2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 25, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Statements

101 st anniversary of Armenian genocide

Hon. S. Anton

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Achievements of Nanaimo students at Monterey Jazz Festival

L. Krog

Introductions by Members

Statements

Participation in run events by MLAs and Legislature staff

Hon. T. Lake

Introductions by Members

Tributes

100 Mile House Wranglers

D. Barnett

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M220 — Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016

M. Karagianis

Bill M221— Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016

A. Weaver

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Friendship trail project between Mount Currie and Pemberton

J. Sturdy

Armenian genocide

A. Dix

Dirty Laundry anti-racism campaign in Williams Lake

D. Barnett

Canadian Motion Picture Park in Burnaby

R. Chouhan

Meningitis awareness and immunization program

L. Reimer

50 th anniversary of Carihi Secondary School

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Wait times for surgeries

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Emergency services in Oliver

J. Rice

Hon. T. Lake

Access to health data for study on acne medication use by women

A. Dix

Hon. T. Lake

C. James

Workers day of mourning legislation

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Western Forest Products logging contract dispute in Port Alberni area

H. Bains

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2015

Petitions

N. Macdonald

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. R. Coleman

B. Ralston

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. T. Lake

S. Robinson

V. Huntington

K. Corrigan

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

M. Mark

M. Karagianis

J. Wickens

J. Rice

[ Page 12303 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

101 st ANNIVERSARY OF

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Hon. S. Anton: We are honoured to be joined here today by many leaders of the Armenian community and the Armenian National Committee of Canada to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

Those joining us today are Jack Deragopian, Steve Agopian, Varoujan Basmadjian, from the Armenian National Committee of Canada; and Armenian community members Narine Grigoryan, Aram Khajeek, Ara Balabanian, Hratch Baghdassarian, Krikor Kusbekian; and, also, the author Aram Adjemian, who has written a really fascinating book describing the Canadian response to the Armenian genocide from historical records, which is quite an impressive response that happened at the time.

[1335]

This anniversary is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the tragic history of the Armenian genocide and also to recognize and give thanks for the immense value that Armenian people continue to bring to British Columbia and to the world. Thousands of Armenians across Canada took the time yesterday to gather and pay respects to the victims of the genocide, including at the Armenian genocide memorial at Mountain View Cemetery in Vancouver.

I think, Madame Speaker, that you were there, as was the MLA from Kingsway.

Remembering the genocide helps us to learn, from the mistakes of the past, to shape a better future for all of mankind and to ensure that the memory of those who died lives on forever. I want to acknowledge and thank those who have come to Victoria today for their leadership, for their work and for helping all of us to remember that tragic time.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, you, as member for Richmond East and as Speaker, and I joined with the Armenian community yesterday to recognize this 101st anniversary of the beginning of what’s known as the Armenian genocide. It’s wonderful to reflect on the fact that ten years ago today in this House, in 2006, we passed a motion unanimously recognizing the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity — members of all sides of the House. There were outstanding speeches and presentations that day from members of the Liberal Party and the NDP.

I join the Minister of Justice in welcoming members of the Armenian community and note, as well, that there are many members of the Ethiopian community joining us today. It speaks to Canada.

I want to recognize Gabe Koregian, who was with us yesterday at the Armenian-Canadian commemoration but is, in fact, Armenian-Ethiopian-Canadian. In fact, I think he’s the leader of the Armenian-Ethiopian-Canadian community. He’s joining us here in the House.

I’ll ask all members of the House to make all our guests welcome.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House today Sheryl Lindquist, who is the principal of trades and transition for the Kamloops board of education. Sheryl was here today to celebrate the second anniversary of the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint and the increased investment for pre-apprenticeship programs. Sheryl really is a great proponent of giving kids the skills they need to succeed.

She’s a former grad of NorKam high school in Kamloops in my constituency. Then she went on to become the principal of that school and was there when we, with further investment, made it a centre for trades and technology excellence. Would the House please welcome Sheryl Lindquist to the House today.

S. Simpson: I’m really pleased to welcome here 19 representatives from the B.C. Federation of Labour, the health and safety representatives who are with us here today. I know they’re meeting with members on both sides to talk about critical issues around health and safety in the workplace and how we advance on some of the issues before us.

I know that they’re here, and they’re talking to us about asbestos removal and how to do that in a more responsible and effective and safe way, about workplace violence and about recognition of the Day of Mourning, which is coming up this Thursday, on April 28.

These workers, these activists and representatives, play a critical role in helping to make our workplaces safer across British Columbia, whether they’re union or non-union workplaces. I hope that all members of the House will join in welcoming the B.C. Federation of Labour delegation here talking to us about those issues.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to introduce a number of students that are in the gallery today. They are very capable and skilled. They competed recently in the Skills B.C. Competitions, the provincial competition. They were here today to help us celebrate our second anniversary of the skills-for-jobs blueprint.

I’m very pleased to introduce Mark Francis, who won a gold medal — all of these are in post-secondary auto-

[ Page 12304 ]

mation and control electronics — Mitchell De Sousa, who won silver; Krystian Maron, who won bronze. Post-secondary electrical wiring, silver, is Roland Olsen. Their instructor is Don Zaklan, and they’re all from BCIT.

Joining them is Patti Falconbridge from Knappett Projects, who was recognized as being an exceptional employer sponsor of apprentices today.

I hope we would make all of these very special guests welcome here in the precinct today.

[1340]

I would also like to join with the member opposite in welcoming members of the B.C. Federation of Labour occupational health and safety group today. We had a very constructive and, I think, positive meeting today, where some important recommendations were brought forward. They were done in a thoughtful and careful way. I look forward to continuing dialogue about those recommendations.

V. Huntington: I am pleased to introduce two distinguished members of the Delta Amateur Radio Society who are in the House with us today. Mr. Doug Barry is president of the society, and Mr. Chris Scholefield is a communication technology consultant and former instructor of law and ethics in information technology at BCIT. Both gentlemen have been involved in amateur radio for decades.

B.C.’s amateur radio operators, all of whom are federally licensed, are highly skilled volunteers who provide invaluable services to our province and communities, especially in times of emergency. I’d also like to thank the Minister for Emergency Preparedness and the Solicitor General for meeting with us today to discuss significant issues facing the amateur radio community. It was much appreciated by Radio Amateurs of Canada. Would the members please make Doug and Chris very welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the House today two members of MeningitisBC: Ms. Patricia Wall, who has been coordinating vaccines, and Janet Munro. Janet lost her son Bradley many years ago to meningitis, and she has turned her tragedy and become a very passionate advocate for children and students with respect to the issue of meningitis. She’s here today to listen to my two-minute speech. Would the House please make Patricia and Janet very welcome.

Tributes

ACHIEVEMENTS OF NANAIMO

STUDENTS AT MONTEREY JAZZ FESTIVAL

L. Krog: As many of the members know, Nanaimo has produced some outstanding musicians in its time — Diana Krall and Ingrid Jensen, just to name a couple. Well, hon. Speaker, you can add two more names: Kenton Dick and Ethan Olynyk.

At the Monterey Next Generation Jazz Festival in Monterey, California, which showcases mostly American students — 1,300 students — these two young men won the first place in the high school combo competition. Each also won the outstanding soloist award. Once again, Nanaimo is sending forth into the world two incredibly talented musicians, all under the able direction of Carmella Luvisotto, an outstanding music teacher, a second-generation Nanaimo music teacher.

I’d ask the House to give a round of applause to two outstanding young Canadians who demonstrate that Nanaimo, unlike what Frank Ney once said — that Nanaimo preferred corn over culture any time — prefers culture over corn every time.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: Today I had the opportunity to meet with Ted Armstrong. Ted Armstrong is a member of the Cariboo regional district and has served continuously for the past 38 years. I want to thank Ted for his leadership and his friendship, and I would kindly ask: would the House please make him welcome.

J. Wickens: I’d like to take a quick moment today to say a very happy 47th birthday to my husband, Brian, who is at home watching us on TV. You know your life has changed considerably when you spend your day off watching your wife on the television. To my hard-working milkman of a husband, happy 47th birthday.

Statements

PARTICIPATION IN RUN EVENTS

BY MLAs AND LEGISLATURE STAFF

Hon. T. Lake: Spring is when many British Columbians take

part in various runs across the province — in fact, across North America. We had a number of MLAs competing in the Vancouver Sun Run, including the Minister of Justice. We had a number of people competing in the TC 10K — including the Minister of Social Development, who kicked everyone’s butt — and at Boogie the Bridge in Kamloops yesterday, the Minister of Transportation barely eked out the Minister of Health over 10K.

Our own House Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, about ten days ago, ran the Boston Marathon, which, of course, is the ultimate. We want to say congratulations to Kate for doing such a great job.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I have four guests joining us in the precincts today. Joining us is Leslie Chapman, her son Cedar

[ Page 12305 ]

and her daughter April from the Comox Valley. They are also joined by Leslie’s mom, Dorothy, who is a resident of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1345]

J. Shin: If you ever need your dose of open arms and embrace, look no further because they are here. Every time I visit my friends of Ethiopian heritage, it’s a table-thumping, standing ovation that they greet me and my colleagues with every time. I’m thrilled for the opportunity to reciprocate today.

Ethiopian Canadians in B.C. have a rich history. They started to arrive as early as the 1940s, and today they are over 10,000 strong and proud. Many of them are second and third generation, contributing to our society not just in a wide range of professions and businesses but also with their generosity and commitment to social justice and well-being. Our local Ethiopian Canadian community is united and strong, having celebrated the 30th anniversary of the association just last year.

This is their second visit to the Legislative Assembly to earn the support of the House for their Ethiopian House project. ECA recently passed a special resolution at their AGM to form the Ethiopian House society with a mandate to realize the initiative under the leadership of President Bereket Kebede.

Our 49 guests, who are filling the gallery on either side today, are joining us from 21 different constituencies in the greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions. They are very excited to see their MLAs in action today, but they’re also very hopeful for our support to make their Ethiopian House a reality. Would all the members please join me in giving our special guests our very best Ethiopian welcome.

Tributes

100 MILE HOUSE WRANGLERS

D. Barnett: Well, they won the KIJHL, they won the Cyclone Taylor Cup, and they went to Regina and won the Western Canadian Junior B hockey cup, the Keystone Cup. The 100 Mile House Wranglers did it all. I’d like the House to congratulate them.

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: I want to join my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed and other members of the House in welcoming the large group of Canadians who trace their origins to Ethiopia. While we welcome them here, many are thinking back to their homeland, which is facing catastrophic drought and putting the lives of 15 million at risk.

