British Columbia Hansard — 20160414pm Hansard v37n5

20160414pm-Hansard-v37n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fift h Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, April 14, 2016 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 37, Number 5

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ........................................................................................... Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................................... Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ................................................................. .........................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast .................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ....................................................

Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon. Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon.

Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 35; Independent 2

CONTENTS Th ursday, April 14, 2016 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 12235 Bill 12 — Forests, Lands and Natural Reso urce Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016 (continued) H. Bains Hon. S.

Th omson Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 12247 Bill 12 — Forests, Lands and Natural Reso urce Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 12248 Bill 16 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. T. Lake S. Robinson L. Reimer J. Darcy D. Bing Hon. T.

Lake Bill 6 — Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. T. Lake J. Darcy M. Hunt B. Ralston D. Plecas Hon. T. Lake Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 12267 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development Hon. S. Cadieux D. Donaldson J. Rice

THURSDAY , APRIL 14, 2016 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Madame Speaker: Members, there is not quorum present in the chamber. [Th e bells were rung.] Orders of the Day Hon. A. Wilkinson: I call committee on Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016; and in Committee A, we have the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Committee of the Whole House BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:35 p.m. On

section 20. H. Bains: Maybe the minister could explain what the rationale behind this is. It seems to me it’s a pretty straightforward section, simply saying that there’s no compensation if the residual contract or agreement is cancelled. Perhaps the minister could say what the rationale behind that is. Th e Chair: Minister. Hon. S. Th omson: Th ank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair. I think we discussed this a little bit as we were going through it previously. Th is is really the

section that sets up the fact that there is no compensation payable, be- cause what happens here is that the primary harvester declares their intent to abandon the residual fi bre before the secondary harvester can utilize it. Th at constitutes a transfer of the harvest rights for that residual fi bre be- tween the primary and the secondary harvester, with no infringement or uncontested loss of rights. It really sets it up so that when that relinquishment of those rights takes place, there is no compensation or pay- ment due to the primary harvester.

Section 20 approved. On

section 21. H. Bains: Th is

section says: “to make payments as de- scribed in

section 22.4 (2) and to defray any other costs associated with making those payments. ” Perhaps the minister could explain who is paying and what the pur- pose is. What are we talking about when we talk about “defray any other costs associated with making those pay- ments”? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section sets up the ability with- in the BCTS special account to make the payments for the reduction in harvest under those disposition agree- ments when those arrangements are made, which was the focus of all of the other debate. What it means is that the payment comes from there. It gives a provision within the special account. So it’s not coming from general revenue; it’s coming out of the B.C. Timber Sales special account. Whatever the business arrangement is in place to make that happen….

As we talked about previously, we con- templated that it might be a percentage of net revenue from the sale or the auction of the harvest that’s brought back into B.C. Timber Sales. [1340] Th ere might be some ancillary costs. We’ve left our- selves the fl exibility if there are some costs to negotiate the agreement or if there are some ancillary costs that might be involved with that. It really is just: what is the business arrangement in or- der for it to take place and then the provision that what- ever that arrangement is comes out of the B.C. Timber Sales special account. H. Bains: Th at we are clear….

I mean, we have can- vassed this earlier on diff erent sections. Th e idea here that we are talking about is that if BCTS decides — or I guess it is the chief forester that decides — that in a new con- tract, a new agreement, when additional timber is given to, say, a community forest, with the provision that it can be brought back into BCTS, then there are payments set up as a result of that. Is that what we’re talking about here?

It would be, basically, as the minister said in the ex- planation of those provisions here, to compensate the benefi ts to the licensee, although BCTS is going to man- age that portion. So BCTS also will be making some money. Th at money will go back to the licensee. Th e two diff erent things here. One is it is authorized to make payments, under

section 22.4(2), and then it talks about to “defray any other costs associated with making these payments. ” It’s a cost of making these payments. Th at’s what they are talking about here. What is that? Hon. S. Th omson: To confi rm, the payments, as de- scribed in

section 22.4(2), is the business arrangement 12235

British Columbia Debates12236 Thursday, April 14, 2016 payment for transferring whatever percentage, whatever arrangement’s made, back to BCTS to do the auction and — whatever the regulation sets out — how that would take place. Whether it is a percentage of revenue, or…. B.C. Timber Sales will make revenue on that arrange- ment. Th at goes into the B.C. Timber Sales special ac- count. But then there would also be a payment to the licensee, whether it’s the community forest or the First Nation woodland licence for their….

Th e benefi t of mak- ing the arrangement — that’s the purpose of it, to do that and to make sure that when they enter into those dispos- ition agreements, whether voluntarily or as part of a new licence going forward, that that benefi t could be paid. Th e other costs that can be paid there, examples — we have

section 109(3) of the act, which talks about eligible expenditures from the B.C. Timber Sales account, such as to defray costs associated with the agreements, the preparation of operational plans, provisions of services. It’s really around ancillary costs that could be required in order to make the arrangements and do all of the work to get that in place. What we didn’t want to do was to have the commun- ity forest or the First Nations woodland licence, when they’re making this commitment to be able to put these arrangements in place and to get the benefi ts….

Th ere may be costs associated with getting all of that done and things, and we didn’t feel that that should be a respon- sibility of the licensee. Th ose costs needed to be paid out of the B.C. Timber Sales special account. It really just sets up the provision of other costs that may be part of that arrangement. [1345] H. Bains: So let’s put all of this together. Now, BCTS is in the centre of all of this. Th en I understand that the minister said that the purpose is to help the communities and the First Nations and others, at the same time main- taining the integrity of BCTS — its auctioning volume.

At the end of the day: what is the net cost to BCTS? Is it going to be a net loss to BCTS, or is it going to be a net gain to BCTS, or is it going to be a break-even prop- osition aft er all of the changes that we are talking about under Bill 12? Has anyone done any analysis to determine whether there will be a net loss or a net gain or that it’s a break-even proposition for BCTS? What’s the end goal? Hon. S. Th omson: Maybe I need to go back to the basic again, which we had quite a bit of discussion on, around the situation here.

What could happen, if we were trying to land these new agreements, community forest or First Nations woodland licence, is we could simply take volume from B.C. Timber Sales and apportion it and provide it to those other licensees and have a nega- tive impact on B.C. Timber Sales.

What we’re doing here is looking to say that when we’re looking for those new agreements, to have that arrange- ment where we would provide the volume to the new li- censee, whether it’s a community forest or First Nations woodland licence or other, and then to be able to dispose or have an arrangement where a portion of that volume, by voluntary agreement or by part of the licence provi- sions on new licences going forward, would be back to B.C. Timber Sales to auction, sell, make revenue on and share part of that revenue with the licensee that has en- tered into that agreement.

I guess you could do two scenarios here. One is that you could say there’s a net loss to B.C. Timber Sales, be- cause it will take volume from them to be able to have these new arrangements. We get some of the benefi ts out of the new licence, in terms of the arrangements, stump- age rates on community forests and things like that. Or we don’t provide the opportunity to community forests, leave it in B.C. Timber Sales, don’t have all of the poten- tial benefi ts from the community forest that would fl ow to communities, to First Nations, I think. It’s a sharing.

I guess you theoretically could argue that overall B.C. Timber Sales revenue…. If you took volume away from them in order to be able to facilitate these other arrange- ments, they would have a loss. In this situation, they’re sharing. Th ey will still have revenue. Th ey will share some of that revenue with the licensee, the new licence you’re creating. Th e new licence has an expanded vol- ume. As we talked about before, the provisions of the agreement could be for a set period of time, and then the new licence, the community forest or other, has all of the volume.

When we were fi rst talking, that’s why we had this kind of win-win situation. I think I portrayed it as a win for the community forest, a win for the First Nations woodland licence and things. It’s a win, in a sense, for B.C. Timber Sales because we’re not taking the volume completely away from them; we’re providing the opportunity, we’re maintaining the integrity of the market pricing system. It’s a sharing. If we didn’t, if we left everything in B.C. Timber Sales, you could say B.C. Timber Sales would have, potentially, more revenue. Th ere will be a bit of an impact on the overall revenue in B.C.

Timber Sales, but it’s being done to facilitate the benefi ts that fl ow through those other licences and those opportunities. [1350] Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved. On

section 24. H. Bains: Maybe the minister could explain. It seems to be pretty simple, straightforward. Th ere are a few sub- sections of 24. Especially the last one, (m.6), talks about: “for the purposes of

section 79.1 (2) (e), respecting re- quirements for sorting, stacking and piling residual fi bre, including, without limitation, requirements for place- ment of stacks or piles of residual fi bre on road sides or

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12237 landings and practices the holder of an agreement must follow to prevent contamination of the residual fi bre. ” Now, we canvassed this before — that once the order is issued, the licensee cannot damage the residual tim- ber. What’s here? What’s

section 24 trying to achieve that wasn’t achieved in the previous sections? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section is relatively straight- forward, as the member opposite pointed out, in terms of the regulation-making authority that we need in order to be able to implement all of the provisions we’ve talked about previously. With respect to (m.6), this provides us with the abil- ity to set some regulations in place that we could put in place proactively on the licensee when we go through the pre-planning process and everything to facilitate these arrangements.

