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)

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. S. Thomson

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. T. Lake

S. Robinson

L. Reimer

J. Darcy

D. Bing

Hon. T. Lake

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

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

M. Hunt

B. Ralston

D. Plecas

Hon. T. Lake

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. S. Cadieux

D. Donaldson

J. Rice

[ Page 12235 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Members, there is not quorum present in the chamber.

[The bells were rung.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I call committee on Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016; and in Committee A, we have the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

section 20.

H. Bains: Maybe the minister could explain what the rationale behind this is. It seems to me it’s a pretty straightforward section, simply saying that there’s no compensation if the residual contract or agreement is cancelled. Perhaps the minister could say what the rationale behind that is.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

I think we discussed this a little bit as we were going through it previously. This is really the

section that sets up the fact that there is no compensation payable, because what happens here is that the primary harvester declares their intent to abandon the residual fibre before the secondary harvester can utilize it. That constitutes a transfer of the harvest rights for that residual fibre between the primary and the secondary harvester, with no infringement or uncontested loss of rights.

It really sets it up so that when that relinquishment of those rights takes place, there is no compensation or payment due to the primary harvester.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

H. Bains: This

section says: “to make payments as described in

section 22.4 (2) and to defray any other costs associated with making those payments.” Perhaps the minister could explain who is paying and what the purpose is. What are we talking about when we talk about “defray any other costs associated with making those payments”?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

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

Whatever the business arrangement is in place to make that happen…. As we talked about previously, we contemplated that it might be a percentage of net revenue from the sale or the auction of the harvest that’s brought back into B.C. Timber Sales.

[1340]

There might be some ancillary costs. We’ve left ourselves the flexibility if there are some costs to negotiate the agreement or if there are some ancillary costs that might be involved with that.

It really is just: what is the business arrangement in order for it to take place and then the provision that whatever that arrangement is comes out of the B.C. Timber Sales special account.

H. Bains: That we are clear…. I mean, we have canvassed this earlier on different sections. The idea here that we are talking about is that if BCTS decides — or I guess it is the chief forester that decides — that in a new contract, a new agreement, when additional timber is given to, say, a community forest, with the provision that it can be brought back into BCTS, then there are payments set up as a result of that. Is that what we’re talking about here?

It would be, basically, as the minister said in the explanation of those provisions here, to compensate the benefits to the licensee, although BCTS is going to manage that portion. So BCTS also will be making some money. That money will go back to the licensee.

The two different things here. One is it is authorized to make payments, under

section 22.4(2), and then it talks about to “defray any other costs associated with making these payments.” It’s a cost of making these payments. That’s what they are talking about here. What is that?

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the payments, as described in

section 22.4(2), is the business arrangement

[ Page 12236 ]

payment for transferring whatever percentage, whatever arrangement’s made, back to BCTS to do the auction and — whatever the regulation sets out — how that would take place. Whether it is a percentage of revenue, or….

B.C. Timber Sales will make revenue on that arrangement. That goes into the B.C. Timber Sales special account. But then there would also be a payment to the licensee, whether it’s the community forest or the First Nation woodland licence for their…. The benefit of making the arrangement — that’s the purpose of it, to do that and to make sure that when they enter into those disposition agreements, whether voluntarily or as part of a new licence going forward, that that benefit could be paid.

The other costs that can be paid there, examples — we have

section 109(3) of the act, which talks about eligible expenditures from the B.C. Timber Sales account, such as to defray costs associated with the agreements, the preparation of operational plans, provisions of services. It’s really around ancillary costs that could be required in order to make the arrangements and do all of the work to get that in place.

What we didn’t want to do was to have the community forest or the First Nations woodland licence, when they’re making this commitment to be able to put these arrangements in place and to get the benefits…. There may be costs associated with getting all of that done and things, and we didn’t feel that that should be a responsibility of the licensee. Those costs needed to be paid out of the B.C. Timber Sales special account. It really just sets up the provision of other costs that may be part of that arrangement.

[1345]

H. Bains: So let’s put all of this together. Now, BCTS is in the centre of all of this. Then I understand that the minister said that the purpose is to help the communities and the First Nations and others, at the same time maintaining the integrity of BCTS — its auctioning volume.

At the end of the day: what is the net cost to BCTS? Is it going to be a net loss to BCTS, or is it going to be a net gain to BCTS, or is it going to be a break-even proposition after all of the changes that we are talking about under Bill 12? Has anyone done any analysis to determine whether there will be a net loss or a net gain or that it’s a break-even proposition for BCTS? What’s the end goal?

Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe I need to go back to the basic again, which we had quite a bit of discussion on, around the situation here. What could happen, if we were trying to land these new agreements, community forest or First Nations woodland licence, is we could simply take volume from B.C. Timber Sales and apportion it and provide it to those other licensees and have a negative impact on B.C. Timber Sales.

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

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

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

When we were first talking, that’s why we had this kind of win-win situation. I think I portrayed it as a win for the community forest, a win for the First Nations woodland licence and things. It’s a win, in a sense, for B.C. Timber Sales because we’re not taking the volume completely away from them; we’re providing the opportunity, we’re maintaining the integrity of the market pricing system.

It’s a sharing. If we didn’t, if we left everything in B.C. Timber Sales, you could say B.C. Timber Sales would have, potentially, more revenue. There will be a bit of an impact on the overall revenue in B.C. Timber Sales, but it’s being done to facilitate the benefits that flow through those other licences and those opportunities.

[1350]

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

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

section 79.1 (2) (e), respecting requirements for sorting, stacking and piling residual fibre, including, without limitation, requirements for placement of stacks or piles of residual fibre on road sides or

[ Page 12237 ]

landings and practices the holder of an agreement must follow to prevent contamination of the residual fibre.”

Now, we canvassed this before — that once the order is issued, the licensee cannot damage the residual timber. What’s here? What’s

section 24 trying to achieve that wasn’t achieved in the previous sections?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is relatively straightforward, as the member opposite pointed out, in terms of the regulation-making authority that we need in order to be able to implement all of the provisions we’ve talked about previously.

With respect to (m.6), this provides us with the ability to set some regulations in place that we could put in place proactively on the licensee when we go through the pre-planning process and everything to facilitate these arrangements. It’s to make sure that the way that the harvest is undertaken leaves the residual in the best way for the secondary harvester to access it, because that’s all part of making the economics of it all work.

It’s not our intent to bring this in right away, but we wanted to have the tool. If the business-to-business approach works, then we won’t require it. But if we hear of the continued frustration of the process in the sense that we talked about before, this leaves us the ability to create the regulations that could go in, in advance of a do-not-destroy order, to make sure that the harvesting activity took place in a way that made that residual fibre available in the best way to a secondary user — to not continue to frustrate the process.

H. Bains: The minister says that they could implement these requirements on the licensee. My question is: they could, or they will? Is it a must? Why wouldn’t it be a must? I mean, this makes sense. If we are going to utilize the residual fibre, the only way to do that is if we have some requirements. Unless the minister, like everything else, is proposing self-regulating, and then if you’re forced into it, you will take some action.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I point out, this provides us the ability to develop the regulations. It gives us the regulatory authority to do that. As I said, we wouldn’t do it in a case where there are the business-to-business arrangements and things are being worked on.

[1355]

Where we want to have the regulatory authority under these changes…. It’s the ability to do it if we hear the frustration. If the overall business-to-business approaches aren’t working coming out of the forestry fibre working group, then we have the ability to have the regulations that would allow us to do that.

It wouldn’t be used in every circumstance. It would be a strengthened ability for us to do that in those circumstances where it’s needed.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

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

section 25 and 26, are consequential to the Great Bear Rainforest Act. If the minister could explain if that’s true or if there’s something else in it.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the question, because it’s a little bit of a complicated process here.

These amendments ensure that the customized rules that are set out in the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act prevail over the Forest Act. As you will know, the reason for bringing in the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act is there are provisions in that legislation that set up special or unique circumstances, compared to what’s currently in the Forest Act. Because we’re making changes here, we wanted to make sure that what we do here, in terms of the amendments to the Forest Act, are consistent with what we’re doing in the Great Bear Rainforest Act.

It all deals with the chief forester’s authority under the Forest Act around AACs and partitioning within the Great Bear Rainforest area. It’s not consequential, in a sense. It’s required, not just simply a consequential amendment. It’s really what aligns these changes in legislation with what will be coming through with the Great Bear Rainforest Act, when we bring that to the floor of the Legislature.