The Ethiopian-Canadian association is raising awareness of this tremendous blight and drought in Ethiopia. This Saturday and May 14, in Burnaby, there will be the beginning of a community outreach to raise funds to support drought relief in Ethiopia. I’d urge members to support that as well.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M220 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEAVE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016.

M. Karagianis: I am pleased to move that a bill intituled Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: Victims of domestic violence, more than 70 percent of whom are women, who flee their homes can face further victimization by losing their jobs when they are unable to make it to work because of their abuse. The lack of job security also causes some women to stay in dangerous situations because they can’t leave their abuser without jeopardizing their livelihood.

This bill gives victims of domestic violence job security. It removes a barrier to them seeking safety by guaranteeing that they will have a job to return to, if they need to, and if they need to take leave. Leave can be crucial to allow victims to access support services or find a safe place to live.

Other provinces already have or are in the middle of considering similar legislation that supports the safety and security of victims of domestic violence. I ask all members to please support this bill and support victims of domestic violence fleeing abuse. No woman should have to be in a position where she faces further abuse or threats to her life simply because she cannot get the day off from work in order to move herself and her family to safety.

I move that this bill be placed on the order papers of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M220, Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M221— RIDESHARE

ENABLING ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016.

[ Page 12306 ]

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1350]

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016. Ride-sharing is a key component of the new and emerging creative economy in British Columbia. While numerous jurisdictions around the world have passed legislation to allow for the introduction of ride-share technology in their markets, British Columbia is quickly falling behind. In fact, Vancouver is now the largest city in North America without an operating ride-share company such as Lyft or Uber.

Legislation is needed to provide provincial standards that must be followed for any ride-sharing program to exist in our province. The Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, details the process by which a transport network company can operate in British Columbia.

It builds upon best practices in North America to outline the required driver and vehicle records to be provided by ride-share drivers. It further details the required ride-share driver background check and ride-share vehicle inspection and insurance requirements.

In January of this year, 22 CEOs and founders of key B.C.-based tech companies signed and released an open letter. The letter stated: “We are compelled to express our concern regarding the provincial government’s long-standing inaction on ride-sharing regulation in B.C. and how we now find ourselves falling behind the rest of the world.” This bill is aimed at ensuring that British Columbians remain at the forefront of innovation in the technology sector.

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

Bill M221, Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FRIENDSHIP TRAIL PROJECT BETWEEN

MOUNT CURRIE AND PEMBERTON

J. Sturdy: Trails are a vital part of connecting people and communities across British Columbia, and West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is no exception. Over the coming years, we look forward to seeing the completion of the friendship trail, which links the village of Pemberton with the community of Mount Currie along a seven-kilometre, non-motorized, multi-use trail. The project is a joint effort by the village of Pemberton, Squamish-Lillooet regional district and the Lil’wat Nation.

It was originally conceived by the Winds of Change group, a collaborative public policy initiative that identified the significant public safety issue of both adults and children travelling Highway 99, along its narrow shoulders with its big ditches. The need for a safe alternative was clear — an alternative that would encourage commuting by bike and foot and that would be a safe and friendly means to physically, socially and economically connect the nearly 6,000 residents in the SLRD, the village and the nation.

We knew this trail would connect the industrial park and the outstanding Pemberton mountain-biking terrain. But little did we know at the time that this valley trail will also connect the rest of the community, a new recreation facility site and the Pemberton festival grounds, with this year’s projected 140,000 visitors.

The friendship trail is also an important extension to the Sea to Sky Trail, which, when complete, will be a 180-kilometre, multi-use trail linking Howe Sound with D’Arcy and Anderson Lake. Partial funding for the friendship trail project is being provided through the use of gas tax funds, while Innergex Renewable Energy will also donate half a million dollars to the project and has provided significant technical support, engineering advice and assistance with sourcing potential contractors.

An issue and a critical piece of the friendship trail will be the construction of a multi-use bridge over the Lillooet River. The goal of the community is to have this bridge

section completed later this year. It’s a wonderful community-building project. I am very, very pleased to see it underway.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

A. Dix: On April 24, 1915, some 250 Armenian community leaders and intellectuals in Istanbul were rounded up, arrested and subsequently murdered. In the eight years that followed, some 1.5 million Armenians were killed because of who they were, the result of Ottoman state policies of deportation, torture, massacre and murder. This was the Armenian genocide.

Ten years ago, in April 2006, members on all sides in the B.C. Legislature came together to support a motion that recognized the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity. Because of worldwide education efforts, the recognition of the genocide has expanded exponentially after generations of organized denial.

Three events in the past year allow us, I think, to reflect on the importance of the Armenian genocide to the present.

[1355]

In the past year, one of the great multicultural centres of culture in the world, and of Armenian culture, in Aleppo

[ Page 12307 ]

in Syria, has been destroyed by war. The majority of Armenians in Syria — and, of course, many, many others — have been forced to leave Syria by repressive and racist policies. We as people have an obligation to learn the lessons of history and support human rights in the present.

Second, after the genocide, the surviving Armenian people were promised a state by the world at the Treaty of Sèvres, and they were betrayed. People have a right to self-determination, and the current violence against people in Nagorno-Karabakh in this context is an unacceptable conflict in the present day.

Finally, as noted in Mr. Adjemian’s book, Canada’s first major international humanitarian effort involved the arrival of Armenian refugees after the genocide. They were known as the Georgetown Boys, and it occurred in 1923.

In your constituency, hon. Speaker, at St. Gregory’s Church in Richmond, they have welcomed this year 70 refugees already, with two dozen more to follow — 94 refugees, one church. This demonstrates, beyond anything else, the ongoing commitment of the Armenian community in Canada to a better and just world.

DIRTY LAUNDRY ANTI-RACISM

CAMPAIGN IN WILLIAMS LAKE

D. Barnett: B.C.’s multiculturalism policy states that violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of racial identity have no place in our society. The province’s anti-racism program empowers communities and organizations to maintain partnerships and develop projects to promote multiculturalism, address racism and build inclusive communities.

I am very proud to tell the House about people and organizations in Williams Lake that are taking aim at racism. Recently the Canadian Mental Health Association, Cariboo-Chilcotin branch, began brainstorming on ideas for an anti-racism campaign. They settled on the name Dirty Laundry because they agreed everyone has dirty laundry that needs washing every now and then.

The Dirty Laundry campaign came about after the branch received a grant for $10,000 from our government to go toward anti-racism initiatives. The campaign is educating and engaging the people of Williams Lake in learning about the causes of racism and what everyone can do to make their community a more accepting, tolerant and happy place.

The Dirty Laundry campaign already has the support of school district 27, Thompson Rivers University, Cariboo regional district, the city of Williams Lake, the Cariboo Friendship Society and many other community organizations and individuals.

Anti-racism posters and displays will be set up at public and private buildings around Williams Lake, and T-shirts — laundry — will carry words and slogans to highlight various aspects of racism and encourage conversation. In the words of coordinator Margaret-Anne Enders, this is an opportunity to learn and become more aware and sensitive to other people and their cultures.

I’m also very proud that the Williams Lake Tribune newspaper has taken up the anti-racism cause and will publish a feature story about combatting racism every two weeks. It’s up to all of us to take a unified, community approach to tackle racism and hate crime, just as Williams Lake is doing right now.

CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE PARK

IN BURNABY

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to speak about a very successful business in Burnaby, the Canadian Motion Picture Park. It is the largest film and TV production complex in Canada, a 400,000-square-foot, purpose-built complex that has 15 stages, ranging from 5,500 to 40,000 square foot of area. It has all the state-of-the-art facilities for mega-film productions and to accommodate TV show productions on site.

Only a few weeks ago, the CMPP added one more 48,000-square-foot, brand-new studio to its credits. It was not even officially opened before it was leased by Sony Pictures for one of its major productions employing over 300 people.

The CMPP has a very impressive list of films produced in Burnaby, such as Godzilla, Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol, Tron, Eragon and Watchmen , just to name a few.

In the last few years, over 18 feature films and five television series have been produced, and many TV commercials. Currently all CMPP studios are booked by Hollywood, employing hundreds of skilled employees.

[1400]

My favourite part of the facility is the 18-acre backlot, known as the Streets of America. Just recently, CMPP invested another $1.5 million to upgrade it. It’s worth watching how quickly the look of the street can be changed to create a different scene.

Since 2001, the CMPP has brought over many big-budget films and TV productions to Burnaby, providing well-paying union jobs to hundreds and hundreds of people. Congratulations to president Alec Fatalevich and his entire administrative team for the new studio, and thank you to CMPP for being a good and responsible corporate citizen of Burnaby.

MENINGITIS AWARENESS AND

IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

L. Reimer: Meningitis is an acute inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and the spinal cord. Meningococcal disease is caused by bacteria that spreads from one person to another by coughing, sneezing or close face-to-face contact.

Infections are serious and can be life-threatening. Permanent complications of infection include brain damage and

[ Page 12308 ]

deafness. For every 100 children who get sick, up to 15 will die. Symptoms include headache, fever and stiff neck. Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to bright light, confusion and a purplish skin rash.

There are families in B.C. communities such as that of Janet Munro, who is with us today and who lost her son Bradley to this terrible disease. There are also the Chan and the Campbell families in my community, who both tragically lost young men with tremendous potential in the prime of their lives. Leo Chan and Brodie Campbell were both only children to their parents. Yesterday marked nine years since Brodie passed. Both had bright futures ahead of them.

I would therefore like to thank the Minister of Health for his announcement this morning that will boost protection for all youth in British Columbia. Since 2003 the meningococcal C vaccine has been part of B.C.’s routine immunization program. It protects against meningococcal bacteria, type C, and will continue to be given to infants. Previously, a booster dose of the men-C vaccine was provided to all children in grade 6.

Following the minister’s announcement this morning, starting in September 2016, that booster will be replaced with a quadrivalent vaccine which protects against A, Y and W alongside the C and is administered in grade 9. Expanding the program to include this vaccine means that children will now have protection against three additional types of meningococcal disease.

With both National Immunization Awareness Week and World Meningitis Day upon us, this is a good time for parents to make sure that their children are up to date on the meningitis vaccine and all their shots. Let’s get educated on this subject.

50 th ANNIVERSARY OF

CARIHI SECONDARY SCHOOL

C. Trevena: In 1966, Campbell River got a brand-new high school. Then-principal John Young led students to the new buildings on Dogwood, and a new era began — an era of innovation in education, of giving students the responsibility of embracing ideas and engaging people.