It’s to make sure that the way that the har- vest is undertaken leaves the residual in the best way for the secondary harvester to access it, because that’s all part of making the economics of it all work. It’s not our intent to bring this in right away, but we wanted to have the tool. If the business-to-business ap- proach works, then we won’t require it.

But if we hear of the continued frustration of the process in the sense that we talked about before, this leaves us the ability to create the regulations that could go in, in advance of a do-not- destroy order, to make sure that the harvesting activity took place in a way that made that residual fi bre available in the best way to a secondary user — to not continue to frustrate the process. H. Bains: Th e minister says that they could imple- ment these requirements on the licensee. My question is: they could, or they will? Is it a must? Why wouldn’t it be a must? I mean, this makes sense.

If we are going to utilize the residual fi bre, the only way to do that is if we have some requirements. Unless the minister, like every- thing else, is proposing self-regulating, and then if you’re forced into it, you will take some action. Hon. S. Th omson: Again, as I point out, this provides us the ability to develop the regulations. It gives us the regulatory authority to do that. As I said, we wouldn’t do it in a case where there ar e the business-to-business ar- rangements and things are being worked on. [1355] Where we want to have the regulatory authority under these changes….

It’s the ability to do it if we hear the frus- tration. If the overall busin ess-to-business approaches aren’t working coming out of the forestry fi bre working group, then we have the ability to have the regulations that would allow us to do that. It wouldn’t be used in every circumstance. It would be a strengthened ability for us to do that in those circum- stances where it’s needed.

Section 24 approved. On

section 25. H. Bains: It seems to me these two sections,

section 25 and 26, are consequential to the Great Bear Rainforest Act. If the minister could explain if that’s true or if there’s something else in it. Hon. S. Th omson: I appreciate the question, because it’s a little bit of a complicated process here. Th ese amendments ensure that the customized rules that are set out in the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act prevail over the Forest Act.

As you will know, the reason for bringing in the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act is there are provi- sions in that legislation that set up special or unique cir- cumstances, compared to what’s currently in the Forest Act. Because we’re making changes here, we wanted to make sure that what we do here, in terms of the amend- ments to the Forest Act, are consistent with what we’re doing in the Great Bear Rainforest Act. It all deals with the chief forester’s authority under the Forest Act around AACs and partitioning within the Great Bear Rainforest area. It’s not consequential, in a sense.

It’s required, not just simply a consequential amendment. It’s really what aligns these changes in legis- lation with what will be coming through with the Great Bear Rainforest Act, when we bring that to the fl oor of the Legislature. Th e challenge we’ve got is bringing this…. Y ou know, we can’t make the presumption, in bringing this legis- lation through and these changes, that the Great Bear Rainforest Act will pass. I expect it will, but we want to make sure that as we do that, then this lines up consist- ently with that. Th ese changes would be brought in by regulation.

Th e amendments here would be brought in by regulation once we had the Great Bear Rainforest Act in place. It’s really just making sure that what we are doing here lines up with the intent of the legislation in the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. [1400] H. Bains: So we’re passing

an act here and assuming that the other bill will be passed. I just don’t understand how we can work this way. Y ou’re bringing in

an act and changing the Forest Act here with the hope that another act, other legislation, will pass, so we want to include that already into the act today. Interjection. H. Bains: Th e Minister of Advanced Education has a law degree. Y ou know, perhaps he could advise you if this is even legal.

British Columbia Debates12238 Thursday, April 14, 2016 Hon. S. Th omson: We worked this all out with legisla- tive counsel, so this is the recommended way to approach it. What will happen…. In the very unlikely scenario that the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act doesn’t pass, these sections here would simply have no consequence because they wouldn’t be brought in by regulation. What it does is it allows us to bring these amendments in by regulation, because they would only come in force by regulation when that happens.

We didn’t want to have to do this process, bring in the legislation and then come back and present fur- ther amendments. We wanted to give ourselves the con- sistency in the lining up of the two pieces of legislation in advance. Th e process is that once that happens, then these would come in by regulation. H. Bains: It just speaks to the government’s inability to manage these aff airs properly. Would it not make sense to have the Great Bear Rainforest Act brought to the House fi rst and pass it and then bring this one in? It would have made perfect sense.

But I guess the way this government has operated in the last 15 years that I’ve watched, it makes perfect sense for them to do it backwards, to say it politely. So I think if that’s what it is, that’s what it is. But I guess, in the meantime, we’ll see if this is the way it goes, and if the advice of the legal team is that this is the way to do it and it’s the perfect way to do it, then I’m taking the minister’s word for it. We’ll leave it at that. Hon. S. Thomson: Despite the member opposite’s comments, I believe this is the appropriate way to do it. It provided us the option of either way.

It means we don’t have to bring a piece of legislation back for amendment aft er the others. It simply makes sure that what we’re doing here in terms of making these provisions around all of the changes here, to facilitate the benefi ts around community forest and First Nations woodland licences and the partitioning changes and the residual fi bre changes and all of those, line up and are consistent, whether these amendments would have been there either way. I don’t see it as being at all an ineffi cient way to proceed.

Section 25 approved. On

section 26. H. Bains: When we canvassed the question-and-an- swer, we were speaking about 25 and 26 together. Is it? Or is 26 diff erent? I mean, is the intent here the same, to incorporate the Great Bear Rainforest Act, to address that issue in both of these sections? Hon. S. Th omson: Y es, that’s correct.

Section 26 approved. On

section 27. H. Bains: Now we’re talking about…. Hon. S. Th omson: I was wondering if we could have a few minutes to bring in the staff . We’ve moved on to…. Th e Chair: Th e committee will be in recess for fi ve minutes. Hon. S. Th omson: No, just a quick minute before we change. We don’t need a recess. [1405] H. Bains: It just speaks so much about the staff. Without staff , the minister can do nothing, can’t answer any questions. So thank you very much to the staff for being here. So 27. I guess the minister maybe can give us an over- view. Th ere are a number of sections here.

Well, perhaps we’ll go one at a time. It says, in subsection (7), “Th e fol- lowing may act on behalf of the government under this

section if authorized by the minister: (

a) an independ- ent contractor of the government, ” and then it goes on to other persons from other jurisdictions “acting under a mutual aid arrangement. ” What are we trying to achieve here when we say that the following “may act on behalf of the government under this

section if authorized by the minister”? Act on behalf of the government for what? What is the pur- pose here? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section and the addition under

section 9 here of who may carry out fi re control…. Really, what this does is make it explicit and clear who can carry out those activities and who has the authority to enter land for the purpose of suppression, for the purpose of control and for the purpose of rehabilitation. It really confi rms existing practices but makes it more explicit in the legislation by making it clear, both for landowners and for the public, who can undertake those activities. We do that now. We wanted to make it more explicit in the legislation.

When there are questions from land- owners or questions about who may be entering the property to undertake those activities, we wanted it more explicitly in the legislation than is currently the case. H. Bains: We’re only talking about parts of the over- all act here. Th is is only during the fi re suppression time season, which would be prescribed by the ministry or the minister. Would there be some process to do this, or will it continue to follow the process that you had before? Previously, contractors and firefighters from other jurisdictions have worked in B.C. As the minister said, we’ve done this before.

So what was it that wasn’t explicit before, as the minister said we’re trying to make it more

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12239 explicit here. Were there some challenges? Were there some issues? Where’s the need for this? [1410] Hon. S. Th omson: Th is section, as I pointed out, is really partly driven by some of the other changes that are coming forward where we’re looking for strength- ened enforcement and strengthened ability to deal with interference and those things. We just wanted to make sure, up front, that we had it clearly and more explicitly laid out as to who can under- take those activities. It doesn’t change the current oper- ations. It doesn’t change the practices.

It just makes it more explicit of the range of contractors, support that we have — whether it’s through contractors, whether it’s through mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, whether we bring in the foresters. We just wanted to have it clear up front. As I said, it is there previously, but this just makes it more explicit, both for the public and for landowners and others that we’re dealing with in those emergency situations. H. Bains: Just so we clarify, I think, in a simplistic way, you had that authority before. Y ou have exercised those authorities before.

But here, as the minister puts it, they’re making it more explicit. It is during the fi re suppression times, giving authority to these who are listed in subsection (7)(

a) through (e). It gives them authority to enter private land. Is that what it is? Hon. S. Th omson: If you look back to the beginning of the section, where it says: “Th e government may enter on any land and carry out fi re control if an offi cial considers that a fi re on or near the land endangers life or threatens forest land or grass land. ” Th en it has some other provi- sions. Y ou will also note that it says government enters on land to carry out fi re control and that the government must compensate. Th ose provisions don’t change. It can be for the purposes of investigation following a fi re.

So it isn’t necessarily just in suppression when the fi re is happening. We don’t want to be frustrated in the pro- cess, to be able to go in and investigate causes. So all of those provisions are still the same. Really, we’re just add- ing the explicitness of who has the authority to do that when they’re acting on behalf of government.