The challenge we’ve got is bringing this…. You know, we can’t make the presumption, in bringing this legislation through and these changes, that the Great Bear Rainforest Act will pass. I expect it will, but we want to make sure that as we do that, then this lines up consistently with that.

These changes would be brought in by regulation. The amendments here would be brought in by regulation once we had the Great Bear Rainforest Act in place. It’s really just making sure that what we are doing here lines up with the intent of the legislation in the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

[1400]

H. Bains: So we’re passing

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

You’re bringing in

an act and changing the Forest Act here with the hope that another act, other legislation, will pass, so we want to include that already into the act today.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The Minister of Advanced Education has a law degree. You know, perhaps he could advise you if this is even legal.

[ Page 12238 ]

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

We didn’t want to have to do this process, bring in the legislation and then come back and present further amendments. We wanted to give ourselves the consistency in the lining up of the two pieces of legislation in advance. The process is that once that happens, then these would come in by regulation.

H. Bains: It just speaks to the government’s inability to manage these affairs properly. Would it not make sense to have the Great Bear Rainforest Act brought to the House first and pass it and then bring this one in? It would have made perfect sense. But I guess the way this government has operated in the last 15 years that I’ve watched, it makes perfect sense for them to do it backwards, to say it politely. So I think if that’s what it is, that’s what it is.

But I guess, in the meantime, we’ll see if this is the way it goes, and if the advice of the legal team is that this is the way to do it and it’s the perfect way to do it, then I’m taking the minister’s word for it. We’ll leave it at that.

Hon. S. Thomson: Despite the member opposite’s comments, I believe this is the appropriate way to do it. It provided us the option of either way.

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

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

H. Bains: When we canvassed the question-and-answer, we were speaking about 25 and 26 together. Is it? Or is 26 different? I mean, is the intent here the same, to incorporate the Great Bear Rainforest Act, to address that issue in both of these sections?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that’s correct.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

H. Bains: Now we’re talking about….

Hon. S. Thomson: I was wondering if we could have a few minutes to bring in the staff. We’ve moved on to….

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

Hon. S. Thomson: No, just a quick minute before we change. We don’t need a recess.

[1405]

H. Bains: It just speaks so much about the staff. Without staff, the minister can do nothing, can’t answer any questions. So thank you very much to the staff for being here.

So 27. I guess the minister maybe can give us an overview. There are a number of sections here. Well, perhaps we’ll go one at a time. It says, in subsection (7), “The following may act on behalf of the government under this

section if authorized by the minister: (

a) an independent contractor of the government,” and then it goes on to other persons from other jurisdictions “acting under a mutual aid arrangement.”

What are we trying to achieve here when we say that the following “may act on behalf of the government under this

section if authorized by the minister”? Act on behalf of the government for what? What is the purpose here?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section and the addition under

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

We do that now. We wanted to make it more explicit in the legislation. When there are questions from landowners or questions about who may be entering the property to undertake those activities, we wanted it more explicitly in the legislation than is currently the case.

H. Bains: We’re only talking about parts of the overall act here. This is only during the fire suppression time season, which would be prescribed by the ministry or the minister. Would there be some process to do this, or will it continue to follow the process that you had before?

Previously, contractors and firefighters from other jurisdictions have worked in B.C. As the minister said, we’ve done this before. So what was it that wasn’t explicit before, as the minister said we’re trying to make it more

[ Page 12239 ]

explicit here. Were there some challenges? Were there some issues? Where’s the need for this?

[1410]

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, as I pointed out, is really partly driven by some of the other changes that are coming forward where we’re looking for strengthened enforcement and strengthened ability to deal with interference and those things.

We just wanted to make sure, up front, that we had it clearly and more explicitly laid out as to who can undertake those activities. It doesn’t change the current operations. It doesn’t change the practices. It just makes it more explicit of the range of contractors, support that we have — whether it’s through contractors, whether it’s through mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, whether we bring in the foresters. We just wanted to have it clear up front.

As I said, it is there previously, but this just makes it more explicit, both for the public and for landowners and others that we’re dealing with in those emergency situations.

H. Bains: Just so we clarify, I think, in a simplistic way, you had that authority before. You have exercised those authorities before. But here, as the minister puts it, they’re making it more explicit.

It is during the fire suppression times, giving authority to these who are listed in subsection (7)(

a) through (e). It gives them authority to enter private land. Is that what it is?

Hon. S. Thomson: If you look back to the beginning of the section, where it says: “The government may enter on any land and carry out fire control if an official considers that a fire on or near the land endangers life or threatens forest land or grass land.” Then it has some other provisions. You will also note that it says government enters on land to carry out fire control and that the government must compensate. Those provisions don’t change. It can be for the purposes of investigation following a fire.

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

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

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

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is…. Again, the purpose or the intent of it is just to strengthen our ability…. Now we have, under the legislation, the ability to issue a stop-work order. Adding the requirement that that order must be complied with will enhance the ability of the government to ensure compliance with the Wildfire Act and regulations.

[1415]

Verifying compliance with a written stop-work order is more straightforward than verifying compliance with an unwritten requirement. Really, what it does is just…. We have the ability to issue the order, but this

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

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

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

a) first, (

a) through (b). Is this, again, to add to what we have already canvassed in the previous sections, authorizing government — call it agents acting on behalf of the government, as we described before…? Are we again, through this section, affording them authority to enter during, after investigation or suppression? Is that what this one is all about?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

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

This

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

The intent of the amendment is to confirm existing practices, but it also makes sure that when we have those situations of interference or non-compliance, you’re not limited to people who are interfering with someone who is a regular employee of government, a member of the Forest Appeals Commission, Forest Practices Board, a temporary employee hired for fire control.

We wanted to make sure that if somebody is interfering — if they’re interfering with a contractor, who is working for us, to go in and do that work — then we have the strengthened ability to deal with that interference. Currently the

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

[ Page 12240 ]

H. Bains: So you actually can go after the employee of the organization, rather than just dealing with the organization who may be involved? In this section, you are trying to…. It does talk about: “…as it applies for the purposes of this Act, or is a temporary employee hired under

section 15 of this Act; and (ii) is exercising a power or performing a duty or function under this Act.”

[1420]

Maybe to just go over it again: who are you trying to target here that wasn’t included under your jurisdiction before?

Hon. S. Thomson: No. I think the member opposite has got this reversed in the discussion here.

This purpose is to be able to deal with a person who intentionally interferes with that group of people, which we’ve now broadened and enhanced. Currently, now, if it’s regular fire service working…. We can deal with it if it’s any of those others. But if you have a contractor working and somebody, for example, parks their boat where you’re dipping water or those sorts of things, interferes, and that person is a contractor of the government or is Canadian Forces or any of the other ones that we’ve made more explicit in the definition…. It’s really enhancing our ability to deal with those people who are interfering with our efforts.

H. Bains: Thank you for that explanation.

Let’s move on to (b). It talks about amending by striking out “intentionally.” Then it continues and goes on to say that…. Again, it talks about “intentionally not comply” and substituting “fail to comply.”

I guess I could look at the argument being made. Somebody could say: “I wasn’t intentionally trying to do this.” Now it is changed to “fail to comply.” So the judgment is already given. If they fail to comply, they fail to comply, whether there’s intention behind it or not. Is that what you’re trying to achieve here?

Hon. S. Thomson: This, again, is strengthening our ability here. What we don’t have to prove now is the interference was…. Previously, it said: “without lawful excuse, intentionally interfere with a person acting….” So you could get into the argument with the fact that the boats are all, in those areas, interfering with critical activities. They all come in with the argument: “Well, I didn’t mean to be here. I just drifted in. It wasn’t intentional.” That kind of thing.

What we’re saying is that, in these critical situations where we’re having that, we need to be able to act without having to determine whether that person was doing that intentionally or not. Having the standard of having to be able to deal in those circumstances and say you’re intentionally there was limiting. We needed to strengthen our ability to deal with those situations.

If a bunch of people drive into an area where you’re working and disrupt roads or disrupt access and things like that, we can deal with it. Previously, you could have had the argument that says: “Well, I didn’t intentionally drive in here. I was just out for a Sunday drive and got in the way.” That sort of thing.

We want to be able to strengthen our ability to deal with those situations. Not having to have the definition of it being intentional strengthens our ability. The legal advice is that this will give us greater ability. There will still be people…. If you end up in the process, people will, potentially, still argue about it. But now we don’t have to have the onus of saying whether you were there intentionally or not intentionally.

[1425]

H. Bains: I agree with what we’re trying to achieve here. I, for one — I’m sure like all British Columbians — view our forests to be a very precious resource, not only for economic reasons but for our social activities and leisure life, and hold forests to add to our quality of life. We don’t want to have our forests destroyed because of some act, wilfully or not.