Carihi attracted many excited teachers eager to try new approaches to learning. That philosophy of respect and acceptance has underpinned the work of the whole school district right through till today.

Carihi has been groundbreaking in its indigenous teaching culture-language approach with its First Nations studies program. It’s fair to say that Carihi has led the province in this. That was acknowledged at the 50th anniversary celebration, when Curtis Wilson and fellow Carihi grads William and Junior Henderson, along with Jesse Shay and George Lewis from the Wei Wai Kai First Nation, welcomed people with two celebratory songs. As Curtis said, 50 years ago, First Nations would not have been part of the evening at all.

About 400 students, teachers, principal and staff alumni toured the buildings, checked out the historical displays, enjoyed comparing class pictures and shared stories. Then, with the with the set of the Carihi production of Cinderella as a backdrop, they participated in a more formal event in the school gym, which wasn’t part of the original construction.

Present students played a

part in the program with the Carihi choir, under the baton of Beth Kingston. Gio Bellosillo performed a violin solo, and alumnus Rory Shade sang. Of course, sporting glories past and present were highlighted by coach John Jepson, and, a little belatedly, the 1966 male athlete of the year, a rugby player, was recognized.

It’s a school where the arts are also taught and celebrated. A grad of about a decade ago, actor Malcolm Masters, was the keynote speecher, and more recent grad Michael Stevantoni sent a video message from L.A., where he’s working on his first feature movie.

It’s a school which made its mark in the community and across the province in the last 50 years. Its students and approach to education will continue to make a mark for our country for many years to come.

[1405]

Oral Questions

WAIT TIMES FOR SURGERIES

J. Darcy: After waiting for a knee replacement for close to three years, Denise Tessier from Quesnel is in extreme pain. This extreme pain led her today to take the extreme step of staging a protest over unacceptably long surgical wait times at the University Hospital of Northern B.C. in Prince George.

We all know that the B.C. Liberals love to do photo ops at ribbon cuttings, but they don’t seem to care nearly so much about providing the proper operating funds in our hospitals to provide the care that people like Denise need. Under this government’s mismanagement of the health care system, close to 40 percent of knee replacements are not being performed within the 26 weeks of Northern Health’s own benchmarks.

Why is Denise, and so many other people like her, forced to wait almost three years in excruciating pain to get the surgery that she needs?

Hon. T. Lake: Everyone in this House would have sympathy for anyone waiting for any kind of treatment when they’re in pain. Let me just talk about what we have done in terms of surgery over the last 14 years.

While the population has increased about 14 percent, the number of knee replacements we have done has increased 153 percent; the number of hip replacements, 104 percent; the number of cataract surgeries, 57 percent. There were over 550,000 surgeries performed in the province of British Columbia last year.

[ Page 12309 ]

Does that mean that we’ve got all of those wait-list issues solved? No, we haven’t. We put $10 million into an initiative last fall. In that initiative, we’ve seen 6,000 extra surgeries performed around the province of British Columbia, particularly addressing those who’ve been on the wait-list the longest. Is there more to do? Of course, and we’re working hard to make sure that we can ensure that people get the surgery they need within a reasonable time period.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: The minister’s words of sympathy and his reciting of statistics over and over again are not what Denise Tessier needs. She needs action, and she needs it now.

So does Leo. Leo is a five-year-old boy from New Westminster who’s been having difficulty hearing since last June. He has a really hard time pronouncing pretty simple words. After Leo had his hearing tested, his parents were told that he had fluid in his ear and that when they speak to him in a normal voice, he hears it in a whisper.

They are very worried about his ability to learn when he starts kindergarten next fall. Leo needs a very simple procedure to place small tubes in his ear canals, but he’s already been waiting eight months for day surgery at Surrey Memorial Hospital, with no end in sight. My question is to the Minister of Health. Why does Leo have to wait eight months for a simple procedure just so that he can begin to hear?

Hon. T. Lake: Physicians certainly have the opportunity to place someone further up a list if they feel that it is in the interest of the patients. We always encourage patients to go back to their physicians and discuss those kinds of issues.

The reality is that we’re doing more surgeries than ever before. We have an aging population, which puts pressure on the system. There’s no question about that. Provinces — like Quebec, like the Maritimes — with similar demographics have the same challenges. That doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to look for ways of improving the system.

Some of the challenges we that we face that we are addressing. The challenge with OR operating nurses and making sure we have more nurses trained — we have an agreement with the B.C. Nurses Union to train more operating nurses. One of the challenges has been the supply of anaesthetists in some parts of the province. We are working, in each health authority, to ensure that that’s the case. And we are working on a provincial surgical strategy to make sure that people are getting more timely surgeries.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a final supplemental.

J. Darcy: The Health Minister is always quick to say: “Go back to the doctor. They should push harder. That’s the problem.” The reality is that in both of these cases, the doctors can’t get enough OR time in the hospitals. That’s the minister’s responsibility, not individual doctors.

Hon. Speaker, 69-year-old Denise from Quesnel can’t get knee surgery. She’s needed it for almost three years. Little Leo from New Westminster can’t get a very simple tube put in his ear, and he’s been waiting eight months. The common denominator is a Liberal government that doesn’t care enough to make sure that British Columbians aren’t forced to wait months and sometimes years to get medically necessary surgery. Denise, who’s been waiting almost three years for her knee surgery, said: “My life right now is hell.”

Why are Denise and Leo and thousands of other British Columbians forced to wait so long to get the health care that they need and that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: I am really growing weary of people on the other side of the House here pretending that they’re the only ones who care about the people of this province. If they cared about the people of this province…. If the answer to every problem is more money, as they seem to think, then maybe they’d get out of the way and allow people to develop the economy of this province so that we could put more money into more services.

The only answer from the NDP is to pour more money into every problem. Yet they stand in the way of the government’s ability to raise revenues as we see the economy of British Columbia grow.

We are looking after people in British Columbia. We have a great health care system, the best outcomes in all of Canada, and we will continue to provide that to the people of B.C.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, please know the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

EMERGENCY SERVICES IN OLIVER

J. Rice: There is a health care crisis in rural B.C., and it involves not just unacceptable wait times for surgical treatments. The depth of the crisis is so severe that they’re actually closing down emergency rooms in hospitals. Just this weekend, in Oliver, the ER at South Okanagan Hospital was closed both Saturday night and Sunday night due to the doctor shortage.

What is the Minister of Health going to do to fix the ER closure for the people of Oliver?

[ Page 12310 ]

Hon. T. Lake: This is always rich, coming from the NDP that, in the ’90s, decided the way to manage health care was to restrict the number of doctors practising.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Excuse me, Members.

Surrey-Whalley, we’re proceeding when everyone is quiet.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: We have over double the number of physician-training opportunities in the province of British Columbia. We have a multiple of ten times the number of IMG, international medical graduate, resident spaces in the province of British Columbia. We have practice-ready assessments for physicians that have been practising in other countries to welcome them into British Columbia. If the NDP government in the ’90s had done that, we’d have 1,000 more doctors in the province of British Columbia today.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: In January, the people of Oliver were warned that there’d be no doctor available to assess them at their local emergency room after midnight. Then, this weekend, their ER was actually closed for two nights running. In Boundary-Similkameen, it’s getting harder to go to school, and it’s dangerous to get sick. We’ve seen this government’s lack of response to the education crisis in Osoyoos.

What is the Health Minister going to do to fix the ER problem in Oliver?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: I know the hospital in Oliver is an amazing hospital. I’ve been there and visited with them, and they do amazing work. But the challenge for many rural areas — not just in British Columbia, all over North America — is the attraction of physicians and other health professionals.

We have a suite of programs available in the province of British Columbia, and we have seen communities like Clearwater, like Princeton and like Quesnel, where we have eight more physicians this year than we did last year. We have more physicians per 100,000 people in the province of British Columbia than we ever have. However, the population is changing. The profession is changing. It is a challenge to meet all of the demands of that population.

We’re working very hard, and when we have issues like we do in Oliver, we work hard to solve them, and we’ll continue to solve those problems.

ACCESS TO HEALTH DATA FOR STUDY

ON ACNE MEDICATION USE BY WOMEN

A. Dix: A question to the Minister of Health about the ongoing impact of the Health firing scandal on health research in British Columbia and people’s lives. As the minister knows, women taking Accutane, widely used to treat cystic acne, must avoid pregnancy while taking it and for a significant period afterwards, since it can lead to birth defects and increases the rate of spontaneous and elective abortion.

Today the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a new study about this, which has found that women are not properly warned in B.C. and elsewhere about these risks. The study is significant and should have been published years ago.

Why was it not published years ago? Because the government delayed this story for more than two years, delayed this study by more than two years, blocking access to the researchers involved to needed B.C. data. The result is that critical information found in the study was delayed, and health was put at risk.

Will the minister recognize the consequence of the government’s action, today, and explain what he intends to do to make up for the damage done to people in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: We know that in the Ministry of Health, there was inappropriate use of data. We also know that the reaction that was taken — the results — in some cases was inappropriate. That is all before the Ombudsperson. We will wait for the Ombudsperson’s study and look forward to the results of his work.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: What we know is that the government knew the importance of the study and intentionally denied access to the data. We know that the consequences of this for women in British Columbia and in Canada were serious. What I’m asking the minister…. The study concluded….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The minister from UBC is actually heckling on this issue of women’s health. He’s actually heckling on this question.

It was the government that denied access to this in August and September of 2012.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: It’s the government that did it. They sent a letter denying that access. They made the decision to delay this

[ Page 12311 ]

study, and the consequences are what we know: a study that showed that adherence to proper use of Accutane is poor in British Columbia and requires action. So I’m asking the Minister of Health today to acknowledge the failure of the Ministry of Health in this matter and to say what he plans to do to address this problem.

Hon. T. Lake: We know that we take the people’s medical health information, the confidentiality of that information, very seriously. When there was a concern about a breach in terms of the use of that data, we worked with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to review the situation. That resulted in some access delays; there’s no question.

[1420]

We took the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner, implemented all of those to be able to restore access to information. We did what we needed to do to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of medical health information in the province of British Columbia.

C. James: The conclusion of this research is critical. It says that the province is not doing a good job explaining to women, particularly young women, that becoming pregnant while taking Accutane poses a significant risk of birth defects. This is the very reason why we do health research: so we can warn people about risks. By denying health researchers access to this critical data, the government stalled off this research, to make it available to doctors, for two years. Will the minister please explain why he let that happen?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I know that the members opposite have a script, and they can’t get off of it, even when they hear the answer to the question previously. But the reality is I just explained….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: As I explained to the previous member, there was a concern about breach of confidential medical information.

