

those would be applicable and would be a person in care.

J. Kwan:

I've just found Hansard. The question was asked, actually just yesterday

— those people who have not been displaced that I just imagined somehow….

Let me just quote from Hansard:

"Jim

and his wife Frances O'Conner have lived in the Kootenays for 57 years. Jim is

78; his wife is 77. Frances O'Conner has been living with Alzheimer's for

the last six years. Recently Jim had a major abdominal surgery, and he's had a

weak heart. Frances has been in a respite bed since July, but because of

government cuts to long-term care beds in the Kootenays, Frances will be sent

home next week to live with her very ill husband. He can't take care of her.

They're both too sick."

The

question was to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care:

is this her idea of a care plan for seniors — to force one very sick senior to

take care of another?

The second

question.

"Frances

O'Conner had a bed before this government started to shut down long-term

care facilities. Frances and Jim have pleaded with the government for help.

They've written to the Premier. They've written to the minister for

long-term care. Their daughter told the minister that her family has to come

to the realization that if they do not get 24-hour care for her mother,

there will be a disaster.

"The

Premier wrote back telling them to explore other options. The clock is

ticking. Next week Frances will be forced out to go back home into the care

of her husband, who is just unable to provide the physical and mental care

or to have the stamina to provide the support for his wife.

"Will

the minister ensure that by the end of the week, long-term care is provided

for Frances O'Conner?"

Now, the

minister's answer talked about how great and wonderfully they're doing in

creating these 5,000 beds over the next five years. Too bad, because Frances

O'Conner is not going to get those beds. In this instance, I know of at least

one case, and I can actually go back to Hansard , because there are many

other cases which the opposition brought to this House as examples of people

losing their long-term care beds, who now no longer qualify under this act for

health and safety protection.

You can say

that it is an eligibility problem or however you want to cast it. The reality

remains the same. For those seniors who have been displaced or given notice that

they're going to be displaced, that they're without a home and without the

protection this act is supposed to bring to them under the

definitions of

persons in care or a person in residence….

I asked the

question. The minister cannot come up with an answer on how many people have

been displaced or are in the process of being displaced. I can speculate on

that.

[1605]

The other

question is this: of those 200 beds that exist in assisted living, how many of

those are accommodating people who have left long-term care facilities because

government told them they are no longer eligible?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This bill is about providing a regulatory framework to ensure that

people who live in care are safe. That is the purpose of the bill, and I believe

that I have addressed the question regarding the definition.

J. Kwan:

This bill is equally applicable for the opposition and British Columbians to ask

the question: how many people are being impacted? How many people will lose

their status who have the definition of "person in care" as it exists

under this bill, who will no longer have that because government has thrown them

out of the long-term care beds? That is an equally applicable question, Mr.

Chair, and I would like to know how widely spread are the people who are

impacted in that category as it is applicable under Bill 73.

The

Chair: Member, I believe this question has now been asked three or four

times, and I would suggest that the member be seated, please. I would suggest

that probably you should move your questioning along to another question.

J. Kwan:

The trouble is that the minister has not answered the questions. I suspect I

know why. The

[ Page 4592 ]

minister does not want British Columbians to know how much they're hurting

them. Just like what we just heard in question period today, the Minister of

Human Resources and the Minister of State for Mental Health made a big news

announcement saying: "Wonderful, hurray, hurray, we're now going to

make…."

The

Chair: Member, please be seated. I don't think we should be reliving

question period today. Let's keep our questions….

Member, be

seated, please. I don't think we should be reliving question period today. Let's

refine our questions to this

section and refine them to committee stage as well.

J. Kwan:

Yes. I'm trying to ask the question relative to this

section of the act. I've

gotten no answer from the minister to date on how widespread the implications of

this bill are, who is being impacted and who's going to be not impacted because

they've lost their home so that the definition of person in care will no longer

apply. The minister says that she's already answered the question and that

everything is wonderful, but the minister has not answered the question. Let's

be very clear about that. The minister has not answered the question.

For all

those ministers who pretend that they're doing something good when they actually

cut people with disabilities off or threaten to cut them off, causing some 5,000

people to go through tremendous anguish, anxiety and concern — causing some

people to commit suicide and die as a result of that…. That is a problem. I

would like to know how many people are being impacted by this bill.

More

specifically, I would like to know how many people that formerly would have

qualified under the definition of persons in care in Bill 73 are being impacted

and have now lost that status as a result of the Liberal government's changes in

the long-term care bed facility eligibility criteria, thereby displacing people.

They have displaced people already or are in the process of displacing people.

Frances

O'Conner I raised as an example, and yes, I quoted it from question period,

because it was a direct example of how someone was directly impacted by this

government, which is in the process of displacing her, so she will no longer….

The

Chair: Member, will you please be seated. I have asked you to please move

on. You have asked this question four times now. You're being repetitious. I am

not asking you; I am ordering you to move on to another question.

Member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Please proceed.