I think, at the same time, there is a question here. You know, someone could just be there, not even knowing what’s going on around them, and is charged now and is held responsible. There’s no room now, it seems to me, here under this language.

I guess it’ll be up to the lawyers to decide what “fail to comply” means — whether there was an order given that they failed to comply with. Or is it that they must know that the order is out there?

I mean, all kinds of arguments are there, but I think you need to have a balanced approach. On one hand, we want to protect those who are working to protect our forests during fire suppression or prevention or investigation. But at the same time, somebody could legitimately be in this situation and get charged. I think there’s that issue, so I hope the minister has looked into that.

I want to just ask the minister: what is the purpose behind (d)?

Hon. S. Thomson: I agree with the member opposite. I think, from my perspective and having been through these situations, I would rather err on the side of having the strength and ability to be able to deal with those situations and not be constrained in that way by having to, when you’re providing a ticket or when you’re getting people to comply, have the argument at that point about whether it was intentional or not intentional. I think this is a positive step forward.

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

[ Page 12241 ]

ing with the person and equipment, machinery, vehicle, vessel, boats — those kinds of things. It’s just more explicit.

H. Bains: I think, when you look at…. In the act we’re talking about, I guess there’s a lot of stuff that will be decided through regulations, as far as the fines and what the consequences are of not complying or failing to comply.

[1430]

Maybe, generally, I could ask the minister…. This is to deal with situations where someone (1) failed to comply with the fire season, (2) failed to report fire and (3) is interfering with fire suppression. That’s what the press release from the government says: “Failed to report fire.”

All those areas are covered in here. Those are outside of this act that the minister’s press release described. Even there, they talked about what the fines would be, increasing the fine from a certain amount to a higher amount. Can the minister explain if those are the three scenarios you’re trying to strengthen your ability to deal with through this act? Or is this something different than that press release?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member points out, in the legislation, we’ve taken these steps to strengthen the legal framework behind our abilities. Separately, as was pointed out, we have announced, as part of the suite of tools, significant increases in penalties for a range of penalties, all the way from failure to comply with an order, to failure to comply with a control order, to failure to stop a vehicle or a vessel, intentional interference, interference non-compliance and false statement. That’s $100,000 maximum or one-year imprisonment. That hasn’t been changed in the reg.

As we’ve pointed out, we’ve significantly increased fines for failing to comply with campfire regulations and other aspects. This strengthens our legal ability in the legislation, in the act. It gives us a stronger ability there. Then the other steps that we’ve taken within the regulation that are already provided for in the act are the second suite. The third suite is increased education, work with the communities and public, and everything like that around their responsibilities. Where they don’t comply with the current regulations, we’ve significantly increased penalty provisions.

H. Bains: The regulations are the result of the act enabling the minister to come up with those regulations. I see, through the press release of the government, that they do talk about three things. One is to deal with a situation like drones interfering with the fire suppression, and there could be a whole bunch of other things. Also penalties for ignoring fire bans and also failing to report a fire — the fines are increased. This one gives you better tools to strengthen those regulations and make it much more explicit, as the minister has said, to enforce the act through those regulations.

My question is…. When we say that the wording such as…. You know, take the intentional part, to “fail to comply” part. If you’re driving by and you did not notice a fire, you now will be deemed to have failed to comply. The fine is automatic, it seems to me. How do you justify that?

[1435]

I understand all the other things — that somebody is interfering; equipment is left in the area; drones; don’t comply with the fire bans, season or period. I understand that part. But here you’re also going to charge people who fail to report. I mean, it seems to me that’s what your press release says — that your fine will be increased from $115 to $383.

Those are from the regulations, but it comes from the act. You’re strengthening your hand here to deal with those situations, it seems to me. That’s the way I see it, unless the minister can explain differently.

Hon. S. Thomson: The provisions that the member is talking about — for example, failure to report, failure to comply with a campfire order — all currently exist in the act. Under

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

The

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

It’s not an argument of, “Well, I didn’t intentionally not put out my campfire,” or “I didn’t intentionally keep a campfire to a certain size under the restrictions,” or whatever burning restrictions may be in place. Nothing has changed in those provisions except increased fines for non-compliance.

I don’t think I’m hearing…. I hope I’m not hearing that the member opposite is opposed to those increases in fines and increased consequences of not complying with the suite of regulations and provisions that we’ve had in place previously.

We had my parliamentary secretary at the time go out and consult across that and bring recommendations. There was strong public support for increasing penalties and increasing consequences, and these changes to the fines are a result of his recommendations.

I just want to make sure that we separate that, when we were dealing with the intentional side of it and removing the word to “intentionally” interfere, we were dealing with interference, not dealing with the other provisions, which we have a long history of and a suite of provisions in place. We’ve increased the consequences for failing to comply with that suite of regulations.

[ Page 12242 ]

H. Bains: So that we clarify, this section, when we are making an amendment from “intentionally” to “fail to comply,” only applies to a situation where there is interference to fire suppression. The minister also mentioned, though, if they fail to properly put out the campfire. Those are the situations. So it means starting a fire and interfering — not the reporting part of it. This

section only applies to the other two, which are starting a fire or interfering during the suppression, not the third portion that the press release talked about: failed to report. So “failed to report” is not part of this, then. It’s not covered here.

[1440]

Hon. S. Thomson: The sections that we’ve dealt with in terms of the provisions around intentionally…. That’s related to interference. The other sections remain the same, except under the ticketing and violation and regulation, everything like that. We’ve increased the penalties and the consequences of not complying with the existing suite of regulations that are in place that have been developed over time.

H. Bains: How will this apply? The minister knows well, and the staff probably knows that we have situations where there are logging activities, sometimes under extreme weather conditions, hot conditions, that have proven to cause fires. How do you deal with that? I’ll give you an example here, in Lake Cowichan, the fire on Hill 60 in 2015. It seems to be still under investigation. It doesn’t feel like the investigation is completed.

Here is a situation where maybe a contractor, knowingly or unknowingly, ignored these very, very extreme hot conditions, the weather conditions, and caused a fire. I don’t want to prejudge the investigation, but everyone around there kind of points fingers to one thing — that the fire was caused by the logging contractor. As a result of that, the town of Lake Cowichan was under a boil-water alert for most of the winter, even, due to an unprotected watershed.

There are those situations…. I understand they’re very clear-cut situations that the minister talked about. You could have a campfire. You left it completely out, and it started a fire. Or you have drones, for whatever purpose you’re doing it, during fire suppression. I get that. But there are these conditions. How do you deal with those situations? Those are also, I believe, with dire consequences, and the end result will be the same.

Have you delved into that and how these new acts and the changes and the amendments to the act will give you authority to deal with those situations?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Going back to

section 28, it amended

section 34 to give us the additional strength around complying with an order. So if an order is put in place to cease activity or stop work, then that gives us added strength there.

Ultimately, in the case of an investigation — I’m not going to comment about this specific case, because it is under investigation — the existing legislation provides us the ability that if, through the investigation and the process, it was determined that that was the cause of the fire, then we have the ability to recover costs, to levy fines, if there are licence provisions. So the legislative changes don’t deal with that specifically, other than giving us additional legal strength by amending

section 34.

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

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

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

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

section 18.”

Does this

section deal with the situation that I just described to the minister?

Hon. S. Thomson: To clarify

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

section

Section 18 is where the government can utilize fire as a prevention activity — when we go in and do controlled burns and prescribed burns — and the control of those prescribed and controlled burns.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

What we’re also saying is that this provision applies to people who would interfere with those activities. It’s dealing with our suppression activities, but it’s also dealing with not interfering with our ability to use prescribed and controlled burns and to control those when we undertake those activities. You could have a situation where we’re managing a controlled burn, and somebody comes in, gets in the way and interferes with our ability to do that. It may, ultimately, result in that getting out of control in some way, or something like that.

So the provision covers both suppression and our activities around prescribed and controlled burns, as provided for in

section

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. Repealing

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

[ Page 12243 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: We’re just changing some staff, but we’ll do this on the fly.

[1450]

Actually, it’s a very simple answer, because if you look forward into the bill, to

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

section farther on in the bill. It simply is a repositioning of this provision to make the legislation more readable and to put this in a

section where it more appropriately lines up.

It’s not removing it at all. It does no change in policy, no change in provisions. It’s simply going to be in a different place, in a different position, in the act.

H. Bains: No attempts are made to ensure that B.C. residents have a priority?

Hon. S. Thomson: There is no change in policy.