Section 27 approved. On

section 28. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister would explain: what is the government trying to achieve out of this? It seems to me that it is a compliance order. Does this include some- thing other than a stop-work order, or is there something else behind this? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section is…. Again, the pur- pose or the intent of it is just to strengthen our ability…. Now we have, under the legislation, the ability to issue a stop-work order. Adding the requirement that that or- der must be complied with will enhance the ability of the government to ensure compliance with the Wildfi re Act and regulations. [1415] Verifying compliance with a written stop-work order is more straightforward than verifying compliance with an unwritten requirement. Really, what it does is just…. We have the ability to issue the order, but this

section adds that when that has been put in place, you must comply. From a legal perspective, it gives us greater strength to ensure compliance with that order. Sections 28 and 29 approved. On

section 30. H. Bains: Again, there is quite a bit in it. It talks about a “person acting in an offi cial capacity. ” Let’s start and deal with (

a) fi rst, (

a) through (b). Is this, again, to add to what we have already canvassed in the previous sec- tions, authorizing government — call it agents acting on behalf of the government, as we described before…? Are we again, through this section, aff ording them authority to enter during, aft er investigation or suppression? Is that what this one is all about? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section is consistent with the steps we’ve taken before that we just debated, where we added or made more explicit the list of people and indi- viduals that can enter and do that work. This

section deals with interference and non- compliance and providing misleading information. What we wanted to ensure is that by amending this defi nition, we’ve added the individuals, contractors and agencies that carry out fi re control on behalf of government. It’s consistent, as I said, with the addition we made previous- ly for the same purpose. Th ere’s no operational change in who may assist government with fi re control.

Th e intent of the amendment is to confi rm existing practices, but it also makes sure that when we have those situations of interference or non-compliance, you’re not limited to people who are interfering with someone who is a regular employee of government, a member of the Forest Appeals Commission, Forest Practices Board, a temporary employee hired for fi re control. We wanted to make sure that if somebody is inter- fering — if they’re interfering with a contractor, who is working for us, to go in and do that work — then we have the strengthened ability to deal with that interfer- ence. Currently the

section is written in a way that limits our ability. So we wanted to, in this section, be consistent what we’ve done previously.

British Columbia Debates12240 Thursday, April 14, 2016 H. Bains: So you actually can go aft er the employee of the organization, rather than just dealing with the or- ganization who may be involved? In this section, you are trying to…. It does talk about: “ …as it applies for the pur- poses of this Act, or is a temporary employee hired under

section 15 of this Act; and (ii) is exercising a power or performing a duty or function under this Act. ” [1420] Maybe to just go over it again: who are you trying to target here that wasn’t included under your jurisdiction before? Hon. S. Th omson: No. I think the member opposite has got this reversed in the discussion here. Th is purpose is to be able to deal with a person who intentionally interferes with that group of people, which we’ve now broadened and enhanced. Currently, now, if it’s regular fi re service working…. We can deal with it if it’s any of those others.

But if you have a contractor working and somebody, for example, parks their boat where you’re dipping water or those sorts of things, interferes, and that person is a contractor of the government or is Canadian Forces or any of the other ones that we’ve made more ex- plicit in the defi nition…. It’s really enhancing our ability to deal with those people who are interfering with our eff orts. H. Bains: Th ank you for that explanation. Let’s move on to (b). It talks about amending by strik- ing out “intentionally. ” Th en it continues and goes on to say that….

Again, it talks about “intentionally not com- ply” and substituting “fail to comply. ” I guess I could look at the argument being made. Somebody could say: “I wasn’t intentionally trying to do this. ” Now it is changed to “fail to comply. ” So the judg- ment is already given. If they fail to comply, they fail to comply, whether there’s intention behind it or not. Is that what you’re trying to achieve here? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is, again, is strengthening our ability here. What we don’t have to prove now is the inter- ference was….

Previously, it said: “without lawful excuse, intentionally interfere with a person acting…. ” So you could get into the argument with the fact that the boats are all, in those areas, interfering with critical activities. Th ey all come in with the argument: “Well, I didn’t mean to be here. I just drift ed in. It wasn’t intentional. ” Th at kind of thing. What we’re saying is that, in these critical situations where we’re having that, we need to be able to act with- out having to determine whether that person was doing that intentionally or not.

Having the standard of having to be able to deal in those circumstances and say you’re intentionally there was limiting. We needed to strengthen our ability to deal with those situations. If a bunch of people drive into an area where you’re working and disrupt roads or disrupt access and things like that, we can deal with it. Previously, you could have had the argument that says: “Well, I didn’t intentionally drive in here. I was just out for a Sunday drive and got in the way. ” Th at sort of thing. We want to be able to strengthen our ability to deal with those situations.

Not having to have the defi nition of it being intentional strengthens our ability. Th e legal advice is that this will give us greater ability. Th ere will still be people…. If you end up in the process, people will, potentially, still argue about it. But now we don’t have to have the onus of saying whether you were there inten- tionally or not intentionally. [1425] H. Bains: I agree with what we’re trying to achieve here.

I, for one — I’m sure like all British Columbians — view our forests to be a very precious resource, not only for economic reasons but for our social activities and lei- sure life, and hold forests to add to our quality of life. We don’t want to have our forests destroyed because of some act, wilfully or not. I think, at the same time, there is a question here. Y ou know, someone could just be there, not even knowing what’s going on around them, and is charged now and is held responsible. Th ere’s no room now, it seems to me, here under this language.

I guess it’ll be up to the lawyers to decide what “fail to comply” means — whether there was an order given that they failed to comply with. Or is it that they must know that the order is out there? I mean, all kinds of arguments are there, but I think you need to have a balanced approach. On one hand, we want to protect those who are working to protect our for- ests during fi re suppression or prevention or investiga- tion. But at the same time, somebody could legitimately be in this situation and get charged. I think there’s that issue, so I hope the minister has looked into that.

I want to just ask the minister: what is the purpose behind (d)? Hon. S. Th omson: I agree with the member opposite. I think, from my perspective and having been through these situations, I would rather err on the side of hav- ing the strength and ability to be able to deal with those situations and not be constrained in that way by having to, when you’re providing a ticket or when you’re getting people to comply, have the argument at that point about whether it was intentional or not intentional. I think this is a positive step forward.

With respect to (d), what this really does is make it ex- plicit that it’s not just the person. It’s also equipment or others that that the person may be operating — for ex- ample, the drone that is in the air over the area or some- body working with equipment in the area that gets in the way and those sorts of things. It just adds more explicitness to it. We’re not just dealing with the person. We’re also deal-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12241 ing with the person and equipment, machinery, vehicle, vessel, boats — those kinds of things. It’s just more explicit. H. Bains: I think, when you look at…. In the act we’re talking about, I guess there’s a lot of stuff that will be de- cided through regulations, as far as the fi nes and what the consequences are of not complying or failing to comply. [1430] Maybe, generally, I could ask the minister….

Th is is to deal with situations where someone (1) failed to com- ply with the fi re season, (2) failed to report fi re and (3) is interfering with fi re suppression. Th at’s what the press release from the government says: “Failed to report fi re. ” All those areas are covered in here. Th ose are outside of this act that the minister’s press release described. Even there, they talked about what the fi nes would be, increas- ing the fi ne from a certain amount to a higher amount. Can the minister explain if those are the three scenar- ios you’re trying to strengthen your ability to deal with through this act?

Or is this something diff erent than that press release? Hon. S. Th omson: As the member points out, in the legislation, we’ve taken these steps to strengthen the legal framework behind our abilities. Separately, as was point- ed out, we have announced, as part of the suite of tools, signifi cant increases in penalties for a range of penalties, all the way from failure to comply with an order, to fail- ure to comply with a control order, to failure to stop a vehicle or a vessel, intentional interference, interference non-compliance and false statement. Th at’s $100,000 maximum or one-year imprisonment.

Th at hasn’t been changed in the reg. As we’ve pointed out, we’ve signifi cantly increased fi nes for failing to comply with campfi re regulations and other aspects. Th is strengthens our legal ability in the legislation, in the act. It gives us a stronger ability there. Th en the other steps that we’ve taken within the regula- tion that are already provided for in the act are the second suite. Th e third suite is increased education, work with the communities and public, and everything like that around their responsibilities.

Where they don’t comply with the current regulations, we’ve signifi cantly increased penalty provisions. H. Bains: Th e regulations are the result of the act en- abling the minister to come up with those regulations. I see, through the press release of the government, that they do talk about three things. One is to deal with a situation like drones interfering with the fi re suppression, and there could be a whole bunch of other things. Also penalties for ignoring fi re bans and also failing to report a fi re — the fi nes are increased.

Th is one gives you better tools to strengthen those regulations and make it much more explicit, as the minister has said, to enforce the act through those regulations. My question is…. When we say that the wording such as…. Y ou know, take the intentional part, to “fail to com- ply” part. If you’re driving by and you did not notice a fi re, you now will be deemed to have failed to comply. Th e fi ne is automatic, it seems to me.

How do you justify that? [1435] I understand all the other things — that somebody is interfering; equipment is left in the area; drones; don’t comply with the fi re bans, season or period. I understand that part. But here you’re also going to charge people who fail to report. I mean, it seems to me that’s what your press release says — that your fi ne will be increased from $115 to $383. Th ose are from the regulations, but it comes from the act. Y ou’re strengthening your hand here to deal with those situations, it seems to me. Th at’s the way I see it, unless the minister can explain diff erently. Hon. S.