Now, the members opposite, I suppose, would think that we should not be concerned about that. We were concerned about that. There were 20 information-sharing agreements with the researchers at a number of organizations that had to be suspended while an investigation was conducted, while we followed the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to make sure we had better security of our data.

That is why there was a delay in access to research, not a nefarious attempt to somehow hurt women of the province of British Columbia. That is disingenuous, and the members opposite know it. They are the champions of fearmongering. The reality is we did what we needed to do to protect confidential medical information.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I would think the Health Minister knows that with this government’s record on the health care firings, there’s good reason to be fearful for what this government is doing — good reason to be fearful. We know the impact that the health firings had on the lives of the government’s own health researchers: reputations trashed, careers ended and a life lost. But the government made it worse.

We only need to look at media coverage recently on the Zika virus to understand the need for public education and how critical it is. What possible reason could the minister have had for allowing this important public health research to be shelved for over two years?

Hon. T. Lake: Once again, to the members opposite, security of confidential patient information is extremely important to the Ministry of Health. There was an unfortunate breach of that confidentiality. We had to suspend access for a period of time. That work was done to follow the recommendations of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Changes were made, and that access was reopened.

I’m not sure what else the members would have us do in the face of a data breach. I think we took the appropriate steps to secure that information to make sure that we protected people’s confidential health information.

WORKERS DAY OF MOURNING LEGISLATION

S. Simpson: April 28 is the Day of Mourning in British Columbia and across Canada. It’s the day that we recognize that too many workers have lost their lives on the job. So 187 B.C. workers never got to go home at the end of their shifts last year.

Across our province, we recognize and honour those workers. I know that the minister has participated in those ceremonies, but it is time to do more. Will the minister commit to recognizing the Day of Mourning formally in legislation, including ordering that flags be flown at half-mast on public buildings in B.C. on that day?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, every person in this Legislature realizes that one life lost in the workplace is one life too many. We have spent a great deal of time and effort working with WorkSafe on a number of areas to ensure that workplaces in this province are safer.

I met earlier, as I said in the introduction session, with the B.C. Federation of Labour. It is a recommendation that they have made. I committed to going and looking

[ Page 12312 ]

at how that is possible to do. I can tell the member opposite that since we met earlier this morning with the B.C. Federation of Labour, I have asked that…. I am in the process of sending a memo out to public institutions, as is the normal practice, concerning the lowering of the flag to see what we can do in the interim to ensure that we encourage buildings to display that respect.

Of course, I’m willing to look at the recommendation. We only met earlier this morning. In the meantime, I want to send an important reminder for organizations to consider lowering their flag this Thursday.

S. Simpson: We know that many individual jurisdictions choose to acknowledge workers who have died on the job. They lower their flags. We did that here at the Legislature. What’s disappointing is that the government not commit to formalize this recognition for workers who will never go home again. Unlike Red Tape Reduction Day, which this minister and the B.C. Liberals were very enthusiastic to legislate…. Why is it that there is not equal recognition and enthusiasm to recognize the Day of Mourning? This is an inexplicable position and reflects badly misplaced priorities.

On April 28, I will introduce the workers day of mourning recognition act that would acknowledge this and bring this into force. I’m asking the minister to reconsider her reluctance to act now and wish that she would join in supporting passage….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

S. Simpson: I’m asking the minister to join in supporting passage of what is a very non-partisan piece of legislation during this session. Will the minister do that?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it’s moments like this where one feels the most disappointment about issues like this — to suggest it’s non-partisan and then to stand in the House and be critical of an answer that I just provided to the member opposite.

At nine o’clock this morning, I met with the B.C. Federation of Labour and accepted the recommendations and agreed with them that I would go and look at the process in order to make a legislative change.

To the member opposite: you can shake your head all you like.

We’re talking about worker safety. In the meantime, regularly, memos are sent out a week in advance of very important days in British Columbia, where a reminder about lowering the flag takes place.

In addition to the one that went out a week ago, I asked today that a message go from me to remind people about the importance of doing just that. There is no hesitation, there is no reluctance, and I can assure you I don’t intend for the issue of worker safety to be a partisan one in this House or outside.

WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS

LOGGING CONTRACT DISPUTE

IN PORT ALBERNI AREA

H. Bains: At Franklin River, near Port Alberni, there’s a David-versus-Goliath story playing out. Forestry giant Western Forest Products is demanding concessions of an independent logging contractor that the contractor can’t possibly afford. As a result, 160 loggers have been put out of work.

Instead of standing up for the workers and the contractor, this government, true to form, actually rewrote the rules in favour of Western Forest Products, allowing Western Forest Products to circumvent the “use it or lose it” policy, while resetting the cut control period.

[1430]

My question to the minister is this: why did you change the rules for Western Forest Products and let 160 people be thrown out of work?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is an issue of a dispute between a primary contractor and the company. They are working to resolve the dispute. That’s the appropriate place for that to take place, under the regulations. We have also talked to the Truck Loggers Association, Interior loggers and northern loggers association about a review of the contractor rate situation — a broad review of that. They understand that, they know that, and they support that process.

That work will get underway. The appropriate place for this to be resolved is between the primary contractor and the licensee, in this case. I know that work is underway to do that. We’re encouraged that that work is taking place. In the meantime, the Port Alberni mill is up and running fully, back with production in place from the previous slowdown. So I’m confident that this issue will get resolved where it should get resolved — between the primary contractor and the licensee.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: It would be a dispute between those two parties until this government decided to stick their nose in it. They are the ones who went and interfered in their dispute resolution by changing the rules. That’s what is at the heart of this dispute. They stood with Western Forest Products, allowed them to rewrite those rules and extend the cut control period. Now they are not to sit down and come to the table and end that dispute.

[ Page 12313 ]

It’s thanks to this government not only that there are 160 loggers out of work and contractors have been sidelined, but there are also 70,000 cubic metres of logs lying on the hillside rotting for up to two years now. That’s 70,000 cubic metres of logs that are supposed to create jobs in logging and wood manufacturing, sitting there rotting, thanks to this government.

My question, again, to the minister is this: why did you rewrite the rules in favour of Western Forest Products, which put 160 loggers out of work?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, this is a rate dispute between a primary contractor and a licensee over rates and lots of issues within that. That’s the appropriate place for that to be resolved. And, as I said, work is underway to resolve those. The member opposite is also wrong. This lumber is not rotting. I’m advised that it is available. It still can be used and still will be used when the dispute is resolved. I’m confident that it will be resolved, and that’s the appropriate place for that to take place.

B. Routley: There are 70,000 cubic metres of logs on a Western Forest Products site near Port Alberni that are lying on the ground rotting, despite what the minister says. The fact is the fate of this wood is tied up in a dispute between Western and the TLA logging.

To put the 70,000 cubic metres in perspective, there are between 35 and 40 cubic metres on a highway logging truck. So 70,000 cubic metres is a lot of jobs. Western Forest Products recently laid off 100 workers at their Port Alberni mill, which was operating at just half capacity. Western blamed this on log shortages.

To the Minister of Forests: why are you failing the communities of British Columbia? Why are you allowing 70,000 cubic metres of the public’s logs to rot when 160 loggers from Franklin River are out of work and 100 millworkers are laid off in Port Alberni?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I pointed out, wrong on two counts. Firstly, all workers are working at the mill. The Port Alberni mill is operating fully, as to plan. So all of those workers are working, and the production is there. Secondly, I’m advised the logs are not rotting. They will be available.

The issue is a rate dispute between a primary contractor and the licensee. That’s the appropriate place to have that worked out. In the meantime, we’ve also committed to work with the Truck Loggers Association, the Interior loggers association, the northern loggers association and the forest associations on reviewing the contractor rate issues generally to ensure that we have a competitive industry here in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the following report: the Labour Relations Board annual report for 2015.

Petitions

N. Macdonald: I rise to present a petition strongly urging the B.C. government to cover the cost of hearing aids for seniors. The petition is signed by 502 of my constituents.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — and, in this chamber, second reading of Bill 13.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time.

I am pleased to present amendments to the Safety Standards Act. These amendments strengthen safety oversight of liquefied natural gas and other oil and gas facilities. They are the result of work by the B.C. Safety Authority and the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission to prepare for LNG.

The Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for this industry under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Under the Safety Standards Act, the B.C. Safety Authority is responsible for technical equipment throughout the province, including in the oil and gas sector.

There are responsibilities that overlap as a result. These amendments improve the areas where this can create problems. Oversight by the B.C. Safety Authority is amended in two key areas. Pressure piping and refrigeration systems within the oil and gas sector will be overseen exclusively by the Oil and Gas Commission. This will eliminate overlap between the regulators and ensure that complex refrigeration associated with LNG will be governed by the best-suited regulations and agency.

The amendments also address safety oversight for elevators and ropeways, which may be present in large LNG facilities. The B.C. Safety Authority will oversee these, along with boilers, pressure vessels and electrical equipment. There’s no change to gas systems. They remain exclusively with the Oil and Gas Commission.

In addition to providing certainty for industry, these amendments maintain the Oil and Gas Commission as

[ Page 12314 ]

the primary regulator for oil and gas but also ensure that B.C. Safety Authority technical expertise is present with regards to this industry. It ensures all equipment is covered by the best legislation and standards by both agencies.

I’m pleased now to move second reading.

B. Ralston: As the minister has said, this is a shift of regulatory oversight of proposed LNG facilities — the liquefaction aspect of the LNG plants — from the jurisdiction of the Safety Standards Act to the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1440]

The minister has set out the two principal areas, pressure piping and refrigeration, and where the facility would have elevators and ropeways, those would be transferred as well. It would also leave the jurisdiction to regulate other refrigeration schemes, such as rinks, ice arenas and cold storage facilities, with the B.C. Safety Authority.

Now, what is clear about prospective LNG facilities is that much of the initial fabrication will be done offshore, barged to British Columbia and then, if there’s a go-ahead on any of these particular projects, would be assembled in British Columbia. So the first question that arises in a safety…. These are huge facilities and very complicated refrigeration systems, much more complicated than anything else that’s ever taken place in the province.

The first test for safety would be the commissioning phase — in other words, the phase that decides that the facility is suitable for operation, for safe operation. That will be complicated by the fact that the standards for fabrication will have to be carefully scrutinized, because a lot of the work will have been done not in British Columbia, under British Columbia’s standards, but under, presumably, the jurisdiction of the companies and their contractors in China, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, wherever the fabrication takes place. So the issue of safety is really paramount at the commissioning stage. In other words, will the facility be safe to operate?