J. Kwan:

Well, that was very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Then let me

ask the minister this question. I want to ask the question, then, in terms of

resident definition. How many of those 200 or so people under the resident

definition — 220, to be more specific, that the minister has said it now

applies to — were new and were put in there as a result of them losing a

long-term care facility bed?

[1610]

Hon. K.

Whittred: As I have said to the member opposite, there are approximately 200

assisted living…that are publicly funded in the province. There are probably

2,000 to 3,000 that are private. To my knowledge, the vast majority of those

people have moved into assisted living from their homes.

J. Kwan:

Specifically, how many people moved from their homes, and how many people were

moved in from other care facilities such as long-term and intermediate care

facilities?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I know that not a single individual has moved without it being

their choice.

J. Kwan:

Is Frances O'Conner a figment of my imagination, then? Is her family, who has

contacted the opposition with this concern, just imagining it? Did the children

who are concerned about their parents somehow just dream it up that Frances

O'Conner is being evicted from her home, back home to live with her husband,

where he cannot provide for the health care support that his wife will need? Are

these people fake, unreal? Are they from a different planet and don't exist? Is

that what the minister is saying — that all those people who advise us, that

have contacted us, that we have been in contact with are actually just figments

of my imagination? Or is it the case that minister is living in an entirely

different world herself?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member asked me the question of how many people have moved

from residential care to assisted living, and I answered the question. Probably

none — but certainly no one has moved without it being their choice.

J. Kwan:

How many people who now live in the long-term care facility, the 25,000 or so

that the minister advises…? How many of those are there, and of those who left

as a result of the government's directive that they must leave, how many of

those left on their own accord?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could ask how this relates to

definitions.

J. Kwan:

Let me explain that one more time. Bill 73 is the bill that we're now debating,

the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Under this bill,

section 1 is

definitions. Under the

definitions, there are different categories of people

that would apply in the different kinds of care facilities to which protection

under Bill 73 is supposed to apply.

Under one

category, which would be the "person in care" category, meaning

"a person who resides in or attends a community care facility for the

purpose of

[ Page 4593 ]

receiving care…." There's another category called

"resident." A resident is defined as a person who resides at an

assisted-living residence.

What I'm

trying to figure out, to which I have not been able to get an answer for the

last 15 minutes or so from the minister, is how many people would no longer have

the community in care definition apply to them. As a result of the government

changes in determining who is eligible for long-term care beds, they will no

longer have Bill 73 apply to them.

[1615]

Alternatively,

I'm equally interested in finding out those who would fall under the definition

of "person in care" would be in the new category under this act called

"resident" because they have been moved from a long-term care facility

into an assisted-living facility. That is how it is relevant. How many people

would be impacted by this bill and in what ways? That's the least one would

expect the minister to be able to answer. They're fairly basic, fundamental

questions — the ramifications of this bill, the application of it and who

would be impacted and how.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I repeat once again that this bill is not about eligibility for

care. It is about providing a legal framework for a variety of individuals who

would live in a community care facility, and it is about ensuring that their

health and safety is protected. I repeat, Mr. Chair: it is not an eligibility

bill. It is not a funding bill.

J. Kwan:

Nobody is asking the minister what the eligibility criteria would be. Nobody is

asking the minister that. I am simply asking the question: how many people would

no longer have this definition? I'm not even asking the minister how much money

is being saved by the government. I'm not asking those questions at all. She

might be conscious of that, because that's what the impacts are. What I'm asking

is very clear and is completely relevant to this act and to this

section of the

act.

When we

debate legislation, one expects to know how the piece of legislation is going to

impact the public, who it is going to impact, how many people it is going to

impact and in what ways. That's usually what happens in the House when we debate

these bills and when we ask these questions. What are those ramifications? Is it

good? Is it bad? Who does it apply to? If so, who is being impacted?

Those are

the questions I'm asking the minister. I'm not asking about the eligibility

criteria at all. I just want to know how many people would no longer have that

qualification, the definition of person in care as it applies under this act,

taken away from them because they have lost their home.

Hon. K.

Whittred: Some of the things we do know are that we have a growing and

expanding seniors population. We know we have more population in children and

families. We know we have an increasing population that will fall within the

framework of persons in care. We estimate that over the next several years, we

are going to need a number of new spaces in the system to care for those people.

We believe we will need more residential care beds, and we believe that we will

need more assisted-living beds.

I would

estimate that we are going to need many more beds, and that is in fact why we

have put a plan in place to address that, but that is not the purpose of this

bill. The purpose of this bill is to address the regulatory framework ensuring

that the people in care — whether they be the elderly, children or handicapped

young people — have a healthy and secure environment in which to live.

J. Kwan:

All this stuff the minister said is not for the questions I'm asking, so she can

rightly get up and say that these things are not relevant. Well, that's because

she's not answering the questions. If she answered the questions, then they

would become relevant for the debate. It's that simple. It doesn't get any more

complicated than that. A question is asked, and an answer should be provided.