Th omson: Th e provisions that the member is talking about — for example, failure to report, failure to comply with a campfi re order — all currently exist in the act. Under

section 2, we have all those provisions. We have a suite of tickets, fi nes and administrative orders that can be all part of that. Nothing has changed there. Th e

section that we’ve dealt with around intentional versus non-intentional was dealing with interference, which is where we wanted to have the strengthened pro- vision. We don’t have a situation where we would argue about whether a person intentionally or not intention- ally didn’t report a fi re or intentionally or not intention- ally didn’t comply with a campfi re ban. If the bans are in place or the provisions are in place and somebody doesn’t comply, then they’re fi ned.

It’s not an argument of, “Well, I didn’t intentionally not put out my campfi re, ” or “I didn’t intentionally keep a campfi re to a certain size under the restrictions, ” or whatever burning restrictions may be in place. Nothing has changed in those provisions except increased fi nes for non-compliance. I don’t think I’m hearing…. I hope I’m not hearing that the member opposite is opposed to those increases in fi nes and increased consequences of not complying with the suite of regulations and provisions that we’ve had in place previously.

We had my parliamentary secretary at the time go out and consult across that and bring recommendations. Th ere was strong public support for increasing penalties and increasing consequences, and these changes to the fi nes are a result of his recommendations. I just want to make sure that we separate that, when we were dealing with the intentional side of it and remov- ing the word to “intentionally” interfere, we were dealing with interference, not dealing with the other provisions, which we have a long history of and a suite of provisions in place.

We’ve increased the consequences for failing to comply with that suite of regulations.

British Columbia Debates12242 Thursday, April 14, 2016 H. Bains: So that we clarify, this section, when we are making an amendment from “intentionally” to “fail to comply, ” only applies to a situation where there is interference to fi re suppression. Th e minister also men- tioned, though, if they fail to properly put out the camp- fi re. Th ose are the situations. So it means starting a fi re and interfering — not the reporting part of it.

Th is sec- tion only applies to the other two, which are starting a fi re or interfering during the suppression, not the third portion that the press release talked about: failed to re- port. So “failed to report” is not part of this, then. It’s not covered here. [1440] Hon. S. Th omson: Th e sections that we’ve dealt with in terms of the provisions around intentionally…. Th at’s related to interference. Th e other sections remain the same, except under the ticketing and violation and regu- lation, everything like that.

We’ve increased the penalties and the consequences of not complying with the existing suite of regulations that are in place that have been de- veloped over time. H. Bains: How will this apply? Th e minister knows well, and the staff probably knows that we have situations where there are logging activities, sometimes under ex- treme weather conditions, hot conditions, that have prov- en to cause fi res. How do you deal with that? I’ll give you an example here, in Lake Cowichan, the fi re on Hill 60 in 2015. It seems to be still under investigation. It doesn’t feel like the investigation is completed.

Here is a situation where maybe a contractor, know- ingly or unknowingly, ignored these very, very extreme hot conditions, the weather conditions, and caused a fi re. I don’t want to prejudge the investigation, but everyone around there kind of points fi ngers to one thing — that the fi re was caused by the logging contractor. As a result of that, the town of Lake Cowichan was under a boil- water alert for most of the winter, even, due to an un- protected watershed. Th ere are those situations…. I understand they’re very clear-cut situations that the minister talked about. Y ou could have a campfi re.

Y ou left it completely out, and it started a fi re. Or you have drones, for whatever purpose you’re doing it, during fi re suppression. I get that. But there are these conditions. How do you deal with those situations? Those are also, I believe, with dire conse- quences, and the end result will be the same. Have you delved into that and how these new acts and the changes and the amendments to the act will give you authority to deal with those situations? [1445] Hon. S. Th omson: Going back to

section 28, it amend- ed

section 34 to give us the additional strength around complying with an order. So if an order is put in place to cease activity or stop work, then that gives us added strength there. Ultimately, in the case of an investigation — I’m not going to comment about this specifi c case, because it is under investigation — the existing legislation provides us the ability that if, through the investigation and the process, it was determined that that was the cause of the fi re, then we have the ability to recover costs, to levy fi nes, if there are licence provisions. So the legislative changes don’t deal with that specifi cally, other than giving us addi- tional legal strength by amending

section 34. H. Bains: Let me, then, zero in on 30(d), because it does talk about…. Th e way I read it, you’re adding the language here saying that “without lawful excuse, oper- ate equipment, machinery, a vehicle or a vessel or act in a manner that interferes with fi re control that is being car- ried out. ” It goes on to say the causing of a fi re. It says, “(

e) without lawful excuse, operate equipment, machinery… ” and (

i) says: “the causing of fi re on, or the introduction of fi re onto, Crown land, as authorized under

section 18, or (ii) the control of a fi re authorized under

section 18. ” Does this

section deal with the situation that I just de- scribed to the minister? Hon. S. Th omson: To clarify

section (e), just so the member opposite understands, because it relates back to

section

Section 18 is where the government can util- ize fi re as a prevention activity — when we go in and do controlled burns and prescribed burns — and the control of those prescribed and controlled burns. [R. Lee in the chair.] What we’re also saying is that this provision applies to people who would interfere with those activities. It’s deal- ing with our suppression activities, but it’s also dealing with not interfering with our ability to use prescribed and controlled burns and to control those when we undertake those activities.

Y ou could have a situation where we’re managing a controlled burn, and somebody comes in, gets in the way and interferes with our ability to do that. It may, ultimately, result in that getting out of control in some way, or something like that. So the provision covers both suppression and our ac- tivities around prescribed and controlled burns, as pro- vided for in

section

Section 30 approved. On

section 31. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. Repealing

section 11(7) of the Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c. 488 — what does that mean? What are we repealing?

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12243 Hon. S. Th omson: We’re just changing some staff , but we’ll do this on the fl y. [1450] Actually, it’s a very simple answer, because if you look forward into the bill, to

section 41 of this bill, that provi- sion is brought back in. It’s repealing it out of this section, and it’s replaced in a

section farther on in the bill. It sim- ply is a repositioning of this provision to make the legis- lation more readable and to put this in a

section where it more appropriately lines up. It’s not removing it at all. It does no change in policy, no change in provisions. It’s simply going to be in a dif- ferent place, in a diff erent position, in the act. H. Bains: No attempts are made to ensure that B.C. residents have a priority? Hon. S. Th omson: Th ere is no change in policy. H. Bains: I just want to say my piece here. Here was an opportunity for the minister. If we are going to change this act, the minister could easily have made provisions that B.C. residents would have a priority in this area.

I think failing to do that, again, is a failure of this govern- ment to ensure that the B.C. residents come fi rst, when it comes to access to B.C. wildlife. Well, if nothing changed, nothing changed. I guess we’ll move to the next section.

Section 31 approved. On

section 32. H. Bains: Let me ask this question. What are we try- ing to do if

section 14 is amended by striking out “is in possession of ” and substituting with “holds”? What does that mean? Hon. S. Thomson: This section, and as we move through many of the other sections…. Th e member op- posite will know or may be aware that much of the changes here is all about creating the changes and the provisions in the legislation to provide for the electronic licensing of hunting licences and permits and things under the process. We’ve been working with the B.C.

Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Stewardship Council, the Guide Outfi tters Association all around a project and a process to move to electronic or on-line licensing and permitting. Th e change here supports the development of that. It replaces the phrase “is in possession of ” with the word “holds. ” Th e phrase “in possession of ” implies possession of a physical licence, and the word “hold” more accur- ately refl ects what’s going to occur when the licence is issued electronically.

All of this and now many of the other amendments support the implementation of that direction, all in cooperation with wildlife organizations and groups that have been working very, very closely together in imple- menting this project. We are looking forward to having the legislation in place and then looking forward to being able to bring that system live in the near future. H. Bains: I understand we are moving into the elec- tronic age. Still, there are parts of B.C., there are people whose ability….

It may not be that they have access to the Internet or even are computer-literate. [1455] My question is: is there a timeline to transition from the current system into a new system? Also, what provi- sions will there be for those situations that I’ve just de- scribed? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is section…. Again, it probably doesn’t directly relate. Th e general question the member asked is around: what about those situations with people who don’t have computer access? What about remote areas where Internet access may not be in place? We’re certainly aware of that.

It’s been part of the consultation with all the groups as we move to this. Th is will be imple- mented over a two- to three-year time frame as we fully implement it. Hunters will still be able to go into FrontCounter B.C., into local vendors, to get a direct application, so that pro- vision will still be there, along with the electronic pro- cess. Even once we get all of the provisions of the system in place, there’ll still be that ability. We’re not intending to move to a situation where it will be the only option, at the organizations’ request. Th ey see this as added con- venience and process.

Th at’s why they’ve been fully sup- portive of the project. We will continue to have those provisions. I’m sure there are some other questions, potentially, around this. I have talked to the member for Kootenay West about this as well. Th e question came up around: what happens if you’re out in an area, and you do your licence electronically? Y ou have that permission. Y ou’ve maybe got it saved on your iPhone, and you’re in an area, and a conservation offi cer comes along and says, “Where’s your licence?” and you can’t get it up on your phone. As part of the process, there will be a user ID num- ber.