H. Bains: I just want to say my piece here. Here was an opportunity for the minister. If we are going to change this act, the minister could easily have made provisions that B.C. residents would have a priority in this area. I think failing to do that, again, is a failure of this government to ensure that the B.C. residents come first, when it comes to access to B.C. wildlife.

Well, if nothing changed, nothing changed. I guess we’ll move to the next section.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

H. Bains: Let me ask this question. What are we trying to do if

section 14 is amended by striking out “is in possession of” and substituting with “holds”? What does that mean?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, and as we move through many of the other sections…. The member opposite will know or may be aware that much of the changes here is all about creating the changes and the provisions in the legislation to provide for the electronic licensing of hunting licences and permits and things under the process.

We’ve been working with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Stewardship Council, the Guide Outfitters Association all around a project and a process to move to electronic or on-line licensing and permitting.

The change here supports the development of that. It replaces the phrase “is in possession of” with the word “holds.” The phrase “in possession of” implies possession of a physical licence, and the word “hold” more accurately reflects what’s going to occur when the licence is issued electronically.

All of this and now many of the other amendments support the implementation of that direction, all in cooperation with wildlife organizations and groups that have been working very, very closely together in implementing this project. We are looking forward to having the legislation in place and then looking forward to being able to bring that system live in the near future.

H. Bains: I understand we are moving into the electronic age. Still, there are parts of B.C., there are people whose ability…. It may not be that they have access to the Internet or even are computer-literate.

[1455]

My question is: is there a timeline to transition from the current system into a new system? Also, what provisions will there be for those situations that I’ve just described?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section…. Again, it probably doesn’t directly relate. The general question the member asked is around: what about those situations with people who don’t have computer access? What about remote areas where Internet access may not be in place? We’re certainly aware of that. It’s been part of the consultation with all the groups as we move to this. This will be implemented over a two- to three-year time frame as we fully implement it.

Hunters will still be able to go into FrontCounter B.C., into local vendors, to get a direct application, so that provision will still be there, along with the electronic process. Even once we get all of the provisions of the system in place, there’ll still be that ability. We’re not intending to move to a situation where it will be the only option, at the organizations’ request. They see this as added convenience and process. That’s why they’ve been fully supportive of the project. We will continue to have those provisions.

I’m sure there are some other questions, potentially, around this. I have talked to the member for Kootenay West about this as well. The question came up around: what happens if you’re out in an area, and you do your licence electronically? You have that permission. You’ve maybe got it saved on your iPhone, and you’re in an area, and a conservation officer comes along and says, “Where’s your licence?” and you can’t get it up on your phone.

As part of the process, there will be a user ID number. All the person will have to do is provide their user ID number and the natural resource officer or the conservation officer will have a non-on-line database, and they’ll be able to look at that number and say, “Yes, that person has a valid licence and these authorizations,” and things like that.

We’ve accounted for the nature of the industry in implementing the system. A lot of input from the organizations, from the groups in helping us develop it. It’s been a real partnership approach. We will implement it over time and fully, but we’ll still provide the ability for that person who wants to go into FrontCounter, apply for

[ Page 12244 ]

his licence in that way, get a paper copy of it and carry it around. That ability will still be there.

H. Bains: I’m glad that there will be that transition period and people will be brought along, those who have those difficulties, whether it’s an access issue or their own ability of not having a computer, even. I’m glad that will be looked after, but I do have a concern here.

[1500]

We’ve seen the experience of this government in Education and in Health when those new computer programs were brought in and introduced. It was a colossal mess and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. My question to the minister would be: how will you ensure that we will not have the mess that we saw in health care and in education when the new computer system was brought in?

Hon. S. Thomson: We’ve been working…. This has been a partnership approach, and it’s a phased approach to make sure that as we bring in elements of the system, we’ve got it all tested and working. We’ve got LEH authorizations on line currently. We have had the experience with fishing licences through the on-line process.

So I’m confident, given the partnership approach and…. We’ve had technical work, but we’ve also tested it with all the users and the groups. We’ll do it in a phased approach. We’ve provided the provision for people who don’t have that access to be able to do that, to access it. I’m confident that this will be implemented smoothly.

It is something that the organizations, the members of those associations, are really looking forward to and want us to get in place. They’ve probably been a little bit frustrated that we haven’t done it quite as quickly, but we’ll get there. This will be a key discussion at the upcoming Wildlife Federation annual meeting in Nanaimo next week, because they are very excited about moving to this step, and they’ve been part of the process all along the way.

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

H. Bains: Let’s talk about these two different subsections. For (a), it is amending, to say “…striking out ‘in the form, with the content and valid for the term’ and substituting ‘with the conditions, and valid for the term.’” So what will that actually do to the act that we have currently? How is that being changed? What’s the purpose?

Hon. S. Thomson: The intent of this

section is to provide the provisions that authorize the director to set the forms and manner in which licences must be issued. Limiting this authority to the director ensures that we’ll have consistency across the province.

[1505]

It’s really one of the steps that helps ensure that as we move to this system, it operates smoothly and is consistent. So again, it’s another piece that helps support implementation of the electronic system.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

section 35.

H. Bains: Just again,

section 17(2) is repealed. Why?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section. Previously this required the person to show up, for the first licence, in person or show up with an official of the ministry. Moving to the electronic system, we’ve removed the requirement to have to appear in person. The system builds in the provisions that confirm the person has successfully completed the core program, those kinds of things.

The same provisions are built in, but it’s just if we’re moving to an electronic system, we don’t want to have an electronic system that forces people to have to come in. This was a key piece from the Wildlife Federation. They didn’t want to have to serve a different restriction just because the person had taken the course, and it was the person’s first time at it. They didn’t want to frustrate him in the process.

Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. By repealing

section 24(3), (4) and (11), what is the government achieving?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is a

section that supports the electronic system that is coming in place. What this does is take out the requirement that requires a person to surrender or return their licence to us in paper form. Their licence can now be cancelled electronically. If they’ve got an electronic licence, it’s kind of hard to have them be required to return a paper form for it or to surrender it, surrender their licence. It’s simply, again, another

section that supports the electronic process.

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

H. Bains: It talks about giving authority to a regional manager to “issue a trapping licence to a person who is a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada.” Wasn’t that allowed before?

Hon. S. Thomson: This relates back to the previous discussion where the

section earlier was repealed. This

[ Page 12245 ]

brings back in the policy around it and provides for the explicit authority that the regional manager may issue a trapping licence. No change in policy as far as requirements and eligibility.

H. Bains: That would be in person or electronically or both?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: Both. It will have the same provisions — electronic access or the other. The same way we would with…. It’s part of the licensing project.

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

H. Bains: It seems to me there are regulations being talked about here, so my question would be: who is developing the regulations for licensing assistant angling guides, and what requirements will be necessary?

Hon. S. Thomson: There are two aspects to this section. The first change is under (c), amending subsection (1) and bringing in the other prescribed qualifications for an applicant prior to the issuance of an angling guide licence. For example, the regulations will require that the applicant must demonstrate that they’re familiar with the Fisheries Act of Canada and the regulations that apply to an area they intend to guide in. It corrects an omission. It wasn’t in the previous legislation in the test for a licence issuance.

The second part of it is, again, a

section that supports the electronic licensing. It’s now requiring a written record signed by the angling guide who has employed that assistant guide in order to validate his licence. With the previous licence, you would actually sign the back of the licence. Now the assistant guide will have proof of that record while guiding. That would be simply a signed authorization from the angling guide. Because we don’t have the paper licence, it’s again, a step to support the implementation of electronic licensing.

H. Bains: Is there going to be any flexibility in this? If there is, how will that work? Maybe you could explain, while you’re up: what’s the difference between record and signed licence?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, there will be flexibility. First of all, there’s the flexibility of the current system, through the existing system. If you utilize the electronic system, there will be flexibility.

What we will require from the assistant angling guide is that proof that he is working for that guide. If he doesn’t have that proof, then his assistant angling licence would not be valid. We’re not specifying in this the type and form that that validation or proof must take. It could be in the form of a letter, in the form of a written statement — those kinds of things. There will be flexibility there.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain in

section 41 what the parameters are around this regulation. Does the agent have to be part of the hunt?

Hon. S. Thomson: What this change provides is…. We have the situation where the hunt may be guided by an assistant guide. The current requirement is that the report can only be filled out by the guide. The requirement is that it’s to be done at the time and completion of the hunt.