That's all. That's all I'm asking. Then we can move on.

[1620]

What is the

estimate from the minister of how many people out of the 25,000 people…? Out

of the 25,000 beds that exist in a long-term care facility, how many of those

either have lost the access to a bed or are in the process of losing their

access to those beds?

The

Chair: Member, it would appear, once again, you've asked this question

several times. You may not like the answer the minister is giving, but that is

the answer she is supplying, so I would suggest moving on to a new question.

J. Kwan:

Well, the trouble is this. It's not that I don't like the answer. The issue is

that the minister did not answer the question. You actually start to think this

is question period, because usually that's what happens. When one asks a

question, there's no answer forthcoming. This is not question period; this is

debate of legislation. Debate of legislation is for the opposition, for members

of this House, for British Columbians to find out about a particular bill that

is being debated. What it means….

The

Chair: Will you please sit down. I think we're quite aware of what happens

at committee stage. The fact of the matter is, member, that you're being tedious

and repetitious. You've got an answer. Move along to a new question.

J. Kwan:

Apparently the minister is not aware of what the process is, because questions

have been asked, and there have been no answers given. I apologize if I'm being

tedious. If that's what I'm doing, I apologize. I apologize for being tedious in

trying to find out what the impact of this bill is for British Columbians, but

it's my job to do exactly that — to find that out. No answer has been

forthcoming.

[ Page 4594 ]

Let me ask

the minister this question. Maybe she'll know. If she doesn't, she should find

out the answer for this House and for members of this House. It's not good

enough — when we're debating a bill and questions are asked and answers are

not given. It's simply not acceptable in this House. Let me ask the minister

this question. The minister says: "Don't worry. We've evicted nobody. We've

not displaced any person in our community who lives in long-term intermediate

care facilities." That is simply a lie.

Can the

minister then tell me, first of all, the breakdown of beds that exists within

each community? Out of the 25,000 beds that exist, how many in what community

and the number count that now exists, so that I can have a better understanding

of those 25,000 — the definition of persons in care, how many would be

applicable in what community?

Point of Order

Hon. K.

Whittred: Mr. Chair, I believe I heard the member say I was not truthful to

the House. I take exception to that.

The

Chair: Member, the minister has complained that you have misled the House in

a statement you made. Not misled — rather, you basically accused her of not

telling the truth. I would like to have you withdraw that statement.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

Well, the information the minister provided — on the point of order, Mr. Chair

— does not match the reality. When she says the government has not displaced

anybody or is not in the process of displacing anybody, it's simply untrue. I

actually just highlighted a case, Frances O'Conner, who has been displaced and

is in the process of being displaced by the government. How do you explain that?

Did I just make that up, Mr. Chair? That is simply the truth. It is the truth as

it is being presented.

The

Chair: Member, please be seated.

On a point

of order, Minister of Forests.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I appreciate the passion the member brings to the debate, but as an

experienced member of the House, she has been asked by the Chair to withdraw the

remark, and I think the member understands her obligations in that situation.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, for the information of the

Chair, please, did you accuse the minister of lying?

J. Kwan:

We can check the Hansard Blues , Mr. Chair. What I said to the minister

was that the information she provided is incorrect.

The

Chair: Yes or no? Member, I asked you a question. Yes or no?

J. Kwan:

My answer is: the minister's answer is incorrect and is not the truthful

information.

The

Chair: Please be seated. I asked a simple question of whether or not you

accused the minister of lying. Yes or no?

J. Kwan:

Well, what I asked the minister….

The

Chair: Member, will you please be seated. I asked you a very simple

question. Yes or no — did you accuse the minister of lying?

J. Kwan:

I have asked the minister very simple questions, and I have not been able to get

the answer. Let me tell you my answer to your question, Mr. Chair. What I asked

the minister was very clear. I asked….

The

Chair: Member, I asked you a very simple question. Please be seated. I asked

you a very simple question. The minister has complained to the Chair that you

have accused her of lying. Did you or did you not accuse the minister of lying

— yes or no?

J. Kwan:

My answer is this, Mr. Chair. What I asked the minister….

The

Chair: Yes or no?

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I'm entitled to answer a question in the way I wish to — am I not?

The

Chair: Member, I've asked you a very simple question. Yes or no — did you

accuse the minister of lying? She has addressed the Chair that you have accused

her of lying. I'm asking you now: did you accuse the minister of lying — yes

or no?

J. Kwan:

What I have said, Mr. Chair, is that the minister has provided information that

does not match reality, and I've said that.

The

Chair: Member, that's not the question I asked. Please be seated. You're

obviously…. I don't know how much more clear I can be, but I've asked you a

very simple question. I've had a complaint from a member of this House that

you've accused her of lying. I'm asking a very simple question. Yes or no —

did you accuse the minister of lying? If so, withdraw it.

J. Kwan:

No, I didn't.