All the person will have to do is provide their user ID number and the natural resource offi cer or the con- servation offi cer will have a non-on-line database, and they’ll be able to look at that number and say, “Y es, that person has a valid licence and these authorizations, ” and things like that. We’ve accounted for the nature of the industry in im- plementing the system. A lot of input from the organiza- tions, from the groups in helping us develop it. It’s been a real partnership approach.

We will implement it over time and fully, but we’ll still provide the ability for that person who wants to go into FrontCounter, apply for

British Columbia Debates12244 Thursday, April 14, 2016 his licence in that way, get a paper copy of it and carry it around. Th at ability will still be there. H. Bains: I’m glad that there will be that transition period and people will be brought along, those who have those diffi culties, whether it’s an access issue or their own ability of not having a computer, even. I’m glad that will be looked aft er, but I do have a concern here. [1500] We’ve seen the experience of this government in Education and in Health when those new computer pro- grams were brought in and introduced.

It was a colossal mess and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. My ques- tion to the minister would be: how will you ensure that we will not have the mess that we saw in health care and in education when the new computer system was brought in? Hon. S. Th omson: We’ve been working…. Th is has been a partnership approach, and it’s a phased approach to make sure that as we bring in elements of the system, we’ve got it all tested and working. We’ve got LEH au- thorizations on line currently. We have had the experi- ence with fi shing licences through the on-line process.

So I’m confident, given the partnership approach and…. We’ve had technical work, but we’ve also tested it with all the users and the groups. We’ll do it in a phased approach. We’ve provided the provision for people who don’t have that access to be able to do that, to access it. I’m confi dent that this will be implemented smoothly. It is something that the organizations, the members of those associations, are really looking forward to and want us to get in place. Th ey’ve probably been a little bit frustrated that we haven’t done it quite as quickly, but we’ll get there.

Th is will be a key discussion at the up- coming Wildlife Federation annual meeting in Nanaimo next week, because they are very excited about moving to this step, and they’ve been part of the process all along the way.

Section 32 approved. On

section 33. H. Bains: Let’s talk about these two diff erent subsec- tions. For (a), it is amending, to say “ …striking out ‘in the form, with the content and valid for the term’ and substituting ‘with the conditions, and valid for the term. ’” So what will that actually do to the act that we have cur- rently? How is that being changed? What’s the purpose? Hon. S. Th omson: Th e intent of this

section is to pro- vide the provisions that authorize the director to set the forms and manner in which licences must be issued. Limiting this authority to the director ensures that we’ll have consistency across the province. [1505] It’s really one of the steps that helps ensure that as we move to this system, it operates smoothly and is consist- ent. So again, it’s another piece that helps support imple- mentation of the electronic system. Sections 33 and 34 approved. On

section 35. H. Bains: Just again,

section 17(2) is repealed. Why? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is section. Previously this re- quired the person to show up, for the fi rst licence, in per- son or show up with an offi cial of the ministry. Moving to the electronic system, we’ve removed the requirement to have to appear in person. Th e system builds in the provi- sions that confi rm the person has successfully completed the core program, those kinds of things. Th e same provisions are built in, but it’s just if we’re moving to an electronic system, we don’t want to have an electronic system that forces people to have to come in.

Th is was a key piece from the Wildlife Federation. Th ey didn’t want to have to serve a diff erent restriction just because the person had taken the course, and it was the person’s fi rst time at it. Th ey didn’t want to frustrate him in the process. Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved. On

section 38. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. By re- pealing

section 24(3), (4) and (11), what is the govern- ment achieving? Hon. S. Th omson: Again, this is a

section that sup- ports the electronic system that is coming in place. What this does is take out the requirement that requires a per- son to surrender or return their licence to us in paper form. Th eir licence can now be cancelled electronically. If they’ve got an electronic licence, it’s kind of hard to have them be required to return a paper form for it or to sur- render it, surrender their licence. It’s simply, again, an- other

section that supports the electronic process.

Section 38 approved. On

section 39. H. Bains: It talks about giving authority to a regional manager to “issue a trapping licence to a person who is a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada. ” Wasn’t that allowed before? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is relates back to the previous discussion where the

section earlier was repealed. Th is

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12245 brings back in the policy around it and provides for the explicit authority that the regional manager may issue a trapping licence. No change in policy as far as require- ments and eligibility. H. Bains: Th at would be in person or electronically or both? [1510] Hon. S. Th omson: Both. It will have the same provi- sions — electronic access or the other. Th e same way we would with…. It’s part of the licensing project.

Section 39 approved. On

section 40. H. Bains: It seems to me there are regulations being talked about here, so my question would be: who is de- veloping the regulations for licensing assistant angling guides, and what requirements will be necessary? Hon. S. Th omson: Th ere are two aspects to this sec- tion. Th e fi rst change is under (c), amending subsection (1) and bringing in the other prescribed qualifi cations for an applicant prior to the issuance of an angling guide li- cence.

For example, the regulations will require that the applicant must demonstrate that they’re familiar with the Fisheries Act of Canada and the regulations that apply to an area they intend to guide in. It corrects an omis- sion. It wasn’t in the previous legislation in the test for a licence issuance. Th e second part of it is, again, a

section that supports the electronic licensing. It’s now requiring a written rec- ord signed by the angling guide who has employed that assistant guide in order to validate his licence. With the previous licence, you would actually sign the back of the licence. Now the assistant guide will have proof of that record while guiding. Th at would be simply a signed au- thorization from the angling guide. Because we don’t have the paper licence, it’s again, a step to support the implementation of electronic licensing. H. Bains: Is there going to be any fl exibility in this? If there is, how will that work?

Maybe you could explain, while you’re up: what’s the diff erence between record and signed licence? [1515] Hon. S. Th omson: Y es, there will be fl exibility. First of all, there’s the fl exibility of the current system, through the existing system. If you utilize the electronic system, there will be fl exibility. What we will require from the assistant angling guide is that proof that he is working for that guide. If he doesn’t have that proof, then his assistant angling licence would not be valid. We’re not specifying in this the type and form that that validation or proof must take.

It could be in the form of a letter, in the form of a written statement — those kinds of things. Th ere will be fl exibility there.

Section 40 approved. On

section 41. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain in sec- tion 41 what the parameters are around this regulation. Does the agent have to be part of the hunt? Hon. S. Th omson: What this change provides is…. We have the situation where the hunt may be guided by an as- sistant guide. Th e current requirement is that the report can only be fi lled out by the guide. Th e requirement is that it’s to be done at the time and completion of the hunt. What we’re doing is providing the ability here for the assistant guide, agent of the guide, to complete that re- port at that time, and it’s to be provided right away.

Th e situation we have now is that it’s only the guide who can do that, which means that the guide has to go to where the hunt may be and fi ll out the report and form and everything. Th is doesn’t change the requirement or the provisions for a report. It simply streamlines the process and makes it more effi cient so that the assistant guide can complete the report as an agent of the guide-outfi tter.

Section 41 approved. On

section 42. H. Bains: In this one, I’ d just like to ask this. “ A guiding territory certifi cate issued under this Act must be issued in a manner and form, if any, and with the conditions, if any, specifi ed by the director. ” Th e question here is: can this be applied anywhere? Are there any restrictions on that? Also, is there any priority given to B.C. residents, or does it continue to apply non-residents to purchase guiding territories? [1520] Hon. S. Th omson: Again, as we commented earlier, this

section is to support the electronic licensing process. What it means is that the terms and process for issuing it in a specifi c manner, meaning…. It could be issued from the electronic system. Th ere’s no change in policy here. It is simply a provi- sion — again, consistent with all the other changes we’ve made — to support the electronic delivery system of li- censing and certifi cates. No change in policy. H. Bains: Th ere is a diff erence now. I mean, being in person means going to the offi ce. When you allow appli-

British Columbia Debates12246 Thursday, April 14, 2016 cations to be made on line, someone from Germany can make an application, from Sri Lanka, from anywhere in the world. My question is: can these applications be made from anywhere in the world? Also, I ask this again: is there a priority for B.C. residents, that they go fi rst in the lineup before guiding territory is issued to out-of-country or out-of-B.C. applicants? Hon. S. Th omson: Th is section, again, is about the process for issuance of a guiding territory certifi cate supporting the electronic system. Th ere is no change in policy. H.

Bains: I hear that, but before, if it wasn’t on line, you’ d have to go to an offi ce here to make an application. My question is: by changing to on line, would you al- low someone out of the country to apply and be issued a guiding territory? Hon. S. Th omson: Again, to be clear here, this

section is about issuance of the permit, the process for issuing a certifi cate aft er an application process has been complet- ed. Th ere isn’t a change to the application process. Th at’s in a separate

section about the requirements in applying, the process for bidding, if there’s an opportunity — all of those kinds of things. Nothing changes there at all. No change in policy. Th is

section is really, when there is a certifi cate, aft er all of the application process and that, this is how…. It provides the authority for that certifi cate to be issued through the electronic process, as opposed to having to be in person. Th is is all being worked through with the groups. Just again, it’s simply about issuance, not the ap- plication process.