What we’re doing is providing the ability here for the assistant guide, agent of the guide, to complete that report at that time, and it’s to be provided right away. The situation we have now is that it’s only the guide who can do that, which means that the guide has to go to where the hunt may be and fill out the report and form and everything.

This doesn’t change the requirement or the provisions for a report. It simply streamlines the process and makes it more efficient so that the assistant guide can complete the report as an agent of the guide-outfitter.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

H. Bains: In this one, I’d just like to ask this. “A guiding territory certificate issued under this Act must be issued in a manner and form, if any, and with the conditions, if any, specified by the director.” The question here is: can this be applied anywhere? Are there any restrictions on that? Also, is there any priority given to B.C. residents, or does it continue to apply non-residents to purchase guiding territories?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as we commented earlier, this

section is to support the electronic licensing process. What it means is that the terms and process for issuing it in a specific manner, meaning…. It could be issued from the electronic system.

There’s no change in policy here. It is simply a provision — again, consistent with all the other changes we’ve made — to support the electronic delivery system of licensing and certificates. No change in policy.

H. Bains: There is a difference now. I mean, being in person means going to the office. When you allow appli-

[ Page 12246 ]

cations to be made on line, someone from Germany can make an application, from Sri Lanka, from anywhere in the world.

My question is: can these applications be made from anywhere in the world? Also, I ask this again: is there a priority for B.C. residents, that they go first in the lineup before guiding territory is issued to out-of-country or out-of-B.C. applicants?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, again, is about the process for issuance of a guiding territory certificate supporting the electronic system. There is no change in policy.

H. Bains: I hear that, but before, if it wasn’t on line, you’d have to go to an office here to make an application.

My question is: by changing to on line, would you allow someone out of the country to apply and be issued a guiding territory?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to be clear here, this

section is about issuance of the permit, the process for issuing a certificate after an application process has been completed. There isn’t a change to the application process. That’s in a separate

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

This

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

Section 42 approved.

section 43.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain why

section 61(2.1) is repealed?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is being taken out of the act to be able to deal with this through the regulation process and to be able to support the electronic system again. All of the notification requirements will be moved into the regs. It authorizes the regulations to be made, specifying the manner in which notice is given. It will provide the consistency as to whether notification would be provided in terms of the licensing and all of those provisions under the electronic system.

Again, consistent with the other steps, this is a step to support the phased implementation of the electronic system.

Section 43 approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 44 pass?

Some Voices: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

Member.

H. Bains: I think both of these here, 44 and 45, seem to talk about, first of all, eliminating minimum fines. Can the minister explain: if you remove the mandatory minimum fines for first-time offenders, is that at the discretion of the CO? Or how do you determine that?

Hon. S. Thomson: Can I just clarify which

section we’re on?

The Chair: On

section 45.

H. Bains: I was going back to

section 44, actually.

The Chair: Okay. On

section 44.

section 44.

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is to give some greater tools to our conservation officer and natural resource officer services. The situation now is that they have an option: a warning or a process that would move it to where there has to be prosecution and the process for the current fine to be administered.

[1530]

What we’re doing here is moving to bring in the ability for a ticketing violation process for those conservation officers where they can issue. Once we get the legislative provision here, then we’ll develop the ticketing provisions under the violation and ticketing regulation process. That will then give them the flexibility to be able to issue tickets, with a monetary process on those tickets for those more minor offences.

Right now they don’t have that ability, so it’s sort of all or nothing. Now, with these provisions, we’ll have that step in between. We’ll be able to have violation tickets administered, which will mean that less warnings will be given and more tickets will be provided. Then the serious offences would still move through the prosecution process.

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

[ Page 12247 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Right now we can’t issue a ticket for $2,500. That has to go through the prosecution process. So we’ve removed the minimum fine process. Through the prosecution process, we’ve retained the upper limit. What that does is let the courts determine the appropriate level of fine in those processes as it moves through that process.

What we will be bringing in through this is a ticket violation system, which will provide the ability for natural resource officers and conservation officers to provide or to assess tickets in the field, which will be in a range from…. That process will be set out.

Right now the only tool they have is a warning, or it has to go the prosecution route. We want to bring in a process that provides the ability to deal with those more minor infractions in the field, which we know we don’t want to put into the prosecution process but you need a penalty. We also want to remove the minimum penalty and just let the courts determine what is the most appropriate penalty, retaining the upper limit.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

H. Bains: My question here is…. Under this section, there are a number of changes being made. I think the question comes to: how are the conservation officers going to check if people have a valid hunting licence if everything is on line or electronic? How will they be able to do that? Wouldn’t this require additional conservation officers to enforce all these regulations? Will you be hiring or adding more resources to do this?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think I’ve answered this previously. The system is not going to be dependent upon clients having continual cell phone coverage in the field. It’s to give the clients the option of producing the licence. It does give the option of the client producing the licence electronically. It doesn’t mean they have to have cell coverage to produce it.

Clients will be able to print and store their licences electronically — a PDF or a photo of the licence, a screen shot. They would have that ability. They will also have an identification number, to our clients, which they can provide to a conservation officer upon request. That will allow the conservation officer to access a database that has off-line functionality, where the ID number will be linked to all of the licences and authorizations.

This maintains the flexibility and supports the electronic system. It has that functionality and will be more efficient. Again, as I’ve commented previously, it was supported and developed in partnership with all of the key stakeholder fish and wildlife organizations in the province.

Section 45 approved.

section 46.

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

section here, or the requirement, provided that they have that electronic record or a paper record?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister…. I just want to leave it here. It’s not a question here, but there are a number of questions around this Wildlife Act. I think we had a discussion outside of the House. The minister agreed to provide further briefing to myself or other critics, especially Kootenay West, on some of the questions that they may have.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’d certainly be prepared to do that.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 12, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 16.

[1540]

[ Page 12248 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. T. Lake: I move second reading of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Assisted living is a semi-independent type of housing with extra supports to help with the activities of daily living. The majority of residents are seniors. Assisted living provides residents with hospitality services. Essentially, it’s their home. The meals are provided and, also, what are known as prescribed services. These include regular assistance with daily living activities, assistance with medication, therapeutic diets, financial management, structured behavioural management and intensive physical therapy.

Currently if a resident’s health status changes and they require more than two of the prescribed services, they no longer qualify to stay in assisted living. What that generally means is they are expected to move into a residential care facility.

Residential care facilities are for people with complex care needs who require 24-hour professional care and supervision in a protective and supportive environment. While they provide a critical service, they are more institutional than the quite independent, home-like setting of assisted living.

In her housing report last year, seniors advocate Isobel Mackenzie said there were many cases where people in assisted living were having to transfer to residential care sooner than need be because of the rules in place. We listened and are making a change.

Amendments that we are presenting in this bill remove the reference to the specific number of prescribed services a client may receive in an assisted-living residence. This means they would be able to continue to remain in assisted living as long as it is safe and appropriate for them to do so, retaining their independence rather than having to transfer to a residential care facility.

The amendments, importantly, also expand regulatory oversight, offering further protection for residents. The assisted-living registrar, whose mandate is to protect the health and safety of assisted-living residents, will be able to inspect a residence at any time if they feel there is a risk to the health and safety of a resident. Currently the registrar may only inspect a residence if there’s a complaint.

Improving care for seniors, no matter where they live, is an ongoing priority for the government. We have created a wide range of supports for seniors, including home health, assisted-living services and residential care services. We have also heard from seniors that they want care and supports in their local community to help them live in their own homes longer.

The Ministry of Health developed Setting Priorities for the B.C. Health System in 2014, which is an overarching strategy to create a more sustainable health system, and seniors are a significant focus of these priorities. In this work, we understand that the patient or the client must be the focus as we look at better designing our services to meet the needs of an aging population. This legislation reflects those goals.

We will be consulting with assisted-living residence operators as the regulations are drafted, and these discussions will take place over the spring and summer. For those individuals who are able to make decisions on their own behalf, assisted-living residences provide a home-like environment and independence. These amendments will provide further supports for residents and help them avoid having to move to a residential care facility before they actually need to.

I am pleased to move second reading of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act.

S. Robinson: I am pleased to rise in the House and speak to Bill 16, the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act. Ensuring that we have a range of housing available for seniors is critically important. These are the people who have built our province, the people who have paid their taxes. These are the people who raise the next generation, and as the next generation, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they have the housing and the supports that they need as they live out their remaining years.

Earlier this week I had the opportunity to rise in this House and move a private member’s motion calling on the government to take immediate action, ensuring that all licensed and regulated care homes are meeting all government standards of care. I opened my remarks using Hubert Humphrey’s quote that bears repeating here, because this legislation and the regulations that come out of it will be the measure of this government.