The

Chair: Thank you very much.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

My question to the minister once again….

The

Chair: Member, you've answered the question. You've said no, you haven't, so

please proceed. We are

[ Page 4595 ]

section 1 of Bill 73 in committee stage. Please proceed.

J. Kwan:

I asked then…. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask the question to the minister once

again. If she says she has not displaced anyone or is not in the process of

displacing anyone from long-term care facility beds, how does she explain

Frances O'Conner's situation? I asked a simple question of the minister too, and

I, too, expect an answer — through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister.

The

Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

Member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Well, gee, how the rules work in this House. No answers forthcoming from the

minister, but let me ask the minister this question on

section 1. Oh yes, the

House Leader has come in. He's settled the rules in this House. The minister

doesn't have to answer the questions. The minister doesn't have to answer the

question. Under this new era of the Liberals, the ministers do not have to

answer questions in the House. There's another standard that is being set.

Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

An Hon.

Member: Do you have a question?

J. Kwan:

Yes, I do, actually. Frances O'Conner — is she a real person who lives in

Kelowna, or is she just a figment of my imagination, or does she not exist?

The

Chair: Member, would you please be seated. Would you please be seated.

Once again,

we're not going to relive question period. You've asked this question several

times. I would ask you to move along. Ask another question.

J. Kwan:

Well, why Frances O'Conner is relevant is this…. Frances O'Conner….

[1630]

The

Chair: Member, I asked you directly…. Please be seated. Please be seated.

I asked you directly to move on to another question. You have asked that

question several times. Move on to another question.

J. Kwan:

Does the definition of person in care apply to Frances O'Conner?

The

Chair: Shall

section 1 pass? Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

This is unbelievable. This is absolutely unbelievable. You ask a question of

the minister; no answer is forthcoming. The Minister of Finance, the House

Leader, says you don't have to answer the question. We have a situation….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

I was asking broad questions, and the minister couldn't answer those either.

Maybe I should ask the Minister of Finance these questions. Maybe he can give

the answers. Maybe he can answer for all the ministers in this House. Obviously,

perhaps that's the approach.

To suggest

that questions about how many people would be impacted by this bill, how many

people would lose the definition of a person in care, are somehow not relevant

when we're discussing the exact bill on the people who would be impacted —

this supposed health and safety protection that is supposed to apply to them;

that we no longer know how many people who once had that protection no longer

have that protection applied to them…. We no longer know? Or the minister is

refusing to answer those questions.

But do you

know what, Mr. Chair? I don't think this government cares. I don't think they

care. They just pay lip service, as though somehow they care. When it comes

right down to it to get the facts before us as we're debating this bill, it is

relevant to the

definitions of the act. We're not getting any of that

information forthcoming. So much for an open, transparent new era under the

Liberals. Ask questions all you want; no answers will be forthcoming. That is

the reality of it.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the question is in order. Are you in the chair? Who is in the chair? I'm

actually kind of confused. Is it the Minister of Finance? Probably, because he

actually directs traffic in this House and decides who gets to answer what

question and whether or not they should answer questions.

The

Chair: On the section, please.

J. Kwan:

On the section,

section 1. Who will be drafting the regulations that further

define these terms?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Mr. Chair, I did not hear the question. I wonder if the member

could repeat it.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, repeat the question, please.

J. Kwan:

I'll do it very slowly for the minister. Who will be drafting the

regulations that further define these terms?

The

Chair: Member, that is not appropriate. Member, please be seated. That is

not appropriate to mock the minister. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant,

please repeat the question.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not mocking anyone. I'm repeating the question

slowly for the minister so she will be able to hear the question. Let me repeat

the question one more time: who will be drafting the regulations that further

define the terms?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The government, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan:

Would that be the Minister of Finance?

[ Page 4596 ]

J. Les: I

have some questions on

section 1 of the act. In my riding and around the

province, there are a number of facilities that we refer to as supportive-living

accommodation. These facilities have been very successful and have very

capably…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members, please.

J. Les: …cared

for people in their senior years. I've had several calls in the last several

weeks from the owners of these supportive-living facilities.

Interjections.

J. Les:

Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could bring the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

to order so that we can have some orderly debate in this House.

The

Chair: Member, let's have some quiet in here and have just one person

speaking, please.

J. Les: The

owners of these supportive-living facilities are somewhat concerned that this

act might apply to them, so I would ask the minister several questions. The

first one would be: what exactly is meant by the definition of prescribed

services? I realize that is still subject to the writing of regulation, but

could the minister give us some indication today of what is meant by prescribed

services?

[1635]

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, and I thank the member for his question. Prescribed services

are the means that are being used to define what an assisted-living residence

is. These prescribed services are as follows, and they will be prescribed in

regulation: (1) regular assistance with the activities of daily living such as

eating, mobility, dressing, grooming, bathing or other personal hygiene;

(2) administering and monitoring the taking of medication; (3) central storing or

distribution of medications; (4) maintenance or management of residents' cash

resources or property; (5) monitoring of food intake or therapeutic diets;

(6) structured behaviour management and intervention; and (7) psychosocial

rehabilitative therapy or intensive physical rehabilitation therapy.