Section 42 approved. On

section 43. H. Bains: Can the minister explain why

section 61(2.1) is repealed? [1525] Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section is being taken out of the act to be able to deal with this through the regulation process and to be able to support the electronic system again. All of the notifi cation requirements will be moved into the regs. It authorizes the regulations to be made, specifying the manner in which notice is given. It will provide the consistency as to whether notifi cation would be provided in terms of the licensing and all of those pro- visions under the electronic system. Again, consistent with the other steps, this is a step to support the phased implementation of the electronic system.

Section 43 approved. Th e Chair: Shall

section 44 pass? Some Voices: Aye. Th e Chair: So ordered. Member. H. Bains: I think both of these here, 44 and 45, seem to talk about, fi rst of all, eliminating minimum fi nes. Can the minister explain: if you remove the mandatory min- imum fi nes for fi rst-time off enders, is that at the discre- tion of the CO? Or how do you determine that? Hon. S. Th omson: Can I just clarify which

section we’re on? Th e Chair: On

section 45. H. Bains: I was going back to

section 44, actually. Th e Chair: Okay. On

section 44. On

section 44. Hon. S. Th omson: Th is

section is to give some greater tools to our conservation offi cer and natural resource of- fi cer services. Th e situation now is that they have an op- tion: a warning or a process that would move it to where there has to be prosecution and the process for the cur- rent fi ne to be administered. [1530] What we’re doing here is moving to bring in the ability for a ticketing violation process for those conservation offi cers where they can issue. Once we get the legislative provision here, then we’ll develop the ticketing provi- sions under the violation and ticketing regulation pro- cess.

Th at will then give them the fl exibility to be able to issue tickets, with a monetary process on those tickets for those more minor off ences. Right now they don’t have that ability, so it’s sort of all or nothing. Now, with these provisions, we’ll have that step in between. We’ll be able to have violation tickets administered, which will mean that less warnings will be given and more tickets will be provided. Th en the serious off ences would still move through the prosecu- tion process. H.

Bains: I don’t see a difference between having a minimum fi ne — and you’re removing that here — and then going in the direction that you just explained. What’s the purpose of removing the minimum fi ne, as your explanatory note suggests here? How do you see that the new provisions will be better to manage and will bear better results?

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12247 Hon. S. Th omson: Right now we can’t issue a ticket for $2,500. Th at has to go through the prosecution process. So we’ve removed the minimum fi ne process. Th rough the prosecution process, we’ve retained the upper limit. What that does is let the courts determine the appropri- ate level of fi ne in those processes as it moves through that process.

What we will be bringing in through this is a ticket violation system, which will provide the ability for nat- ural resource offi cers and conservation offi cers to provide or to assess tickets in the fi eld, which will be in a range from…. Th at process will be set out. Right now the only tool they have is a warning, or it has to go the prosecution route. We want to bring in a process that provides the ability to deal with those more minor infractions in the fi eld, which we know we don’t want to put into the prosecution process but you need a penalty.

We also want to remove the minimum penalty and just let the courts determine what is the most appro- priate penalty, retaining the upper limit.

Section 44 approved. On

section 45. H. Bains: My question here is…. Under this section, there are a number of changes being made. I think the question comes to: how are the conservation offi cers going to check if people have a valid hunting licence if everything is on line or electronic? How will they be able to do that? Wouldn’t this require additional conservation offi cers to enforce all these regulations? Will you be hir- ing or adding more resources to do this? [1535] Hon. S. Th omson: I think I’ve answered this previ- ously.

Th e system is not going to be dependent upon cli- ents having continual cell phone coverage in the fi eld. It’s to give the clients the option of producing the licence. It does give the option of the client producing the licence electronically. It doesn’t mean they have to have cell coverage to produce it. Clients will be able to print and store their licences electronically — a PDF or a photo of the licence, a screen shot. Th ey would have that ability. Th ey will also have an identifi cation number, to our clients, which they can provide to a conservation offi cer upon request.

Th at will allow the conservation offi cer to access a database that has off -line functionality, where the ID number will be linked to all of the licences and authorizations. Th is maintains the fl exibility and supports the elec- tronic system. It has that functionality and will be more effi cient. Again, as I’ve commented previously, it was supported and developed in partnership with all of the key stakeholder fi sh and wildlife organizations in the province.

Section 45 approved. On

section 46. H. Bains: I just want to make sure that this is…. Again, we are talking about someone producing a rec- ord on their electronic device, whether it’s a computer or an iPad or something, unless they have a written copy. Is that what we are saying — that that person will be deemed to comply with the

section here, or the require- ment, provided that they have that electronic record or a paper record? Hon. S. Th omson: Y es. Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved. On

section 49. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister…. I just want to leave it here. It’s not a question here, but there are a number of questions around this Wildlife Act. I think we had a discussion outside of the House. Th e minister agreed to provide further briefi ng to myself or other critics, es- pecially Kootenay West, on some of the questions that they may have. Hon. S. Th omson: I’ d certainly be prepared to do that. Sections 49 and 50 approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Th omson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 3:38 p.m.

Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Report and Th ird Reading of Bills BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Bill 12, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete with- out amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 16. [1540]

British Columbia Debates12248 Thursday, April 14, 2016 Second Reading of Bills BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Hon. T. Lake: I move second reading of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act. [R. Lee in the chair.] Assisted living is a semi-independent type of housing with extra supports to help with the activities of daily liv- ing. Th e majority of residents are seniors. Assisted living provides residents with hospitality services. Essentially, it’s their home. Th e meals are provided and, also, what are known as prescribed services.

Th ese include regular assist- ance with daily living activities, assistance with medica- tion, therapeutic diets, fi nancial management, structured behavioural management and intensive physical therapy. Currently if a resident’s health status changes and they require more than two of the prescribed services, they no longer qualify to stay in assisted living. What that gener- ally means is they are expected to move into a residen- tial care facility. Residential care facilities are for people with complex care needs who require 24-hour professional care and supervision in a protective and supportive environment.

While they provide a critical service, they are more in- stitutional than the quite independent, home-like setting of assisted living. In her housing report last year, seniors advocate Isobel Mackenzie said there were many cases where people in assisted living were having to transfer to residential care sooner than need be because of the rules in place. We lis- tened and are making a change. Amendments that we are presenting in this bill remove the reference to the specifi c number of prescribed ser- vices a client may receive in an assisted-living residence.

Th is means they would be able to continue to remain in assisted living as long as it is safe and appropriate for them to do so, retaining their independence rather than having to transfer to a residential care facility. Th e amendments, importantly, also expand regulatory oversight, off ering further protection for residents. Th e assisted-living registrar, whose mandate is to protect the health and safety of assisted-living residents, will be able to inspect a residence at any time if they feel there is a risk to the health and safety of a resident.

Currently the regis- trar may only inspect a residence if there’s a complaint. Improving care for seniors, no matter where they live, is an ongoing priority for the government. We have cre- ated a wide range of supports for seniors, including home health, assisted-living services and residential care ser- vices. We have also heard from seniors that they want care and supports in their local community to help them live in their own homes longer. Th e Ministry of Health developed Setting Priorities for the B.C.

Health System in 2014, which is an overarching strategy to create a more sustainable health system, and seniors are a signifi cant focus of these priorities. In this work, we understand that the patient or the client must be the focus as we look at better designing our services to meet the needs of an aging population. Th is legislation refl ects those goals. We will be consulting with assisted-living residence operators as the regulations are draft ed, and these dis- cussions will take place over the spring and summer.

For those individuals who are able to make decisions on their own behalf, assisted-living residences provide a home- like environment and independence. Th ese amendments will provide further supports for residents and help them avoid having to move to a residential care facility before they actually need to. I am pleased to move second reading of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act. S. Robinson: I am pleased to rise in the House and speak to Bill 16, the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act. Ensuring that we have a range of housing available for seniors is critically important.

Th ese are the people who have built our province, the people who have paid their taxes. Th ese are the people who raise the next generation, and as the next genera- tion, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they have the housing and the supports that they need as they live out their remaining years. Earlier this week I had the opportunity to rise in this House and move a private member’s motion calling on the government to take immediate action, ensuring that all licensed and regulated care homes are meeting all gov- ernment standards of care.

I opened my remarks using Hubert Humphrey’s quote that bears repeating here, be- cause this legislation and the regulations that come out of it will be the measure of this government. Hubert Humphrey once said that “the moral test of gov- ernment is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life — the sick, the needy and the handicapped. ” Th e legislation that we’re looking at today needs for us to keep that quote in mind, because that’s exactly what we’re doing here.

Th e legislation that we are considering takes a look at expanding some of the housing and care options avail- able to seniors in British Columbia, and it is important that we have a range of housing options and supports available as we age. [1545] Aging is oft en a process where we fi nd ourselves not able to do the same sorts of things that we were once able to do. I have started that process. I can’t run the way I used to, and I certainly need my spectacles in order to read just about anything if it’s under 20 font.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12249 As we continue to age, there are other things that are likely that we’re going to have to adapt to manage. Th ings that I know that I’ll be having to give up or do a little bit diff erently are things like caring for my home, garden- ing, small repairs, maintenance and upkeep. Or dealing with my aff airs, paying bills, banking, paperwork, ap- pointments. Whether I can care for my health, like tak- ing my medications, manage my social relationships, track doctors’ instructions and keep those appointments. Managing my own chores.