Hubert Humphrey once said that “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life — the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” The legislation that we’re looking at today needs for us to keep that quote in mind, because that’s exactly what we’re doing here.

The legislation that we are considering takes a look at expanding some of the housing and care options available to seniors in British Columbia, and it is important that we have a range of housing options and supports available as we age.

[1545]

Aging is often a process where we find ourselves not able to do the same sorts of things that we were once able to do. I have started that process. I can’t run the way I used to, and I certainly need my spectacles in order to read just about anything if it’s under 20 font.

[ Page 12249 ]

As we continue to age, there are other things that are likely that we’re going to have to adapt to manage. Things that I know that I’ll be having to give up or do a little bit differently are things like caring for my home, gardening, small repairs, maintenance and upkeep. Or dealing with my affairs, paying bills, banking, paperwork, appointments. Whether I can care for my health, like taking my medications, manage my social relationships, track doctors’ instructions and keep those appointments. Managing my own chores. Will I be able to do my laundry, clean my house? What about my own self-care — taking a bath or even going to the toilet?

Now, most of us, I think, in this House would like to age just like my Auntie Sarah did. Auntie Sarah was one of these people who became a widow in her early 70s and was able to manage really well on her own. Then one day she went to bed, curlers in her hair — that was the age and the time when you did you that, while you went to sleep — and she didn’t wake up. Her aging and her dying were done very gracefully. She never needed anyone to care for her.

However, most of us won’t have the opportunity to age like my Auntie Sarah did. Most of us will find that there will be a transition from a fully robust and independent life, one that’s rich with activity, friends and opportunity, to a life where we have aches and pains, some physical and, perhaps, some emotional challenges. Overall, there will be a transition from independence to dependence, and that will likely take several stages.

When I was preparing my thoughts for comment on this bill, it wasn’t my Auntie Sarah that I kept in mind. It was my grandfather, my Zaide Max. His experience of aging was very, very different from my Auntie Sarah. His experience of aging went from being very, very fiercely independent and having his own home to being a widower twice over and finding that, as he was aging, there were things that became more challenging for him. He did wind up in assisted living. That had certain implications for him. He lost his eyesight, and he needed more and more care until he eventually passed away at the age of 89.

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

It’s the least we can do for those who have paid their dues. They’ve paid their taxes, they’ve built this province, and they have raised us, the next generation. So I stand here, as the next generation, feeling very obligated to do the best that I can — I think the best that we all can — for our seniors.

We all know that home is the place where we all want to be as we age. It’s the place where we want to age. I know that when I go home at the end of the week…. I suspect for all of the members here, when we go home at the end of the week, there is something very special about climbing into your own bed, the familiarity of the space and the comfort of my things being around me. It’s this sense of belonging and comfort that we need to think about as we pay attention to the special needs of our seniors.

If home is best, then it makes sense to ensure that our seniors can stay home as long as absolutely possible. Seniors homes can vary widely. I think it’s important to talk about how the amendments in this bill fit into the notion that seniors are better off at home. I think it’s important to talk about it in a context, so I’d like to take a few moments just to set the stage for that conversation.

When I think about seniors staying in their homes as long as possible, I think about what it would take to make that happen for as many seniors as possible — in their own homes, before they have to go into care. I thought about how we ought to be ensuring that they have the supports they need and access to the resources they need so that they can stay as long and as safely as possible in their own homes and in their own communities.

[1550]

If we think about it…. I think about my own community in Coquitlam-Maillardville. I think about: how, as a community, are we living up to this? I worry about this, and I’m concerned about this. By 2031, just 15 years from now, B.C. is expected to be home to more than 1.5 million people over the age of 65. That’s almost 25 percent of the population, and 15 years is not that far away.

I do want to acknowledge that the government does have a program called age-friendly communities. It’s a great program, because if we want people to age in place, we need to make sure that their communities can adapt and have the resources that they need. There’s a list of eight things that’s on that list.

Outdoor spaces in buildings. Are they age-friendly? Does a natural and built environment help the older person get around safely and easily in their community, and does it encourage community participation, which is really important?

Then transportation. Can older persons travel wherever they want to go in the community, conveniently and safely. Another important piece about aging in place and aging in our homes.

The third is housing. Do older persons have housing that is safe and affordable — an important point — and that allows them to stay as independent as possible as their needs change?

The list goes on to include social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment,

[ Page 12250 ]

communication and information, and community supports and health services.

I think it’s important that communities pay attention to this, not just this level of government, but certainly other levels of government. We all have to work together. There is only one taxpayer. We all pay taxes to all three levels of government. It’s important that we’re all working in the same direction to ensure that our seniors have a place to stay.

I have to say, in preparing my comments for this bill, certainly what I came across is that not all seniors actually have appropriate housing in their communities. I think it’s important to sort of recognize that, because it puts a burden on some of our other resources — like the bill that we’re debating right now, in terms of assisted living. I think we need to recognize that we have particular housing concerns for seniors in general.

I just noted that there’s a seniors housing update from 2014 that comes out of SFU, the Gerontology Research Centre. They note here: “There has been a significant decline in the supply of low-cost housing across Metro Vancouver” and “many seniors find themselves increasingly displaced from the community that they have currently lived in as a result of high rents, leading to the loss of meaningful social networks and challenging their sense of home and community.”

The authors go on to say: “There’s an identified need for low-cost housing designed for keeping seniors in the communities where they wish to live. This is seen as a key component of supporting aging in place and designing for age-friendly cities.”

I’m thinking, in that context, about some of the things that we’ve been hearing more recently about seniors and their need for appropriate housing that meets their needs as they age. We certainly hear from the government, from the Liberals, that it’s really important for seniors to age in place and stay at home as long as possible. I completely agree. I support that. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that. And it’s important that we have resources in place to make that happen.

What I find a little bit distressing is that we are seeing more and more of our seniors, people whose health is starting to fail them, in our homeless shelters. That is, I think, cause for concern.

We’ve learned…. For this, I’m just quoting from an

article from thunderbird.ca. It’s 2014. It comes out of UBC: “Vancouver Shelters Overwhelmed by Increase in Homeless Seniors.” They note that the number of homeless seniors over 55 in the Lower Mainland is creeping upward. It’s doubled, to 264 from 121, over the last eight years just in Vancouver alone. They note that low-income seniors are finding it increasingly difficult to get apartments they can afford.

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

The authors go on to note that waiting lists for seniors social housing are miles long, as the rents in private buildings have gone up faster than their incomes.

[1555]

Now, there’s certainly lots more here. Lookout is a well-known shelter in Vancouver. They note that they’ve seen a steady increase of people aged 45 to 64 in all their shelters, that seniors grew to 42 percent in 2014 from 31 percent in 2009-10.

They also note that B.C. Housing has acknowledged the need for more senior housing. I think it’s important that we keep in mind that not all seniors even have housing. We’re talking about a piece, but there’s certainly this group of seniors that aren’t even in that part of the system.

I want to note that just this week there was an

article in the Vancouver Sun that spoke about the number of seniors that are homeless. It said that in 2014 in Metro Vancouver, the homeless count was 371 for seniors. So 371 seniors who don’t have a home.

I will remind members of this House that we certainly heard about Fran Flann in the fall, who wound up in a homeless shelter because of housing challenges, and that was very heartbreaking for all of us. I know that there were some decisions made, and I know that she was housed, but this whole challenge of housing all of our seniors is just a broader challenge.

We have a bill before us that’s paying attention to assisted living, but I think it’s important that we recognize that there’s a whole structure in place and that each piece is connected to the other — that these are not stand-alone, silo pieces of housing. There is a continuum of housing. I think it’s important that we recognize where this bill fits in on that continuum.

There are also seniors, certainly, in our communities, who might be property-rich and cash-poor. It’s certainly a problem I’ve seen in Coquitlam-Maillardville, and I suspect it’s an issue that the Speaker has seen in his community as well.

They might have a pension or savings of some sort, but they have a home that needs repair or upgrades. They have property taxes that are increasing, hydro costs that are increasing, ICBC rates that are increasing, and their pensions just aren’t keeping up with these increased costs.

There are certainly some government programs to help out. I think that’s a good thing. But as the seniors advocate noted in her policy options paper last year…. She said, “Most startling was the number of low-income seniors reporting that they were unaware of the guaranteed income supplement” — the GIS. She said 23 percent were unaware that it existed.