I would

like to add to that, because I know the issue the member is addressing, and that

is whether or not retirement residences that offer meals, housekeeping and alert

systems would qualify as assisted living. The answer to that is no. Within the

definition of this act, they would have to go beyond that, and they would have

to offer housing. An assisted-living residence specifically must address

housing, the hospitality — which is the meals, the housekeeping and activities

— and one or two of the prescribed services that I have mentioned.

J. Les:

So for clarification, those facilities that supply simply housing, hospitality

and housekeeping, along with 24-hour monitoring…. Those types of facilities

will not be required to be licensed or registered. Is that correct?

Hon. K.

Whittred: That is correct. A facility which offers housing and hospitality

services, which would normally include meals, housekeeping and perhaps a safety

alert system, would not be assisted living and would not be subject to this act.

J. Les: I

have a further question on

section 1(b), which refers to the designation by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of an assisted-living residence. Can the minister

help me and explain to me under what circumstances there would be such a

definition by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Would that be a random

designation? Under what circumstances, or what are the parameters under which

such a designation would apply?

Hon. K.

Whittred: That particular clause is part of the act to give a bit of

flexibility around the act. This is new legislation, and we are dealing in a new

area of assisted living. It means if there are areas that might be in a grey

zone or might become an issue that is raised in a community, there is a means to

address the issue. It is there, really, with the expectation that it probably

would not be used or would rarely be used, but it is there if needed.

[1640]

J. Les:

I have one further question, and that relates to the definition of employee. The

way the act is written, it includes a volunteer. That may or may not be

interesting. I wonder if the minister could elaborate as to why a volunteer has

been classified as an employee for the purposes of this act.

Hon. K.

Whittred: The reason that is included really refers to

section 18. If the

member would like to have a look at

section 18 of the act….

Section 18 of the

act is the one that ensures undue influence will not be used by any employee to

unduly influence one of the residents in terms of financial inducements, and the

category of volunteer is included to ensure that all possibilities have been

included in that clause for the protection of persons in care.

J. Les:

Just a follow-up question then, if I might. The designation of a volunteer as an

employee does not then obligate owners of these facilities to provide any type

of employee benefits or anything along those lines?

Hon. K.

Whittred: No, it does not.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on

section 1.

J. Kwan:

section 1. Who will be consulted with respect to the drafting of the

regulations?

[ Page 4597 ]

The

Chair: Member, how does this relate to

section 1?

J. Kwan:

Drafting of the regulations relative to the terms that are described under

section 1.

The

Chair: Okay.

Hon. K.

Whittred: As I've already indicated to the member opposite, there has

already been extensive consultation with the community. There was extensive

consultation with people who work in the field. There was extensive consultation

with stakeholders in this area. We received many, many responses through

community meetings, our website and written responses. It may be of interest to

the member that the greatest number of responses really were around the child

care regulations, not around the adult care regulations.

J. Kwan:

The question to the minister is this: who will be consulted for the drafting of

the regulations? Maybe the minister's already consulted people on the

regulations. Maybe she already has the regulations all laid out. If she does,

why doesn't she bring them before this House for debate?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The consultation process that has taken place will continue. The

same people will continue to be consulted as the regulations are drafted.

[1645]

J. Kwan:

The minister's just committed that she will be consulting the same people for

the development of the regulations. Will the draft regulations be released prior

to their getting final approval?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The existing regulations, those regulations that are there under

the existing Community Care Facility Act, continue to be in place. These are, as

we speak, undergoing review. They will continue to be reviewed, and stakeholders

will continue to be consulted.

J. Kwan:

Will the draft regulations be released, prior to final approval, to the public

for input, suggestions, consultation?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could refocus on

section 1, the

definitions.

J. Kwan:

I was asking the minister the questions about draft regulations as they pertain

to the

definitions of the terms under

section 1,

definitions. The minister says

she'll commit to consultation, and those people will see it with respect to the

regulations, so I'm asking the minister: will she commit to releasing the

information to the public prior to final approval? That's the focus. That's how

it relates to

section 1 — pertaining to the terms and the

definitions listed

under

section 1.

Point of Order

( continued )

Hon. M.

de Jong: On a point of order, hon. Chair. I alluded to this earlier in a

point of order.

These

debates in this House work because they are guided by a set of time-honoured

rules — and yes, there is passion. Earlier in this debate there was a lengthy

exchange between the Chair and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant around

a very serious allegation, an allegation that a minister of the Crown had lied.

These

debates don't work at all if there is any lingering doubt in the mind that all

hon. members are telling the truth and therefore conducting themselves

honourably. The member was provided with a number of opportunities to confirm

that fact and, in the time-honoured tradition of this place, to withdraw those

unparliamentary remarks. Now, I have the Hansard , and I'll quote from it.