Will I be able to do my laun- dry, clean my house? What about my own self-care — taking a bath or even going to the toilet? Now, most of us, I think, in this House would like to age just like my Auntie Sarah did. Auntie Sarah was one of these people who became a widow in her early 70s and was able to manage really well on her own. Th en one day she went to bed, curlers in her hair — that was the age and the time when you did you that, while you went to sleep — and she didn’t wake up. Her aging and her dying were done very gracefully. She never needed anyone to care for her.

However, most of us won’t have the opportunity to age like my Auntie Sarah did. Most of us will fi nd that there will be a transition from a fully robust and independent life, one that’s rich with activity, friends and opportunity, to a life where we have aches and pains, some physical and, perhaps, some emotional challenges. Overall, there will be a transition from independence to dependence, and that will likely take several stages. When I was preparing my thoughts for comment on this bill, it wasn’t my Auntie Sarah that I kept in mind. It was my grandfather, my Zaide Max.

His experience of aging was very, very diff erent from my Auntie Sarah. His experience of aging went from being very, very fi ercely independent and having his own home to being a wid- ower twice over and fi nding that, as he was aging, there were things that became more challenging for him. He did wind up in assisted living. Th at had certain implica- tions for him. He lost his eyesight, and he needed more and more care until he eventually passed away at the age of 89.

When I think about some of the challenges that my grandfather had as he aged and I think of our seniors, I recognize the Bette Davis quote — I think it was Bette Davis — where she said that getting old isn’t for sissies. My father says getting older is certainly better than the alternative. So while aging is not always graceful and it isn’t for sissies and it is better than the alternative, it really says that there is a role for government and for our com- munity to play as we age and that we all ought to try to make life as comfortable and as supportive as possible for our seniors.

It’s the least we can do for those who have paid their dues. Th ey’ve paid their taxes, they’ve built this province, and they have raised us, the next generation. So I stand here, as the next generation, feeling very obligated to do the best that I can — I think the best that we all can — for our seniors. We all know that home is the place where we all want to be as we age. It’s the place where we want to age. I know that when I go home at the end of the week….

I suspect for all of the members here, when we go home at the end of the week, there is something very special about climbing into your own bed, the familiarity of the space and the comfort of my things being around me. It’s this sense of belonging and comfort that we need to think about as we pay attention to the special needs of our seniors. If home is best, then it makes sense to ensure that our seniors can stay home as long as absolutely possible. Seniors homes can vary widely. I think it’s important to talk about how the amendments in this bill fi t into the notion that seniors are better off at home.

I think it’s im- portant to talk about it in a context, so I’ d like to take a few moments just to set the stage for that conversation. When I think about seniors staying in their homes as long as possible, I think about what it would take to make that happen for as many seniors as possible — in their own homes, before they have to go into care. I thought about how we ought to be ensuring that they have the supports they need and access to the resources they need so that they can stay as long and as safely as possible in their own homes and in their own communities. [1550] If we think about it….

I think about my own commun- ity in Coquitlam-Maillardville. I think about: how, as a community, are we living up to this? I worry about this, and I’m concerned about this. By 2031, just 15 years from now, B.C. is expected to be home to more than 1.5 million people over the age of 65. Th at’s almost 25 percent of the population, and 15 years is not that far away. I do want to acknowledge that the government does have a program called age-friendly communities.

It’s a great program, because if we want people to age in place, we need to make sure that their communities can adapt and have the resources that they need. Th ere’s a list of eight things that’s on that list. Outdoor spaces in buildings. Are they age-friendly? Does a natural and built environment help the older person get around safely and easily in their community, and does it encourage community participation, which is really important? Th en transportation. Can older persons travel wher- ever they want to go in the community, conveniently and safely.

Another important piece about aging in place and aging in our homes. Th e third is housing. Do older persons have housing that is safe and aff ordable — an important point — and that allows them to stay as independent as possible as their needs change? Th e list goes on to include social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment,

British Columbia Debates12250 Thursday, April 14, 2016 communication and information, and community sup- ports and health services. I think it’s important that communities pay attention to this, not just this level of government, but certainly other levels of government. We all have to work together. Th ere is only one taxpayer. We all pay taxes to all three levels of government. It’s important that we’re all work- ing in the same direction to ensure that our seniors have a place to stay.

I have to say, in preparing my comments for this bill, certainly what I came across is that not all seniors ac- tually have appropriate housing in their communities. I think it’s important to sort of recognize that, because it puts a burden on some of our other resources — like the bill that we’re debating right now, in terms of assisted liv- ing. I think we need to recognize that we have particular housing concerns for seniors in general. I just noted that there’s a seniors housing update from 2014 that comes out of SFU, the Gerontology Research Centre.

Th ey note here: “Th ere has been a signifi cant decline in the supply of low-cost housing across Metro Vancouver” and “many seniors fi nd themselves increas- ingly displaced from the community that they have cur- rently lived in as a result of high rents, leading to the loss of meaningful social networks and challenging their sense of home and community. ” Th e authors go on to say: “Th ere’s an identifi ed need for low-cost housing designed for keeping seniors in the communities where they wish to live.

Th is is seen as a key component of supporting aging in place and designing for age-friendly cities. ” I’m thinking, in that context, about some of the things that we’ve been hearing more recently about seniors and their need for appropriate housing that meets their needs as they age. We certainly hear from the government, from the Liberals, that it’s really important for seniors to age in place and stay at home as long as possible. I com- pletely agree. I support that. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that. And it’s important that we have resources in place to make that happen.

What I fi nd a little bit distressing is that we are seeing more and more of our seniors, people whose health is starting to fail them, in our homeless shelters. Th at is, I think, cause for concern. We’ve learned…. For this, I’m just quoting from an

article from thunderbird.ca. It’s 2014. It comes out of UBC: “Vancouver Shelters Overwhelmed by Increase in Homeless Seniors. ” Th ey note that the number of home- less seniors over 55 in the Lower Mainland is creeping upward. It’s doubled, to 264 from 121, over the last eight years just in Vancouver alone. Th ey note that low-income seniors are fi nding it increasingly diffi cult to get apart- ments they can aff ord.

I appreciate the amendments that we’re debating here, but I think it’s important to set a context around where the pressures are coming from, what the challenges are and the importance of recognizing that there’s a housing continuum, and that this bill speaks to a tiny, tiny little piece on that housing continuum. We need to always keep in mind, as we talk in this House about seniors, that we keep that whole continuum in mind — about what’s going on or what’s not going on.

Th e authors go on to note that waiting lists for sen- iors social housing are miles long, as the rents in private buildings have gone up faster than their incomes. [1555] Now, there’s certainly lots more here. Lookout is a well-known shelter in Vancouver. Th ey note that they’ve seen a steady increase of people aged 45 to 64 in all their shelters, that seniors grew to 42 percent in 2014 from 31 percent in 2009-10. Th ey also note that B.C. Housing has acknowledged the need for more senior housing. I think it’s important that we keep in mind that not all seniors even have hous- ing.

We’re talking about a piece, but there’s certainly this group of seniors that aren’t even in that part of the system. I want to note that just this week there was an

article in the Vancouver Sun that spoke about the number of seniors that are homeless. It said that in 2014 in Metro Vancouver, the homeless count was 371 for seniors. So 371 seniors who don’t have a home. I will remind members of this House that we certainly heard about Fran Flann in the fall, who wound up in a homeless shelter because of housing challenges, and that was very heartbreaking for all of us. I know that there were some decisions made, and I know that she was housed, but this whole challenge of housing all of our seniors is just a broader challenge.

We have a bill before us that’s paying attention to assist- ed living, but I think it’s important that we recognize that there’s a whole structure in place and that each piece is connected to the other — that these are not stand-alone, silo pieces of housing. Th ere is a continuum of housing. I think it’s important that we recognize where this bill fi ts in on that continuum. Th ere are also seniors, certainly, in our communities, who might be property-rich and cash-poor.

It’s certain- ly a problem I’ve seen in Coquitlam-Maillardville, and I suspect it’s an issue that the Speaker has seen in his com- munity as well. Th ey might have a pension or savings of some sort, but they have a home that needs repair or upgrades. Th ey have property taxes that are increasing, hydro costs that are increasing, ICBC rates that are increasing, and their pensions just aren’t keeping up with these increased costs. Th ere are certainly some government programs to help out. I think that’s a good thing. But as the seniors advo- cate noted in her policy options paper last year….

She said, “Most startling was the number of low-income sen- iors reporting that they were unaware of the guaranteed income supplement” — the GIS. She said 23 percent were unaware that it existed.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12251 Many of them didn’t know about the MSP premium assistance. Th at’s 60 percent that didn’t know about it. SAFER rent subsidies — 42 percent didn’t know about it. PharmaCare — another 42 percent didn’t know about it. Th ese are long-standings programs and subsidies that are aimed directly at low-income seniors, yet she says it seemed that these benefi ts are not reaching their in- tended target. We do have a lot of work to do around making sure that seniors are aware of the ways in which there are some government resources to help them when it’s diffi cult.