[ Page 12251 ]

Many of them didn’t know about the MSP premium assistance. That’s 60 percent that didn’t know about it. SAFER rent subsidies — 42 percent didn’t know about it. PharmaCare — another 42 percent didn’t know about it. These are long-standings programs and subsidies that are aimed directly at low-income seniors, yet she says it seemed that these benefits are not reaching their intended target. We do have a lot of work to do around making sure that seniors are aware of the ways in which there are some government resources to help them when it’s difficult.

As I was thinking about my grandfather and thinking about this legislation and about the continuum of housing, I was thinking about those seniors who own their own homes, because we do have a fair number of seniors who own their own homes.

Some would say that they should just sell their asset and use these to help offset the costs of their care, which they can do and I’m sure some choose to do, and it may not be a bad idea for some seniors. The challenge, of course, is: where would they move to?

I recall that when I was on city council, I was a strong advocate for encouraging developers who were coming before us to develop housing that was oriented for seniors. I’m not talking anything about subsidized housing, but really making sure that we had the stock. Seniors who lived in a 2,500-square-foot home were not going to be comfortable, necessarily, moving to a 600-square-foot box.

We need to make sure, at all levels of government, that we find ways to create a diversity of housing. When I think about those seniors who are in their own homes, I think it’s important that we recognize that there are some options for them to adapt their homes, as they need some changes to make their homes more age-friendly.

[1600]

Whether it’s widening some door frames so that they can get a walker through or putting in a ramp so that they don’t have to go up stairs or if they have one of those lifts that takes you up…. There’s that commercial. I’ve seen it a number of times. It would take you up the stairs — those built-in elevators.

I think it’s important that we have all of those tools in place. Like the minister said, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, it is important that we help people stay as independent as possible for as long as possible. We all know that having seniors stay in their homes is what they need, but I worry. I worry that we don’t have enough resources to help make it so.

Now, we all agree that there’s also great cost savings to having seniors in their home as long as possible, but it has to be an appropriate home, and it has to have the appropriate support. When I think about the range of housing and all the pieces that come together that help keep seniors in their homes as long as possible, I think of our home support program.

Home support is when a senior or someone with a disability needs help with daily personal care activities. It might be bathing or dressing or toileting or eating. It used to include assistance with laundry and cleaning and some meal preparation, but now the government no longer provides that. That’s left to other groups, mostly Better at Home, which is a government-supported, United Way–managed and volunteer-based assistance. I have some concerns about the program, and I’ll get to that in a moment.

Now, case managers assess potential home support clients to determine services and hours for which these seniors are qualified. The service is delivered by community health workers and paid for by the health authority. It is a way of supporting seniors so that with a little bit of assistance, they can stay in their homes.

According to the seniors advocate, in her Monitoring Seniors’ Services report from January 2016, 41,223 British Columbians were registered for home support services in 2014-15. Overall, that’s a 2 percent increase in the number of clients over the previous year. Now, the population aged 75 and older — this is the group that makes the most use out of home support — increased by 4 percent.

The total number of clients increased in four of the five health authorities and just decreased in one health authority. The total number of home support hours in 2014-15 was just over 11 million hours, an increase of 1 percent over the previous year. Those numbers increased in two of the health authorities and decreased in three of the health authorities.

The numbers don’t quite jibe, that people are actually getting the hours that they need. That’s sort of what these numbers are suggesting. In 2014-15, the average hours delivered per client per year was 268 hours, or 5.1 hours a week, a decrease of 1 percent in the provincial average from 2013-14.

What does this say? In spite of a commitment from this government to keep seniors in their homes as long as possible, we’re seeing that the overall home support hours have decreased, while the number of clients has increased.

What does that mean for our seniors? Well, it means that while they’re eligible for services, seniors just aren’t able to get the services they need to be comfortable at home for as long as possible. It means that they might not be able to get a bath as often as they should, or they can’t get assistance with meal preparation so they can eat proper, healthy foods. As a result, they now eat prepackaged food with high salt and sugar that might lead to greater health problems.

This government says it has aspirations to make life better for our seniors, but as our seniors population grows, we’re actually seeing a reduction in the home care hours. It’s more of saying one thing and doing another. I’m not saying that it’s easy to do, but I do think we have an obligation to fix that.

[ Page 12252 ]

The next stage of care along the independence continuum is assisted living. This bill before us changes legislation so that we can have a broader range of services and greater oversight for those needing an assisted-living arrangement. Assisted living is a housing option that provides seniors with a range of supports so that they can live mostly independently.

My grandfather had this. He had macular degeneration. He lost his eyesight, and he lived independently for a long time, being mostly visually impaired. But it did get to a point where it was hard for him to see the numbers on the dials of his stove, and even though they put, in big black markers, the numbers, it just became more and more difficult.

Assisted living seemed to be the solution, because he was going out to eat too often, which wasn’t good for him, and he needed help with the cooking. He needed help with some eye drops, and he needed help with some medication. Otherwise, he was pretty independent.

[1605]

Now, the current legislation says that in assisted-living facilities, residents can only make use of two out of six prescribed services. Assistance with daily living, like getting dressed or help with medication, are the kinds of assistance that would be available. The amendments contained in this bill would drop the limitation of two services so that seniors can add services as needed without having to worry about moving to residential care.

Currently, if a senior is needing more than can be offered by home support — a system where currently demand is up and resources are down — and if that senior can primarily live independently but they need a couple of regular additional services on a daily basis, they are eligible for assisted living, if they can afford full pay.

We know that there is a significant waiting list of over 940 names waiting for subsidized assisted living across the province. I just want to comment on that, because I think it’s important to acknowledge that while this legislation will provide opportunities, it will also, perhaps, increase greater demand for care where there is already a significant wait-list.

I just want to read into the record what we currently know based on the seniors advocate reports. In 2012, we had 4,389 subsidized registered assisted living units in this province. In 2013, it went up to 4,472. That’s good. It’s an increase. But from 4,472, we went down in 2015 to 4,430. So we’ve lost 40-some-odd units. We’ve lost 42 units just in the last couple of years.

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

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

I think, as we get more frail, there comes a time when we’ll need 24-hour professional supervision where we, as seniors, any senior, can be safe and secure and have their needs met so that we do live out the remaining years in comfort and indignity.

About 3.7 percent of B.C. seniors live in residential care. The province subsidizes over 27,000 beds provincewide. Since 2012, there has been an increase of just under 1,000 additional beds added to the system — a 3.5 percent increase. Now the challenge is the increase in the over-75-year-old population in this group — the group that’s mostly going to, in all likelihood, need residential care. Well, the population has grown by 10 percent. We have this potential growth of 10 percent in demand and a 3½ percent growth in support.

We know that it’s only going to get more difficult as time goes on. In fact, the seniors advocate ran the specific numbers to see if this growth in population is being matched by a growth in demand for residential-care beds. What she learned is that there has been a 6.8 increase in seniors admitted to residential care from 2013-14 to 2014-15. So we know that we currently don’t have enough residential-care beds for those seniors needing 24-hour access to care.

I can appreciate that the changes being proposed here in this bill are intended to help alleviate some of those pressures. You see, under the current legislation, if you needed more than two services, then you needed to go into residential care. I don’t think that’s good. I don’t think people should go into residential care before they absolutely need it. But there’s certainly going to be this bulge now that we’re going to see around assisted living, because people can stay in assisted living longer.

[1610]

A few weeks ago, the seniors advocate released an on-line directory of the 292 publicly funded care facilities in the province. The directory is a comprehensive list with details that note the size of the facility, number of licensing complaints, kinds and amounts of care services provided and other details that families would want to know about when putting their loved one into a residential care facility.

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

[ Page 12253 ]

That’s a good thing, because then we can rest assured that we know there’s this formula in place to ensure that there are enough hands on deck to support seniors. Government has set a rate of 3.36 hours per resident, per day to ensure that there are enough hands to do the work of caring for our seniors.

We know that it’s not just hands that care for our seniors; it’s hearts as well. We’ve all seen the care providers in residential care centres who have the patience of Job, who sit and take the time, when they can, to comfort someone who’s in distress, to make sure they are comfortable, to do the most intimate of care, the most intimate of acts to ensure that people are comfortable.

I can’t imagine that there would be anyone in this House who did not think that it’s important, as our seniors are becoming more and more frail and as they are dying, that we ought to be making sure that they have the emotional comfort and the spiritual comfort they need in their twilight hours.

We have this 3.36 hours of care per resident as a minimum standard. It’s not the fully loaded model; this is a bare-bones standard. What the directory revealed, with great concern, is that most of these funded facilities aren’t even funded to the minimum standard of care. I thought: “Well, let me pull up, in my community of Coquitlam-Maillardville, and just take a look.”