This is the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: "The minister says:

'Don't worry. We've evicted nobody. We've not displaced any person in our

community who lives in long-term intermediate care facilities.' That is simply a

lie."

I can think

of no more direct accusation of dishonesty than that. That's troubling enough

for me, because it goes to the heart of what guides us in this place. But the

Chair then provided that member, in response to a point of order, with four or

five separate opportunities to acknowledge the remark and to withdraw it. I'm

not certain whether the member, in denying that she had made the remark,

intended to mislead the House or has done so inadvertently, but I think the

course that this member must now travel is clear. I hope, through you, hon.

Chair, that she will acknowledge the very serious error in her ways and take the

appropriate action.

The

Chair: Thank you, minister.

Member, the

comment that was made is obviously unparliamentary and is not accepted within

this House as a parliamentary statement. I would ask you very simply to just

withdraw the comment, and then we can move on in the debate.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I offended anybody in this House, I withdraw. If I've

offended anybody in this House, I withdraw, but the reality is this.

The

Chair: Unconditionally, member. Please withdraw the comment, and let's move

on with the debate.

[1650]

J. Kwan:

On the point of order the Minister of Forests raised, the question and issue

that has been brought before this House on a simple question….

Hon. G.

Collins: Did you call someone a liar or not? If you did, withdraw. That's

the point of order.

J. Kwan:

I answered that question already, but I wish to raise…

[ Page 4598 ]

The Chair:

Member, order, please.

J. Kwan:

…another point of order.

The

Chair: Order, please. Please be seated. I have asked very simply, member.

This comment that was made is not parliamentary language. I'm asking you very,

very simply, so we can move on with this debate, to withdraw the comment

unconditionally. It is not debatable. Nor will we get back to debating what you

said, or whatever. The fact is you made a comment that was not parliamentary.

Please withdraw it, and we will move on.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, if I offended anybody, I withdraw those

comments.

The

Chair: Unconditionally, member.

J. Kwan:

I withdraw those comments, Mr. Chair.

But on

a point of order.…

The

Chair: Thank you very much.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to raise a point of order myself, if I may, Mr. Chair.

Would

you please advise, then. When I asked the question of the minister, where

Frances O'Conner is being displaced from a long-term care facility, and the

minister advises that nobody is being displaced, is that misleading the House?

The

Chair: Member, that is not a point of order. This is part of the debate;

it's not a point of order. Member, I would suggest possibly you have withdrawn

the comment. Let's deal with the bill, Bill 73,

section 1. We're in committee

stage. Let's move along. You obviously have a number of questions you would like

to ask, and I suggest we move along.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

I want to ask the minister this question, then, getting back to the issue.

Frances O'Conner has received notice that she must leave. When the minister says

she is not being displaced from her long-term care facility…. Could the

minister please explain how, when Frances O'Conner is actually being displaced,

it matches with her words when she says she's not being displaced?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I cannot address individual issues within the confines of this

bill, and I ask, once again, that we return to the issues around

part 1, which

is

definitions.

The

Chair: Point well taken. Member, move on to a new line of questioning,

please.

J. Kwan:

Frances O'Conner, who is actually a person in care….

The

Chair: Member, I asked you to please move along to another question.

J. Kwan:

We're talking about the

definitions

section — "person in care," a

person who resides in or attends a community care facility for the purpose of

receiving care.

The

Chair: Member, I believe we have already spoken to that particular question

numerous times. I cautioned you that you were being repetitious on that

particular question. I would ask you to move along to another question.

J. Kwan:

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for that guidance, but the issue has just been

raised by the Minister of Forests himself — to talk about discrepancy in

words. I am raising the question in relation to the definition of "person

in care." The reality is that what the minister has said doesn't match

what's happening. A person in care would be a person like Frances O'Conner, as

it applies under Bill 73. That is no longer applicable to her. That is the

reality we're dealing with. Yet the minister has just advised me that is simply

not the case. Who's wrong? Am I wrong, or is the minister wrong?

suspect we're not going to get an answer from the minister, because this

government will not own up to what they have done to the community and take

responsibility. That's all I'm asking: for the minister to take responsibility

under this bill, under this

section of the act, under the definition of

"person in care" — to take on that responsibility to say who is

applicable, who is not applicable, who it applies to, how it has impacted

people. That's the whole purpose of the debate. Obviously, we're not going to

get any of the answers from this minister or from this government, I anticipate.

That is the reality.

[1655]

Then let me

get back to the question around regulations. The minister did not answer the

question on whether or not draft regulations would be released for further

consultation and input from stakeholders relative to this

section of the act,

"Definitions,"

section 1. Will the minister commit to releasing the

regulations prior to it coming into force? If the Minister of Finance wishes to

answer the question or tells the Minister for Long Term Care how to answer,

well, I suppose that happens, too, in this House, and that is exactly what is

happening.