While the Oil and Gas Commission is taking on these responsibilities, the question naturally arises: does the Oil and Gas Commission have the personnel, the capacity, the expertise and the experience to undertake these kinds of inspections and, particularly, the commissioning? That’s a question that I’ll explore with the minister in the committee stage of what is an admittedly very brief bill.

The other issue that arises is, clearly, the ongoing standard of safety maintenance — the regularity, the detail of the inspection — and how that will be carried out. One would expect, given that this would be new for British Columbia, that the Oil and Gas Commission would draw on its expertise — and its sister agencies, perhaps, in the United States or overseas — to train personnel, to gain the experience that’s necessary to operate these kinds of facilities and inspect them safely.

The literature, the safety literature, suggests that LNG facilities are generally safe, although in some cases and some of the operators…. Some of the standards that one would expect in a jurisdiction like British Columbia have not always been adhered to in jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. One, of course, would expect high and consistent safety standards here in British Columbia, and that’s something that those people who are to work in those plants, should they ever be built, would expect and want and that their families would want as well.

The issue becomes, I think, rather than a simple jurisdictional transfer to the Oil and Gas Commission, more an issue about the capacity of the Oil and Gas Commission to undertake that.

[1445]

Now, we will see. I expect I’ll be provided with the usual assurances. But these are important issues that really merit serious consideration and some assurance in the sense of detail of inspection plans, training plans and a commitment for a budget within the Oil and Gas Commission, out of its headquarters in Fort St. John, as to how that will be done.

Those are the questions that I think are important to pose when considering this particular bill. There will be a brief debate at the committee stage, although there are not many clauses in the bill, so it will be brief. Those are the details of questions that I will be posing on behalf of the official opposition when we consider this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite for Surrey-Whalley, I’m looking forward to those discussions. I will advise him that for the last couple of years, the Oil and Gas Commission has been spending the time to understand the pressure vessels and those sorts of things in and around oil and gas, particularly LNG, because they do it with gas plants now. They’ve done some international research with regards to that. I think we’ll cover that well in committee.

Having said that, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee stage for Bill 6, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016.

[1450]

[ Page 12315 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND

DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. T. Lake: I’m pleased to welcome a couple of my ministry staff to the committee stage of the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016. On my left is Mitch Moneo, and on my right is Brian Westgate. They are here to support me as we go through the different sections of this bill.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister and his staff. In general, I think the minister knows, from our discussions in second reading, that we’re very supportive of this bill and the amendments that are made to the act as a result. Just a few specific questions.

Section 2 gives the College of Pharmacists more discretion, as we have heard, over who is issued a licence. The former language used the words “registrar must issue” a licence. The new licence says “a direct owner may apply.” The former language, I understand, had codicils to prevent just anyone from getting a licence, but the “must issue” language appears to be more directive.

One of my questions on this: what avenues do direct owners have if they believe their application has been wrongly rejected?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is around the process. Essentially, the process will be that the registrar would, in many cases, approve the application, but if there are any questions that the registrar feels should be addressed, it can go to the application committee, which is created in these amendments, and the application committee would then make a decision. Should the applicant not be satisfied with that decision, there is an opportunity for a judicial review.

[1455]

J. Darcy: Also in this section, the new language only allows for “direct owners” to apply for licences. Why are there still references elsewhere in the legislation to indirect owners?

Hon. T. Lake: It is the direct owner that would be the essential holder of the licence for the site. The reference to indirect owners. These are people that may be part of the corporate ownership of the company and are named so that they can be subject to aspects such as criminal record checks — in other words, a fit and proper test to ensure that we know who is involved in owning a pharmacy.

That’s been one of the issues that we’ve had in the past with numbered companies not really understanding who was involved in the ownership of the pharmacy.

B. Ralston: Can the minister say whether beneficial ownership would be barred by these provisions?

The Chair: Member, could you please repeat your question?

B. Ralston: Can the minister say whether beneficial ownership — that is, ownership by means of a trust — would be barred? Typically, in a beneficial ownership — and I’m sure that the minister has legal advice available to him — there would be one person nominally on title as the legal owner, but the real control and ownership would be owned, through a trust mechanism, by someone else.

Does this legislative provision bar that kind of ownership? Since the purpose of the legislation is to bar ownership by people that the college does not wish to have ownership, surely that’s an important consideration.

Hon. T. Lake: The direct owner…. Let’s say we had a trust that wanted to purchase or to establish a pharmacy and apply for a licence. They would name an individual as the direct owner, the representative who would then hold the licence, but all the members of the trust would be considered indirect owners and, therefore, would be subject to the reach of the College of Pharmacists.

B. Ralston: Is that something that was specifically contemplated in the drafting or, if I might put it this way, an answer, in response to my question, somewhat improvised here?

I think it is an important question. That very, very small minority who have operated these kinds of pharmacies in the past that the minister, quite properly, seeks to regulate have shown a certain legal ingenuity in the way in which they operate.

I’m concerned that we’re creating a legislative scheme with the very best of intentions. It’s good red tape. It’s important red tape. Yet I wouldn’t want to see our legislative efforts here come to nothing and be frustrated by some arcane legal manoeuvre that takes place in a way that hasn’t been contemplated here by the legislative process.

Hon. T. Lake: I understand the member’s question and concern about leaving a gap, if you like, in the objectives of this legislation.

[ Page 12316 ]

If we look at the

definitions, a direct owner means “the owner of a pharmacy, other than an indirect owner.”

[1500]

Then, let’s see. Okay, what is an indirect owner? An indirect owner means “in respect of a corporation that is traded publicly….” A publicly traded corporation would be the officers and directors, and “in respect of a corporation that is not traded publicly, (

i) the officers, directors and shareholders of the corporation, and (ii) if a subsidiary corporation, the officers, directors and shareholders of the parent corporation.” The term “corporation” is defined in the

Interpretation Act very broadly, and I think that does capture the member’s concern.

The reference in the definition of “indirect owner” to a corporation takes on that meaning in the

Interpretation Act, and that refers to “an incorporated association, company, society, municipality or other incorporated body, where and however incorporated, and includes a corporation sole.”

J. Darcy: Also, still on this section, the former language made references to the physical location of the pharmacy, in

section 2. Is there no more requirement for physical location of the pharmacy, or is that dealt with by other means? Could the minister explain the thinking behind, the reason behind, the issue of location within the pharmacy? Also, does this bill in any way contemplate on-line pharmacies?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, the location within the building of the pharmacy is contemplated, but it has been moved. It appears in

section 8 of the amendments and under

section 21 of the act, so we’ll come to it in

section 8. It actually is subject to one of the amendments that were put forward.

In terms of on-line pharmacies, this bill does not deal with on-line pharmacies. On-line pharmacies in British Columbia essentially aren’t allowed to access PharmaNet, and all pharmacies in British Columbia have to access PharmaNet, so it virtually eliminates the use of on-line pharmacies.

J. Darcy: Can you have a licence without a physical location for a pharmacy?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is no.

[1505]

J. Darcy: Could you set up a pharmacy in B.C. and operate it from elsewhere?

Hon. T. Lake: Can someone from outside of British Columbia set up a pharmacy in B.C. and operate it? Yes. They would be subject to the college of pharmacy bylaws and to the legislation.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Darcy: I want to deal with the issue of Criminal Code convictions.

Section 3(

f) essentially bans anyone with a Criminal Code conviction from holding a pharmacy licence for six years after conviction. Does this apply to all Criminal Code convictions? For instance, if someone took

part in a protest and was convicted, would that mean that they were not eligible to have a pharmacy licence? And given the changing nature of our legal climate, federally, and perhaps provincially, in the not too distant future, someone who had been convicted, for instance, of a personal-use amount of marijuana…?

Does this apply to all criminal convictions or only the types of criminal convictions directly related to misuse, abuse of one’s role as a pharmacist? And is there any avenue for appeal under these provisions? Are we talking about indictable offences, or is a conviction on a

summary offence enough to have someone banned from having a pharmacy licence?

The Chair: Member, is your question directed to

section 3 or 4? Your question, I think, was related to

section 4, wasn’t it?

J. Darcy: You’re absolutely right, hon. Chair. Thank you.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Darcy: Okay, I asked the question, and the minister could now answer, if he would.

Hon. T. Lake: The intent is obviously to prevent someone that has a conviction of an offence that is relevant to the practice of pharmacy. If the direct owner was found to be not eligible due to a criminal record check, the application committee looks at it and essentially would determine whether or not the offence was relevant to the practice of pharmacy.

The member is quite correct in that we know that there may be some things that happen in people’s lives, and they may find themselves at odds with the law. But if it is not relevant to the practice of pharmacy, then the committee would take that into account.

The member, as I’ve mentioned earlier, asked about whether there is an appeal. That would be through the judicial review process.

B. Ralston: The language used here is “criminal record history” and, in proposed

section 5.1, the direct owner’s and indirect owner’s and manager’s history of “charges and convictions.” That’s a bit more sweeping than convictions, obviously.

[ Page 12317 ]

Does this contemplate convictions and charges under the Criminal Code? Does it contemplate convictions and charges under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? Does it contemplate charges or convictions under the Income Tax Act? Does it contemplate charges or convictions of regulatory offences such as those under the Workers Compensation Act?

[1510]

Typically speaking, there is a syndrome of action around people who might merit more scrutiny and perhaps be denied a licence in the sense that they tend not to adhere to safety standards, income tax requirements and other offences that, certainly under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, would be at the very heart of what a pharmacist would do.

The language here seems to me to be vague and subject to possible

interpretation. So I’m interested that the minister…. As the minister will know, one of the aids to

interpretation, should the matter be litigated, would be the minister’s very words in dealing with the legislation here in the Legislature. A judge can take notice of that in a case, potentially. I think it’s important that the minister clarify, as best he can, what is meant by this particular proposed section.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is asking: how sweeping is this?

Section 5.1 says: “A direct owner, an indirect owner and a manager must provide to the registrar the information specified in the bylaws respecting the direct owner’s, indirect owner’s and manager’s history of charges and convictions as follows: (

a) on the making of an application for a new pharmacy licence…(

b) if requested by the application committee…(

c) if the direct owner ceases to be eligible, under

section 3 (

e) or (f), to hold a pharmacy licence….”