As I was thinking about my grandfather and thinking about this legislation and about the continuum of hous- ing, I was thinking about those seniors who own their own homes, because we do have a fair number of seniors who own their own homes. Some would say that they should just sell their asset and use these to help off set the costs of their care, which they can do and I’m sure some choose to do, and it may not be a bad idea for some seniors. Th e challenge, of course, is: where would they move to?

I recall that when I was on city council, I was a strong advocate for encouraging developers who were coming before us to develop housing that was oriented for sen- iors. I’m not talking anything about subsidized housing, but really making sure that we had the stock. Seniors who lived in a 2,500-square-foot home were not going to be comfortable, necessarily, moving to a 600-square- foot box. We need to make sure, at all levels of government, that we fi nd ways to create a diversity of housing.

When I think about those seniors who are in their own homes, I think it’s important that we recognize that there are some options for them to adapt their homes, as they need some changes to make their homes more age-friendly. [1600] Whether it’s widening some door frames so that they can get a walker through or putting in a ramp so that they don’t have to go up stairs or if they have one of those lift s that takes you up…. Th ere’s that commercial. I’ve seen it a number of times. It would take you up the stairs — those built-in elevators. I think it’s important that we have all of those tools in place.

Like the minister said, and I agree with him whole- heartedly, it is important that we help people stay as in- dependent as possible for as long as possible. We all know that having seniors stay in their homes is what they need, but I worry. I worry that we don’t have enough resources to help make it so. Now, we all agree that there’s also great cost savings to having seniors in their home as long as possible, but it has to be an appropriate home, and it has to have the ap- propriate support.

When I think about the range of hous- ing and all the pieces that come together that help keep seniors in their homes as long as possible, I think of our home support program. Home support is when a senior or someone with a disability needs help with daily personal care activities. It might be bathing or dressing or toileting or eating. It used to include assistance with laundry and cleaning and some meal preparation, but now the government no longer provides that. Th at’s left to other groups, most- ly Better at Home, which is a government-supported, United Way–managed and volunteer-based assistance.

I have some concerns about the program, and I’ll get to that in a moment. Now, case managers assess potential home support cli- ents to determine services and hours for which these sen- iors are qualifi ed. Th e service is delivered by community health workers and paid for by the health authority. It is a way of supporting seniors so that with a little bit of as- sistance, they can stay in their homes. According to the seniors advocate, in her Monitoring Seniors’ Services report from January 2016, 41,223 British Columbians were registered for home support services in 2014-15.

Overall, that’s a 2 percent increase in the num- ber of clients over the previous year. Now, the popula- tion aged 75 and older — this is the group that makes the most use out of home support — increased by 4 percent. Th e total number of clients increased in four of the fi ve health authorities and just decreased in one health authority. Th e total number of home support hours in 2014-15 was just over 11 million hours, an increase of 1 percent over the previous year. Th ose numbers increased in two of the health authorities and decreased in three of the health authorities.

Th e numbers don’t quite jibe, that people are actually getting the hours that they need. Th at’s sort of what these numbers are suggesting. In 2014-15, the average hours delivered per client per year was 268 hours, or 5.1 hours a week, a decrease of 1 percent in the provincial average from 2013-14. What does this say? In spite of a commitment from this government to keep seniors in their homes as long as possible, we’re seeing that the overall home support hours have decreased, while the number of clients has increased. What does that mean for our seniors?

Well, it means that while they’re eligible for services, seniors just aren’t able to get the services they need to be comfortable at home for as long as possible. It means that they might not be able to get a bath as oft en as they should, or they can’t get assistance with meal preparation so they can eat proper, healthy foods. As a result, they now eat pre- packaged food with high salt and sugar that might lead to greater health problems. Th is government says it has aspirations to make life better for our seniors, but as our seniors population grows, we’re actually seeing a reduction in the home care hours.

It’s more of saying one thing and doing another. I’m not saying that it’s easy to do, but I do think we have an obligation to fi x that.

British Columbia Debates12252 Thursday, April 14, 2016 Th e next stage of care along the independence continu- um is assisted living. Th is bill before us changes legisla- tion so that we can have a broader range of services and greater oversight for those needing an assisted-living ar- rangement. Assisted living is a housing option that pro- vides seniors with a range of supports so that they can live mostly independently. My grandfather had this. He had macular degenera- tion. He lost his eyesight, and he lived independently for a long time, being mostly visually impaired.

But it did get to a point where it was hard for him to see the num- bers on the dials of his stove, and even though they put, in big black markers, the numbers, it just became more and more diffi cult. Assisted living seemed to be the solution, because he was going out to eat too oft en, which wasn’t good for him, and he needed help with the cooking. He needed help with some eye drops, and he needed help with some medication. Otherwise, he was pretty independent. [1605] Now, the current legislation says that in assisted- living facilities, residents can only make use of two out of six prescribed services.

Assistance with daily living, like getting dressed or help with medication, are the kinds of assistance that would be available. Th e amend- ments contained in this bill would drop the limitation of two services so that seniors can add services as need- ed without having to worry about moving to residen- tial care.

Currently, if a senior is needing more than can be of- fered by home support — a system where currently de- mand is up and resources are down — and if that senior can primarily live independently but they need a couple of regular additional services on a daily basis, they are eli- gible for assisted living, if they can aff ord full pay. We know that there is a signifi cant waiting list of over 940 names waiting for subsidized assisted living across the province.

I just want to comment on that, because I think it’s important to acknowledge that while this legis- lation will provide opportunities, it will also, perhaps, in- crease greater demand for care where there is already a signifi cant wait-list. I just want to read into the record what we currently know based on the seniors advocate reports. In 2012, we had 4,389 subsidized registered assisted living units in this province. In 2013, it went up to 4,472. Th at’s good. It’s an increase. But from 4,472, we went down in 2015 to 4,430. So we’ve lost 40-some-odd units. We’ve lost 42 units just in the last couple of years.

It becomes a real challenge when the housing oppor- tunities go up and then they go down. Now we’re going to be creating this greater expanse of opportunity, but we have this signifi cant wait-list. I want to come back to this idea, because I think we’re going to see a signifi cant crunch, and I think it’s important and incumbent on the government to address that.

In just completing my thoughts about this range of care — because I think it’s important to have the whole spectrum of care in mind as we debate this bill and as we think about where it fi ts in the continuum of care for sen- iors — I want to take a moment to talk about residential care. Th is is where you go when you need more care than an assisted-living residence can provide.

I think, as we get more frail, there comes a time when we’ll need 24-hour professional supervision where we, as seniors, any senior, can be safe and secure and have their needs met so that we do live out the remaining years in comfort and indignity. About 3.7 percent of B.C. seniors live in residential care. Th e province subsidizes over 27,000 beds province- wide. Since 2012, there has been an increase of just under 1,000 additional beds added to the system — a 3.5 percent increase.

Now the challenge is the increase in the over- 75-year-old population in this group — the group that’s mostly going to, in all likelihood, need residential care. Well, the population has grown by 10 percent. We have this potential growth of 10 percent in demand and a 3½ percent growth in support. We know that it’s only going to get more diffi cult as time goes on. In fact, the seniors advocate ran the specifi c num- bers to see if this growth in population is being matched by a growth in demand for residential-care beds.

What she learned is that there has been a 6.8 increase in seniors admitted to residential care from 2013-14 to 2014-15. So we know that we currently don’t have enough residential- care beds for those seniors needing 24-hour access to care. I can appreciate that the changes being proposed here in this bill are intended to help alleviate some of those pressures. Y ou see, under the current legislation, if you needed more than two services, then you needed to go into residential care. I don’t think that’s good. I don’t think people should go into residential care before they absolutely need it.

But there’s certainly going to be this bulge now that we’re going to see around assisted living, because people can stay in assisted living longer. [1610] A few weeks ago, the seniors advocate released an on- line directory of the 292 publicly funded care facilities in the province. Th e directory is a comprehensive list with details that note the size of the facility, number of licensing complaints, kinds and amounts of care services provided and other details that families would want to know about when putting their loved one into a residen- tial care facility.

Now, the directory also lists the number of funded hours the care facility gets from this government. Most people would recognize that not all residents are going to need the exact same level of care, but we recognize that our care facilities are really home to our most vul- nerable seniors. As a result, this government established a minimum standard of care hours so that there is some assurance of a minimum standard of care.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 14, 2016 12253 Th at’s a good thing, because then we can rest assured that we know there’s this formula in place to ensure that there are enough hands on deck to support seniors. Government has set a rate of 3.36 hours per resident, per day to ensure that there are enough hands to do the work of caring for our seniors. We know that it’s not just hands that care for our sen- iors; it’s hearts as well. We’ve all seen the care providers in residential care centres who have the patience of Job, who sit and take the time, when they can, to comfort some- one who’s in distress, to make sure they are comfor

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160414pm-Hansard-v37n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160414pm Hansard v37n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9ca567c363295a9b2fa23b80ea5cac65819f40d9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).