Hon. K.

Whittred: There is broad consultation going on as this bill is being

reviewed. I would remind the member that this bill replaces an existing one. The

current regulations are still in place, and they are being reviewed. There is

ongoing consultation as those regulations are reviewed. There is no plan at this

time to release a set of regulations at some point in time. This is an ongoing

process.

J. Kwan:

It would have been so much simpler for the minister to say, "No, we will

not be releasing the draft regulations for input," and that's what she's fi-

[ Page 4599 ]

nally come out to say. This process of debate in committee stage on Bill 73

would go a lot faster if the minister would just get up and answer the

questions. That's all I ask, Mr. Chair. It's not that complicated. It really

isn't all that complicated.

Hon. G.

Collins: Quit whining and ask a question.

J. Kwan:

Asking questions, according to the Minister of Finance, is somehow whining. Good

God, how dare anybody ask this government any questions at all?

Sibling

group….

Hon. G.

Collins: There we go. Now we have a question.

J. Kwan:

If the minister, Mr. Chair, wishes to take the questions and replace the

Minister for Long Term Care, he could do that. He could do that.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Let's have one conversation going here.

J. Kwan:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of

this House…. Well, actually, I know there's one minister who wants to be all

ministers, and that's clear: the Minister of Finance.

On the

question around sibling group….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

It's tough, isn't it? It must be tough, Mr. Chair. It must be tough for the

Minister of Finance.

Hon. G.

Collins: Back to whining again. You almost asked a question. You almost got

there. Keep going.

The

Chair: Member, you have the floor. Proceed with your question.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was confused for a minute. I thought the Minister of

Finance was trying to take the floor, but you know, good God, if anybody should

put tough questions….

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

If anybody should ask tough questions of this government, God forbid, then

that's deemed to be whining, deemed to be people who are ignorant, deemed to be

people who are just special interest groups.

Hon. G.

Collins: Ask the question. We're waiting for it.

J. Kwan:

Tell that to the 5,000 people who suffered under the Minister of Human

Resources, who were subjected to a review for the disability qualification. God

forbid for those people, because then they must just be whining, including those

who have committed suicide or attempted suicide. That's the attitude of this

government. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. Must make you proud.

The

Chair: Member…

J. Kwan:

Question on sibling group.

The

Chair: …let's proceed. Proceed, please — committee stage,

section 1.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your guidance, as always, in this House.

section

1, "sibling group," the definition with respect to sibling group. In

this definition it states that sibling group is a group of three or more

children who reside in the same household and are in the care of a person who

is, with respect to each child, the child's parent, custodian, guardian or the

spouse of such a person, or a group who is recognized by the director of

licensing to be a sibling group.

[1700]

Could the

minister please advise whether or not there's any age application to this group

of siblings? Is there an age limitation — 17, 18, 19, 20, 12, five, seven?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order. Minister….

Listen

to the answer.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order. Order, please. Order.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order. Sit. Member. Would all members come to order, please. Let's

confine our comments to the debate of this bill. Minister.

Hon. K.

Whittred: In fact, Mr. Chair, if the member looked at the definition, she

would see that "child" means a person under the age of 13 years.

J. Kwan:

So for those who fall outside of that age group, would they not be defined as a

child? At 15, would they not be defined as a child, then, under this age group?

Are they defined, then, as an adult?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The group between the ages of 13 and 19 is defined in the act as

youth.

J. Kwan:

Are there any exceptions in terms of the age application?

You know, the

members might think this is kind of cute in this House, and they can make all

kinds of sly comments about it.

The

Chair: Let's just ask the questions.

[ Page 4600 ]

J. Kwan:

Well, here's the question.

The

Chair: Confine your comments to the questions of this bill.

J. Kwan:

Here's the question: is there any flexibility with respect to the age?

The

Chair: Thank you.

J. Kwan:

It's a very legitimate question, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: Yes, it is, and let's allow….

J. Kwan:

And people are trying to make fun of these questions as though somehow they're

not relevant.

Hon. K.

Whittred: The definition of sibling group, Mr. Chair, is precisely the same

as it was in the old act. We have added to this act the definition of youth, and

that has been put in there so that the act may more properly respond to the

needs of youth as opposed to the needs of young children.

J. Kwan:

The question to the minister is: would there be flexibility in the definition as

it relates to the ages of those who fall in the gap, perhaps?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member may be interested to know that sibling group is a

definition that applies to child care situations, and youth is a definition that

would apply to group home

definitions primarily.

In terms of

flexibility, there is at this time not intended to be flexibility around these

definitions. If the situation arises where this is an issue, it's certainly

something that we can address at a later date.

J. Kwan:

What does the minister mean when she says she'll address it at a later date?

[1705]

Hon. K.

Whittred: The purpose of creating legislation is not to address situations

that we're not aware of. We're not aware of any situation that would not be met

by these two

definitions — one of "sibling group," which addresses

children in a child care setting, and the other, "youth," which is in

a youth setting of some sort.