Going back to

section 3(

e) or (f), you can see that in that

section it says: “(

e) no direct owner, indirect owner or manager has, within the previous 6 years, been convicted of an offence prescribed under the Pharmaceutical Services Act for the purposes of

section 45 (1) (a) (ii) of that Act.” So if someone is guilty of essentially breaking the Pharmaceutical Services Act, that would constitute ineligibility — or, under (f): “no direct owner, indirect owner or manager has, within the previous 6 years, been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada), other than an offence to which paragraph (

e) applies.”

Essentially, it’s saying that Criminal Code, Pharmaceutical Services Act and then, under (g), has “had a judgment entered against him or her in a court proceeding related to commercial or business activities that occurred in relation to the provision of (

i) drugs or devices, or (ii) substances or related services within the meaning of the Pharmaceutical Services Act.”

If you go back to

section 3, hon. Member, it will essentially delineate the reach of those charges and convictions.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister’s clarification, and indeed, that is more specific.

I must say I’m surprised by the omission of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which would seem to me to be directly relevant to this particular profession and business. Secondly, I don’t understand why one would omit, given that there’s a reference to business practices in 3(d) — that no direct owner or indirect owner is “subject of an order or a conviction for an information or billing contravention.” It’s not clear what that is, but certainly what seems to be contemplated there is financial irregularity or misfeasance in reporting or disclosing billing matters.

It would seems to me that a violation under the conviction or a charge on the Income Tax Act would be directly relevant to the proposed conduct that’s to be scrutinized here.

If I might, I’m going to suggest to the minister that he consider an amendment to include reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Income Tax Act and also the Workers Compensation Act, since those are offences or charges that merit the same kind of consideration in deciding the suitability of someone to be granted one of these licences.

Hon. T. Lake: The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is captured under the Pharmaceutical Services Act, hon. Member, so I think that is covered off. As I said, 3(

e) says the offence, if it’s an offence prescribed under the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, falls within that act or is referred to in that act.

[1515]

In terms of the Income Tax Act, paragraph (

g) of

section 3 says that “no direct owner, indirect owner or manager has, within the previous 6 years, had a judgment…against him or her in a court proceeding related to commercial or business activities that occurred in relation to the provision of (

i) drugs or devices, or (ii) substances or related services within the meaning of the Pharmaceutical Services Act.” So I would counter that any financial irregularities would be captured under paragraph (

g) of

section 3.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the minister seeking to reassure me. I think the legislation would be better constructed and we would be better served if it was made explicit rather than inferential in the way that the minister has suggested, particularly the latter reference to the Income Tax Act, because on a plain reading of (g), I don’t see that, necessarily, the Income Tax Act would be part of that definition.

I’ll leave it there, but I must say that if we’re trying to close regulatory loopholes using good red tape, I think that’s something that we should do now rather than wait for an

interpretation that requires an amendment somewhere down the road.

[ Page 12318 ]

Hon. T. Lake: On the order paper is an amendment.

SECTION 4, in the proposed

section 5.1 (a), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(

a) on the making of an application for a new pharmacy licence or for the renewal or reinstatement of a pharmacy licence ; .]

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this changes (

a) to “on the making of an application for a new pharmacy licence.” That is simply shortening the sentence to say that when you are applying for a new pharmacy licence, you would be subject to the criminal record checks, noting that they would still be required every five years and still could be required by the application or the college should there be any need to go back, if there was any question about ownership activities.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Darcy: This section, as I understand it, essentially broadens the prohibitions against illegal pharmacies. I’m curious if there are specific examples of events requiring these changes both in

section 6 and in

section 7, meaning: what are the problems that this

section is meant to address?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, essentially what this says is that unless you’ve met the requirements of the College of Pharmacists to be awarded a licence upon application, you’re not allowed to act as a pharmacy. In the past, we’ve had pharmacies, for instance, that were numbered companies. They were shut down and then essentially reinvented under another numbered company and applied for a licence. This would allow the College of Pharmacists to say that you’re not allowed to operate a pharmacy unless you have met the requirements of applying for a licence, which include the criminal record checks and kind of having that fit and proper test of the direct and indirect owners.

I have an amendment to that

section on the order paper.

SECTION 6, in the proposed

section 7 (3), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(3) Unless authorized under a bylaw or by a pharmacy licence, a A direct owner, an indirect owner and a manager must not operate or permit the operation of a pharmacy if the direct owner ceases to be eligible, under

section 3, to hold a pharmacy licence.]

[1520]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Darcy: A new paragraph, (c.1), in this

section gives the board the authority to levy fees for an application for a licence, which is specifically referenced in the former language. There are references to fees for issuing a licence in the former language. Is this allowing for fees that weren’t allowed before?

Hon. T. Lake: There were fees contemplated in the existing legislation. It’s simply been moved into this

section for clarity.

J. Darcy: Okay, so it doesn’t contemplate fees that were not allowed for before.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the college has the ability to create bylaws which may involve fees. Those bylaws would have to be approved by the ministry.

Hon. Chair, there is an amendment on the order paper.

SECTION 8 (b), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(

b) in subsection (1) (d) (ii) by adding “including with respect to the location within a premises to be occupied by a pharmacy, and a pharmacy’s location, layout and floor plans,” after “requirements for premises,” , .]

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this clarifies that what this

section is getting at is approval for the location within a building. It’s not where the building sits on the street; it’s the location of the pharmacy within the building. If you look at a number of stores that have a pharmacy within their store, this is about the physical location of the pharmacy within the store.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please elaborate on the importance or significance of where the pharmacy is located within the physical premises and on what this amendment does that wasn’t there before?

Hon. T. Lake: The location within the premises is important. The college has had this ability before, particularly for confidentiality purposes, for instance. They would like to see the location, the design of the pharmacy within a larger premises to ensure patient confidentiality and the professional deportment of the pharmacists involved.

The initial language we had in this

section that we have amended was a little ambiguous, in that some people were concerned that we were referring to the location of the pharmacy on the street. Essentially,

[ Page 12319 ]

they were concerned that the college would have the ability to say: “Well, you can’t have a pharmacy in that neighbourhood” or “You can’t have a pharmacy on that street.”

We’ve just really tightened the wording to mean the location of the pharmacy within the building, not on the street.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND

DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 6, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. T. Lake: Now, hon. Speaker.

Madame Speaker: By leave, now. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND

DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 6, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2016, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee stage of Bill 16, the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:28 p.m.

Hon. T. Lake: I am pleased to start committee stage of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016. To support me, I have, on my right, Doug Hughes; on my left, Sharon Stewart; and behind and to my left, Katherine Thiessen-Wale. I want to thank them for the support they are providing on this bill.

section 1.

S. Robinson: I have a number of questions on this section, so I guess I’ll just dig right in. In reading this bill, it’s not clear to me how assisted living is different from independent living. Perhaps the minister can explain how he understands the distinction.

Hon. T. Lake: When we think of living arrangements…. It’s primarily for seniors. It’s not always for seniors because other British Columbians would fall into some areas of assisted living or even residential care, but it’s primarily seniors that we’re talking about.

[1530]

Independent living would be, essentially, people living by themselves. They may have services provided to them in their home at their own discretion, but essentially, they are independent of government services.

Assisted living is a type of living where there is a group of people who are living together in a — I hate the use of the word “facility” because it sounds so institutional but for lack of a better word — facility where a variety of supportive services are provided. It may be assistance with daily living. It may be medication management. It may be financial management. It may be intensive physical therapy or psychosocial therapy.

Currently, under the current act, those are called “prescribed services”. Some of the things we’re changing are the ways that we describe the type of assistance that people can have in assisted living. Essentially, it is to allow people a range of options to keep them in an environment that is home-like and that provides them with supports that they may not be able to access if they were living by themselves in independent living.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister’s description. I’m thinking more specifically about independent living residents. There are some companies, for example, that offer seniors residential living that may also offer not necessar-

[ Page 12320 ]

ily a prescribed service but some of these sorts of services — where they might help with some financial management, where they might be doing communal meals, for example, and they might have a special therapeutic meal. But they’re not really an assistant-living residence.

I’m just trying to figure out what the distinction is between those who are living in independent living residences…. Oftentimes they’re quite lovely. There’s communal eating. There might be a hairdressing shop inside the residence, and there might be a podiatrist who comes by periodically. But technically, it’s not an assisted-living facility. I’m just trying to wrap my head around how the distinctions are made.

Hon. T. Lake: The type of environment the member describes is independent living. It’s essentially the private provision of whatever the residents want, so it’s like staying in a hotel. You have the things you need for sleeping and eating, and you can order some things that would be included in your monthly fee and other things that would be à la carte. They essentially are independent of government. It is whatever you want on the menu, in terms of services that you can purchase.

When we talk about assisted living, people go through an assessment to be eligible for assisted living. This is when their care needs, in their view and in the assessor’s view, would be higher than they could support in independent living, so they would be assessed and placed, if requested, in assisted living, where a higher level of services is provided. In many cases, that would be subsidized by the government.

S. Robinson: Again, I just want to make sure that I have it clear in my own mind. The minister described what I would call, let’s say, hospitality services — what you would get in a hotel. My understanding is that there are, certainly, private assisted-living facilities that don’t have any government subsidy and that would fall under this legislation as well, in addition to subsidized units.

Just in the private realm, is there a distinction between those that offer hospitality services — the independent living; you can buy whatever you want — and assisted living that is also private but has this set of regulations?

[1535]

I’m just trying to, again, make the distinction around where that line is.

Hon. T. Lake: We’ll go back to independent living, which focuses on hospitality services. These are primarily non-medical and don’t support complex ongoing supports. For instance, in independent living you could have low-sodium diets, for instance, but not medical diets provided. You could purée food but not provide physical assistance with eating on an ongoing basis.

When the level of care is higher and someone is assessed for assisted living, they would go into…. It could be private assisted living or public assisted living, both of which would be registered and fall under the auspices of this act.

S. Robinson: That’s a helpful distinction. I appreciate that.

If I understand correctly, then, just because you have an independent living residence…. If I was the owner of an independent living residence and offered hospitality services, sometimes that might mean helping residents move things because they’re heavy. Or it might mean — I don’t know — connecting them with other services that they might need, whether it’s helping them find an accountant because they have some complex accounting to do or whatever. This bill doesn’t apply to those residences.

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member striving for clarity. I think it’s important for people that are following this bill. The second page of the bill, under

section 1, describes assisted living, a definition. Essentially:

“‘assisted living services’ means one or more of the following: (

a) assistance with the activities of daily living, including eating, moving about, dressing and grooming, bathing and other forms of personal hygiene; (

b) assistance with managing medication; (

c) assistance with the safekeeping of money and other personal property; (

d) assistance with managing therapeutic diets; (

e) assistance with behaviour management; (

f) psychosocial supports; (

g) other types of prescribed assistance or support.”

In other words, services could be added by regulation, that are prescribed. But the independent living is essentially offering up those hospitality or non-medical, non-essential services, and those are offered on an à la carte basis. The independent living, private, would not be captured by this legislation.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that. There is certainly some conversation and some angst around whether or not this would be captured, so I think it’s important that we have some clarity about what those are.

As I’m sure the minister can appreciate, “assistance with” is sort of vague, right? What is assistance? Is referring someone to an accountant…? That’s assistance with the safekeeping of money and other personal property. It’s a little bit vague in terms of these

definitions, and I hope that the minister can appreciate that that’s part of what’s creating, I think, some of the angst.

Perhaps he can provide some examples of where that line is around what is providing assistance and what’s providing just a service — if there is some sort of understanding of what that is. When I say providing a service from a hospitality end…. If somebody needs a cleaning lady — I don’t like to clean — is that now assistance with daily living? If I’m living in independent living and I don’t want to clean my apartment — I’d rather get somebody — have we slipped over to assisted living?

[1540]

[ Page 12321 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The new definition of “assisted living” clarifies that it is a premises “in which housing, hospitality services” — which, I believe, is what the member is referring to — “and assisted living services….” So if there’s housing and hospitality, that’s fine. But if you start adding assisted-living services, as defined in

section (b), then it falls under the definition of “assisted living.” Independent living, where housekeeping and all those types of hospitality services are offered, would not be captured.

We will be consulting with the providers in this sector, as regulations are developed, to ensure that they are confident and that there’s clarity and to listen to any concerns they might have over the development of the regulations.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that there will be some fulsome consultation. I hope that the independent living group will also be included in that consultation, because I know that there’s substantial angst among those folks.

I will note that in

section (a)(a)(ii), it talks about “do not require, on a regular basis, unscheduled professional health services” as one of the exclusionary criteria. Can the minister talk about “regular basis”? I’m thinking about the case where somebody lives in independent living, they go to have some surgery, and for six weeks they need some of these services because they are recuperating. How does the minister explain regular versus temporary?

Hon. T. Lake: I believe the member is trying to determine or help us understand, essentially, what we mean by regular, unscheduled professional health services. This is to capture someone that needs an ongoing high level of health care, not the person that might have a sporadic or intermittent health care problem that can be resolved so that they no longer need that regular….

If someone needed a nurse to come in on a weekly basis for a year or a number of years, that would be scheduled. But if someone is constantly…. If an ambulance is showing up weekly or twice weekly, then it’s obvious this person requires a higher level of complex care.

So “on a regular basis” is used to convey a situation where emergency care is required unexpectedly but with some frequency, as opposed to a situation where one’s care is planned, scheduled and managed routinely.

S. Robinson: I’m sure the minister can appreciate that “regular basis” is pretty vague. Where someone might say an ambulance has come three times this last year because so-and-so forgot to take her medication and as a result had an episode and needed additional assistance….

[1545]

That may, to some, seem sporadic, and others might say: “Well, it’s regular. It has happened three times over the year.” I think there’s certainly some concern about: how does one determine who assesses what “regular” means? I think that would be really helpful. Who determines that?

Hon. T. Lake: A couple of things. First of all, if there was a concern that had been identified with someone that had what looked like regular, unscheduled medical services, then the health authority assessor could reassess, on an as-needed basis, that individual. As we go through the regulations and consult with the sector, we will have a little more definition, if you like, around what that means.

S. Robinson: I really appreciate the minister’s willingness, through the consultation process, to better define “regular” because I think that has different meanings to different people. I think that would be a really good direction to take.

I have another question. There is a list of assisted-living services. Is there an expectation that all assisted-living facilities would now offer this entire list? Is that an expectation?

Hon. T. Lake: The definition says “one or more of the following.” So if any of those services are offered, that would meet the definition of assisted living.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the intention of this change in this legislation, which is to allow people to stay longer. But there might be some assisted-living facilities that only offer three of these and that is all they offer. If someone now needs a fourth or a fifth, it really isn’t going to have the effect of them staying longer because they may not have those services.

I’m wondering, if that’s going to be part of the consultation — if the intention is to assist people in staying longer so that their lives aren’t as disrupted — there would be some encouragement or support to ensure that these prescribed services are available.

Hon. T. Lake: An assisted-living facility may offer only a number of these services, in which case, obviously, the assessment done by the health authority would determine if that was a suitable location for that particular person. If, however, during the course of that person’s stay, they progressed to the point where they needed another service, two things. An opportunity could be found to move them to a different assisted-living residence, but probably more likely, that service could be provided through the home health services of the health authority.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear that the more likely option would be to bring the service in, if we’re trying to get away from having to move people. You could well imagine that three months after they move, they might need a fourth or a fifth service, and if that’s not offered…. These things are unpredictable, and making sure that people can stay in one place, I think, at the end of the day, is the preferred choice.

I do have a question about, in this list, “(

g) other types of prescribed assistance or support,” which, of course, is

[ Page 12322 ]

quite vague. I’m wondering if the minister has any idea about what kinds of things might be included in that broad category.

[1550]

Hon. T. Lake:

Section 1(b)(

g) allows other types of assisted-living services to be prescribed in the future. This essentially allows cabinet to add to the list should other services be identified either through consultation with industry or, for instance, if the seniors advocate were to recommend that something be added. That would allow us the flexibility to add something.

I don’t have in my head, hon. Member, an example of what that might look like, because it allows contemplation of things that we haven’t thought of today.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that. I recognize that we need to have as much flexibility as possible. That’s what this is striving to do. Trying to imagine what that might look like…. I don’t know either, and so I’m just trying to get a flavour for what that could look like. Would that be — I don’t know — podiatry services? I’m not sure if that would be a sort of in-house service that would be available.

I do have another question that has to do with assistance with behavior management. Again, that’s broad, because assistance with behavior management could be very psychosocial in its nature, but again, that would require, certainly, well-trained staff understanding cognitive behavior therapy, or it could involve drugs and using that to help manage behavior. Is that all-inclusive of all of those sorts of things, or is it a little bit more specific than what I’ve just suggested?

Hon. T. Lake: Through to the member — who, I know, with her personal background, has far more knowledge in this area than I do — we must remember that the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and assisted living pertains to group homes that may have people with developmental disabilities. This is referring to behavior management and not, however, medical management. Any kind of medication would be referred to in (b), which is “assistance with managing medication.”

It’s essentially assisting with behavior management, and that behavior management would be on the recommendation of or prescribed by a counsellor, a psychologist, psychiatrist, etc.

S. Robinson: One of the things that I think we need to be really clear about is that behavior management, really, in order for it to be effective, has to be regular and unscheduled, because you can’t always predict an outburst or a frustration. If that’s the criteria for…. If you need behavior management on a regular basis, and it’s unscheduled health services, it becomes one of those challenges, I think, where you’re sliding down a little bit of a slope.

There’s lack of clarity. I suppose that’s what I’m trying to say, because behavior management is not as predictable. It’s one of those situations where it has to be ongoing or it doesn’t work. I’m wondering where the line is for making that distinction, again, when we think about regular and unscheduled.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I think a behavior management plan would be part of the residents’ care plan, which would be prescribed by a professional. So that would not be considered an unscheduled health service, because it’s outlined in the plan.

[1555]

Just to reiterate, I know the member is trying to get real clarity on all of these things, but, of course, every person is different, so it’s really hard to have a formula that applies in every case. There is always going to be discretion on the part of people supplying the service and people regulating the service. I know the member knows that very well.

S. Robinson: Yes, and I thank the minister for acknowledging that I do know that very well. That’s why, when it comes to legislation, recognizing that everyone is unique and has unique challenges becomes, certainly, a challenge. People try to abide by the legislation, and there are always exceptions when we’re dealing with people. So the more clarity we have, I think, the easier it is to apply the legislation.

In

section (e), this legislation is adding the following definition for professional health services, and it lists out, under that, the Health Professions Act or the Social Workers Act. I’m curious about why this was added. Was there a particular rationale for making sure this was in this legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: Because unscheduled professional health services are referred to in the definition of assisted living, then we need to say what professional health services are. That’s why this is there. It means health services provided by a member of a college of a health profession designated under the Health Professions Act or a social worker who is a registrant defined in the Social Worker Act. So include physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses as well as registered social workers that are covered under those two acts.

S. Robinson: Thank you for the response. I’m assuming, then, that it doesn’t exist in the current legislation, so they’ve had to add it here. It’s a good thing, I think.

Under (f), there has been some change about “spouse” and what the meaning is of “spouse.” I’m wondering if the minister could explain why it was felt it was necessary to include this in the legislation.

[ Page 12323 ]

Hon. T. Lake: There was no definition of “spouse” before, so we needed to put it here and to ensure that it would capture a marriage-like relationship between any two people.

S. Robinson: I’m grateful to see that here, but I notice that it’s limited to a spouse. Sometimes there are siblings that are sharing and have lived together for years. Sometimes — and I would love to hear the minister’s comments on this — as people are living longer, we’re seeing their aging children living with an aging parent. It won’t be unusual have a 95-year-old parent being cared for by a 75-year-old child. There could be these other cohabitating arrangements that haven’t been considered in this legislation, and I would like to hear if the minister has considered that.

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: There was some discussion about expanding the definition, but there was not consensus on how that would look because of the potential complexity and, perhaps, unintended consequences of expanding that definition. But we are committed to continuing to examine that and look, in the future, if we can find some common ground there.

The member is quite right. If you’ve got someone that you’re in a…. The term “marriage-like” is not really defined. You could have siblings that have a marriage-like relationship — unless, of course, they don’t argue every day. No, I’m just kidding.

There is a wide view on what a marriage-like relationship is. I don’t think this is meant to be restrictive, but the member is making a very good point that will be subject to further contemplation.

S. Robinson: I would hope that the minister, when he embarks on consultation with those who provide these sorts of services, can inquire about those kinds of living arrangements. I think we’re going to see more and more of them.

With the increased cost in housing, all those other sorts of challenges, we’re going to start to see, I think, more and more of these sorts of living arrangements, where people live together for a long time in a caregiving-like relationship. It would be, I think, in their best interest to keep them together. To continue the caregiving relationship with some added support, I think, would be a good thing for us to continue to support.