J. Kwan:

Well, under this definition, it says a child is somebody who is under the age of

13. What if you're 13? Are you a child, or are you a youth?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The definition of "child" means a person under the age

of 13, so a 13-year-old would not be defined as a child.

J. Kwan:

If you have a situation, then, where you have a sibling group from the same

family…. Let's say there are two under the age of 13 and then another one over

the age of 13. They're in two different categories. How will they be placed?

Will they be in the same facility?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This definition is there to accommodate family child care

settings. As I've said before, this bill is not about eligibility; it is about

putting in place the regulatory framework to ensure that those children are

safe. This definition is there to define what a sibling group is within a

household that might be offering family day care.

J. Kwan:

Well, that is the question. Sometimes in family day care a group of siblings

come together. There could be a range of ages — seven, ten, 15, 14 or 13, for

that matter. The family may well want them to go into the same place so they

don't have to go into different places. I understand the purposes of the act and

who it provides for, but would the family then be able to access the one care

centre? There's an age definition that might preclude them from being able to do

that.

[1710]

Hon. K.

Whittred: This definition does not preclude that. That would be entirely

appropriate within this act.

J. Kwan:

The age doesn't matter. It's just for the purposes of defining or categorizing a

person, but its application in real terms — as it applies in the community, in

facilities, in centres and so on — would not make one iota of difference. In

other words, sibling groups would not be split up as a result of the age

determination.

Hon. K.

Whittred: No, there would be no splitting up of family groups.

Section 1

approved.

The

Chair: I'm going to call a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 5:10 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Section 2

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

This

section deals with the director of licensing. The rationale, as I

understand it from the government, is that the new act has a broader designation

authority. Any public servant, as opposed to someone in the ministry, would fall

under the director of licensing.

The

director now actually has a broader delegation of authority. Anyone with

suitable qualifications, rather than the person in the ministry…. How I read

that is that this permits greater flexibility to choose an appropriate person

for the duties. Could the minister please advise who she envisions will be the

director of licensing?

Hon. K.

Whittred: We have a director of licensing, and that position will continue.

[ Page 4601 ]

J. Kwan:

That person reports to whom in the ministry?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The director of licensing reports to the director general of

health and wellness.

J. Kwan:

Who in turn reports to the minister — the deputy or…?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The deputy minister.

[1720]

J. Kwan:

This

section of the act allows for the director to delegate authority to anyone

with suitable qualifications. Will there be parameters that are set out in terms

of what those suitable qualifications might be?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The director of licensing has powers to delegate, and the

expectation is that the powers of delegation would continue much as they are now

to the medical health officers in the health authorities.

J. Kwan:

Is that the only person to whom the responsibilities could be delegated to —

the medical health officer? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The director of licensing has the broad power to delegate others

beyond the medical health officer. That would only be done on a case-by-case

basis, as necessary by some unique circumstances.

J. Kwan:

What will be the parameters for suitable qualifications?

Hon. K.

Whittred: That question would depend very much on the circumstances of the

particular issue that is being investigated. The person would be qualified

according to the unique requirements of whatever the particular case involved

is.

[1725]

J. Kwan:

Then that applies only on investigation issues into a particular case? Or is it

just broader than that in terms of whatever the responsibility the director of

licensing has? If the director feels that work should be delegated to somebody

else, then the director of licensing would have the authority to do so.

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, if the member would look to the "Powers of director of

licensing," I think her question might be clarified.

For

example, if you look at (b), "inspect or make an order for the inspection

of any books, records or premises in connection with the operation of a

community care facility," that is an example of where the director of

licensing might want to delegate someone with some very specific qualifications

in terms of doing a very specific kind of task for a particular issue that will

have arisen.

Beyond

that, it is the medical health officer that is delegated to carry out the

day-to-day responsibilities that are incumbent in this section.

J. Kwan:

I actually have a few more questions pertaining to this section, but I do

understand that the L-G is actually in the precinct and ready to be in the House

at 5:30.

I would

move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 5:27 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee

of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit

again.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I've been informed that the Lieutenant-Governor is in

the precinct, and she'll be here momentarily. I would ask members to please

remain in their seats.

[1730]

Royal Assent to Bills

Her Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

Clerk

Assistant:

Vital

Statistics Amendment Act, 2002

Open

Learning Agency Repeal Act

Lobbyists

Registration Amendment Act, 2002

Forest and

Range Practices Act

College of

Applied Biology Act

Acting

Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act

Hansler

Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002

Gold

Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002

Law

Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent

to these acts.

Hon. I.

Campagnolo (Lieutenant-Governor): You may think us a trifle overdressed

today. I should explain to you that we are in the process of awarding 53 valour

and meritorious service award medals to the municipal police of British Columbia

and to the RCMP, who have done outstanding work…in the name of the Queen.

Her Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Collins moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 5:35 p.m

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard

Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on

television.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175