Hon. T. Lake: The member makes a very good point. We will, in our consultation with the industry and the sector, look for some input. I think it is an important one that we will likely, as I say, put some contemplation into for future changes, and that input would be valuable.

V. Huntington: I’d like to go back to 1(b), if I may, for a moment. As much as I think all of us are pleased to see these additional services being listed under the assisted-living portion of the act, one of my concerns is that we might end up seeing a requirement that all of these services be in place at the assisted-living level before somebody can move to residential care.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I’m wondering if the minister could discuss that future possibility, whether he foresees a time when government or the industry will require people to remain at assisted-living level before they enter into residential care, and how the choice to move to residential care might be exercised in the future.

The Chair: Minister of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to committee stage.

Under the existing act, as soon as more than two of the prescribed services were needed, you immediately fell over the edge and had to go to residential care. This allows an individual to be assessed on an individual basis. They would have an assessment done, using the RAI test, to determine whether they needed complex care, which is what is provided in residential care.

There’s no intent to say: “You must need more than what’s here before you can go to residential care.” The intent will always be to assess each person on an individual basis, to see whether their needs are complex enough to warrant going into residential care.

I want to make sure the member is aware that you would not be able to choose to go into residential care. That would be on an assessment that is done by professionals that essentially look at the needs of the individual and determine whether their needs warrant movement into residential care.

V. Huntington: I guess it’s that issue that I’d like to explore a little bit further, because it’s a substantial change, then, to when an individual would start to receive residential care.

[1605]

I think we all agree that having one of these issues, or two of them, pop up and being forced into residential care isn’t the right way either. But what I’m a little concerned about is the possibility that people will start being assessed and require all of these levels of care before the system will allow them to advance to residential care. That may not be in the best interests of a resident in assisted living or satisfy their family concerns that they aren’t receiving a level of care.

I’m just trying to determine whether we are now faced with that assessment by a third party, under all circumstances, before they can advance to residential care.

[ Page 12324 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Residential care is designed for people who require 24-hour professional care and supervision as well as other support services. It’s an essential level of care. As I mentioned, each person would be assessed on their level of care required. The intent of this…. There’s no language in this bill that says: “You’re not going into residential care until you need more than these six services that are listed here.”

What we’re saying is: “Assisted living means one or more of the following….” This defines what “assisted living” is, but it doesn’t define whether or not the person needs to have all of those provided before they are assessed as needing residential care. Residential care needs are assessed independently, using the RAI score.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

S. Robinson: On this one, we have new language — “(

i) a prescribed reportable incident at a licensed community care facility, or .” I’m wondering if the minister can describe why this change was required.

Hon. T. Lake: This is to specify that this is dealing with licensed community care facilities. By adding the word “licensed” to paragraph (i), the bill clarifies that the director of licensing may carry out or order investigations of prescribed reportable incidents only at licensed community care facilities. The powers of the director of licensing in respect to unlicensed facilities that may be operating as community care facilities are addressed in

section 9.

This

section is to do with licensed community care facilities,

whereas unlicensed facilities and the power of the licensing director are captured in

section 9.

S. Robinson: The other change that I noticed is “a prescribed reportable incident,” as opposed to “a reportable incident.” So it has narrowed the incident. It’s now focused on “prescribed reportable incident.” The original legislation just had “a reportable incident.”

What if it’s beyond the prescribed piece? I’m just trying to make sense of why “prescribed,” because before it just read “a reportable incident.”

Hon. T. Lake: The use of the word “prescribed” means that we can…. As we’re developing regulations, the reportable incidents would be prescribed under the regulations.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Robinson: I’m just noticing language in this one, under “Inspection of licensed community care facilities.”

[1610]

“

(1) The director of licensing or a medical health officer may exercise the powers under subsection (2)….” The question is “may.” Are there going to be some sort of determining criteria of when it is a “may” and when it is a “must”?

Hon. T. Lake: “May” is the language that is used in the existing legislation. The medical health officer and director of licensing are essentially independent statutory decision–makers that determine whether to take an action. To fetter their independence by saying “must” would essentially allow them to be directed by an authority like a minister, which I don’t think is what is contemplated. It really is just a reflection of the current legislation language.

S. Robinson: Does this mean, in this context, that because it’s a “may,” there is no standard or regular inspection of these facilities?

Hon. T. Lake: There are regular inspections that occur at the moment. This allows the director of licensing or an MHO to do an inspection should there be a concern expressed in between those regular inspections.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that there are certainly regular inspections and that there’s the power to do in-between inspections. I also note that under this section, 9(2), it says “during the hours of operation of a licensed community care facility.” What caught my attention was “during the hours of operation.” Why just the hours of operation? I mean, it’s 24-7, I’m assuming. These are where people live. I’m trying to understand. Is that sort of breakfast to dinner, or how does the minister understand “hours of operation”?

Hon. T. Lake: This legislation captures child care facilities, as well, so they may not be 24-7. But obviously, in the case of assisted living, those are operating 24-7. So their hours of operations? They’re always operating.

S. Robinson: I have a question. It’s a several-page section. I did have a question on 9.1(3)(a). “The director of licensing or a medical health officer must not exercise the powers under subsection (2) unless (

a) the owner of the unlicensed premises or occupant having control of the unlicensed premises consents….”

It looks like one of the two must consent. But what if one absolutely does not consent? You could have the owner consent but not necessarily the occupant. Whose rights supersede the other’s?

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: The

section says “or,” so if one of them consents, then the director of licensing or the medical health officer could go into the premises.

[ Page 12325 ]

S. Robinson: Yes, I see that it says “or,” but I’m also thinking about someone who could say: “I absolutely do not want to.” I’m thinking of the occupant. I’m thinking about if the owner is saying yes and the occupant who resides there is saying no. I’m just imagining how that plays out. I know that we would encourage everyone to consent. I’m also thinking of vice versa, where the owner might say no but the occupant says yes. It sounds like as long as one of them does, then it supersedes the other, regardless of who’s actually living there and who the owner actually is.

Hon. T. Lake: That is correct. If one consented, either the owner or the occupant having control, then the director of licensing or the medical health officer could exercise the powers that they have. If they were denied access, the person denying them access would be breaking the law.

V. Huntington: Does the minister contemplate that any routine inspection of unlicensed facilities would be required of the director at any time?

Hon. T. Lake: We of course would not be aware of unlicensed premises, but if there is a complaint, then we would have the right to exercise this

section of the bill. That gives us the power with consent, or if consent is not given, then a justice could issue a warrant.

It essentially allows us the ability…. If government, a medical health officer or the director of licensing is made aware of a concern in a facility that is deemed to fall under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, then we could take action as outlined in this section. But because they are unlicensed, no, they do not have regular inspections because we don’t know they’re there unless there’s a complaint.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

S. Robinson: In

section 5, it amends the original legislation,

section 15. I’m particularly interested in the subsection that’s being added, (b):

“…if a medical health officer receives a complaint in respect of a community care facility within the area for which he or she is appointed, but the complaint does not raise a matter described in subsection (1) (b), the medical health officer may (

a) refer the complaint, including all information…to the person responsible for the appropriate program of the health authority having responsibility for the area in which the facility is located or to another appropriate agency….”

I’m wondering if the minister can provide an example what that might be — I was trying to sit and try to figure out what that could be — and if he could also say what prompted that change.

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: There may be situations where the medical health officer is made aware of complaints by a person in an assisted-living facility, for example, but it is not to do with the assisted-living operator.

It could be services provided by the health authority, for instance. The medical health officer may be able to refer a complaint to the patient care quality office, for example. Without including that, then we may run into issues of compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that example. It was a very helpful example. I’m just trying to imagine the complainant. Now we’re going to see people in these facilities who are more frail and more challenged. It might be a child of the resident or a sibling. They have a complaint, and they’re looking to get something resolved. Now they’re told that it’s been referred and to whom. It’s about tracking all these extra people, on these added people around a complaint process.

While I’m not sure how to fix that, necessarily, in the legislation, I’m just thinking about how to operationalize this, where now somebody else has to sort of track and, if it isn’t resolved, how to continue pursuing that. I don’t want to say pass the buck, because I don’t mean it as pass the buck, but there are extra people and extra organizations now pulled into the conversation, and for some families, I think, that often can become overwhelming, especially as someone gets more frail.

They may not be able to follow through, and so it requires a caregiver who now has an additional burden of having to sort out a complaint. I wanted to know if this will also be part of the minister’s consultation, because we are talking about people getting more and more frail in assisted living.

Hon. T. Lake: If we look at the situation currently, the medical health officer, if they receive a complaint that is to do with an individual other than that described under subsection 1(b), doesn’t have the ability, because of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, to pass on that information. So essentially, the family is left to figure out the road map themselves.

This puts the onus on the medical health officer to refer the complaint to the appropriate authority, such as the patient care quality office, to ensure that the family’s concerns have been addressed.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

S. Robinson:

Section 8 focuses on the protection for persons who report abuse. It doesn’t lay it out here. I went to the original legislation. It’s not that clear. To whom does one make such a report?

[ Page 12326 ]

Hon. T. Lake: That would be reported to either the director of licensing or the medical health officer.

S. Robinson: Thank you. I appreciate that.

What prompted this specific change to the legislation?

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: This is what’s commonly known as whistle-blower protection. It ensures that people that have concerns can be heard without fear of retribution in terms of job loss or job action or any other actions against them for bringing a concern to someone’s attention.

S. Robinson: I appreciate this protection. I think it’s important that anybody connected to caring for people who are vulnerable has the opportunity to lodge a complaint without fear of retribution. This legislation just speaks to a licensee or an employee or agent of a licensee. I’m wondering what the minister and his staff have considered around those that are unlicensed facilities.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, as mentioned earlier, unlicensed facilities are in that grey zone because we’re not aware of them unless a complaint comes forward, in which case, through the earlier section, we have the power, through the director of licensing or an MHO, to go in, with consent or with a judge’s order, to make sure people are safe. But because they are unlicensed, we don’t have the same power to offer protection to people that alert someone to a problem.

S. Robinson: I am sure that the minister appreciates that these people in unlicensed facilities certainly are much more vulnerable, given that these whistle-blower protections don’t exist for those who work in those unlicensed facilities.

In subsection (4), there is a change. “A licensee or other person must not interrupt, discontinue or otherwise adversely affect, or threaten to interrupt, discontinue or otherwise adversely affect, service to a person in care as a result of (

a) a report of abuse, or (

b) a suggested or stated intention to make a report of abuse.”

I went back to the original legislation and the word “alter” has been removed. It did read that “a licensee or other person must no