We have assisted living facilities, and I think it’s important that people can stay there as long as possible. We also have residential care facilities that they will be going into when they can no longer stay. I want to make sure that in the continuum of care, there’s a wraparound to ensure that our seniors are treated with respect and dignity and comfort in their later years.

I pulled up three care facilities in my community — the Belvedere Care Centre, the Madison Care Centre and Cartier House. While government has set a standard of 3.36 hours of funded care, I noted that Belvedere Care Centre, for 2014-15, is getting only 2.78 hours of funding. Madison Care Centre is a beautiful centre. In that same year, they were getting 2.77 hours, and Cartier House was only funded for 2.64 hours.

I mention that only because I worry about the context of this bill and the changes it’s going to make and the pressures it’s going to put on either side of the housing continuum. It’s important that we not think in silos — that it’s not just about assisted living, that there are changes being made to assisted living. It’s important to think about the impact it’s going to have on either side. It’s the middle piece, right?

People go from their own personal homes, so government has some supports in place, home support. Then you go to assisted living, and then beyond that, there’s residential care. I think it’s important that we always think of these pieces of legislation not in isolation, because it’s connected. People’s lives are connected. They don’t just live in these little silos. It’s in that framework that I think it’s important that we keep in mind what the whole picture looks like.

Clearly, we have a significant problem, when we have a recommended level of funding for direct hours of care for our most vulnerable — our most vulnerable. These are not the people on assisted living. These are people in residential care facilities. And we have a government that chooses to provide tax relief to B.C.’s wealthiest, while severely underfunding care for our most vulnerable. That worries me. I think that’s something that should concern everybody in this House.

[1615]

The impact, though, to seniors means that there aren’t enough hands to provide those who are most vulnerable and need assistance — assistance with toileting, toileting in a timely manner. The indignity of sitting in soiled clothing is heartbreaking. I’ve heard stories of care providers trying to find ways to spread care so that situation does not happen, so that there are no soiling incidents.

I know of some facilities and have heard stories where they do a toileting regime where it’s almost like an assembly line. I remember the minister saying a couple of weeks ago that people aren’t widgets, and I completely agree. But I’ve certainly heard stories in care facilities where it is like an assembly line, right? They have to care for eight residents, so they get put on the toilet, and then they get taken off. Depending on what’s going on, some people can sit there for a while. I don’t know where the dignity is in that. That’s not the kind of care I would want for myself. I think we have to do a better job. I think that’s really important.

Bill 16 is a teeny, tiny baby step to create a bit of a shift away from prematurely placing seniors in residential care before they actually need 24-hour-a-day care. How will the changes in Bill 16 actually change seniors care in this province?

The specific amendment here says that in assisted living, seniors who need additional supports beyond the two prescribed supports can sort of shop from a list. They can get assistance with the activities of daily living, including eating, moving about, dressing, grooming, bathing and other forms of personal hygiene. They can get assistance with managing medication. They can get assistance with the safekeeping of money and other personal property. They can get assistance with managing therapeutic diets. They can get assistance with behavior management, with psychosocial supports and with other types of prescribed assistance or support.

That’s good. That’s a really good thing, and I’m glad to see that we’re moving in this direction. This was a recommendation made by the seniors advocate. I also want to note that the legislation does also increase the oversight, which is another important feature to include in this legislation.

If the intent of the legislation is to provide seniors with more support so that they can stay in assisted living long-

[ Page 12254 ]

er and keep them out of residential 24-hour care, which they don’t really need yet, then the result of that is that we’re going to actually see more frail seniors in assisted living. I think it’s important to acknowledge that they are going to stay there longer. So they’re going to need more supports, and that’s fine. But it means that you then need to have more oversight.

That’s not a bad thing. We need to ensure that there’s enough regulation and oversight, because when people become more frail, we become more vulnerable. As we become more vulnerable, the risks to our health and to our safety increase. So it does make sense that we ensure that those who are most vulnerable are properly protected.

I agree that more oversight is a good thing. I’m glad to see it in this legislation. I am pleased to see this government act on the recommendation by the Ombudsperson and the seniors advocate, but it also looks like there is so much more to do, and that could have been done here.

Now, the seniors advocate has reported out and talked about seniors who don’t have disposable income and the impact that has. So if we’re going to see more seniors in assisted living, we need to talk about their ability to sort of live there and pay for it. The seniors advocate notes that a lot of seniors don’t have the disposable income they need to remain socially active, income that would go to paying for, perhaps, a bit of transportation, a taxi, a cup of coffee with some friends. As a result, they become more isolated.

I do want to point out that when seniors who are frail spend money, it goes right back into the local economy. They don’t take their money out to the Cayman Islands, and they don’t take their money to Mexico. They’re just not able to do that. So I actually think that having seniors have money that they can spend locally is a very good thing.

[1620]

The seniors advocate, in her seniors housing report last year, recommended that the minimum amount of income with which a resident of subsidized assisted living is left with after they contribute their share of the cost of assisted living should be increased to $500 a month from the current level of $325 a month.

Seniors who are on assisted living and are needing some subsidy only pay 70 percent of their income, and the seniors advocate thinks they should have a little bit more money in their pockets so that they can participate more fully in the community. We need to remember that that money definitely stays local.

It’s disappointing that there was nothing in this bill to help these seniors to continue to participate in their communities, to go beyond the walls of their home, nothing to assist them in maintaining relationships with their friends — I’m sure everybody here has seniors who gather in their community, in the local McDonald’s, just for a cup of coffee — nothing to help them go to their local bridge game or the lawn bowling tournament at the local seniors centre, perhaps where they sat on the board back in the day when they had the energy and the strength to do just that.

It’s really unfortunate that that wasn’t included in this legislation. It’s disappointing that the government chose to give a $236 million tax break to B.C.’s wealthiest instead of helping seniors stay connected in their own communities.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

While government is making it easier to stay for a longer time in assisted living, I do think it’s rather important to talk about access to subsidized assisted-living care.

In this part of my comments, I want to note two things here on this. There is a need for access to subsidized registered assisted living. We have a wait-list right now, so I want to focus some comments there. The other thing that I want to comment on is the increased cost for more care at assisted-living residences, because I think this bill is going to have some impact there.

First, I just want to talk a little bit about access. As of December 2015, there were 943 individuals waiting for subsidized registered assisted living. Beds in these facilities right now often get freed up today, under the current legislation, when seniors need more than two prescribed services. Well, if they can access more than two with this change in legislation, which is a good thing, that means they’re going to stay in those subsidized services, in those subsidized beds, longer, right?

As they get more frail, they start off needing one, and then they start off needing two, and then they start off needing three, and then they might need four. Before, they used to move on to 24-hour residential care. But now they’re going to stay longer, and that’s a good thing. I don’t want anyone in this House to think that I think that’s a bad thing.

The more people move, the harder it is for them. I will say that my dad, God bless him, is 75 years old. He just moved this week. I coached him a little bit, long-distance, about checking in with him. He was absolutely exhausted. He’s well. He’s healthy. He downsized from a townhouse to an apartment, but he was exhausted and overwhelmed. I could tell that some of that’s just about aging.

Sorry, Dad. I don’t mean to upset you about that, but it’s true.

I don’t want him to have to make a whole lot more moves in his life. My sister and I have shared with him that we want this to be his last move, ultimately. This should be, I hope, I pray, his last move and that he’ll have the experience of my Auntie Sarah that I mentioned earlier in my comments, because getting old isn’t for sissies.

I don’t want to see…. I think it’s good policy to not move our seniors that often, so this is a good step in the right direction. But I do think we need to have a plan, this government needs to have a plan, about what to do.

[ Page 12255 ]

I want to take a look at the current resources that we have for assisted-living units, because I think it’s important that we understand what we currently have in terms of stock. I mentioned earlier that we have some limited stock, and I’m concerned about what the changes in this bill are going to do to that stock. I think it’s important that government has a plan for how to address the bulge.

[1625]

In 2015, there were, according to the seniors advocate, there were 142 subsidized registered assisted-living residences in British Columbia.

Interior Health, went from 925 units in 2012 to 931 units in 2015. They increased by six. Interior Health increased by just six.

Fraser Health, in 2012, had 1,350 units. In 2013, they had 1,395. But then in 2015, they had 1,393, so they actually lost two units. I’m not sure how that happens, but it only went up by 43 units in those four years.

Now, Vancouver Coastal had 838 units and, by 2015, went down to 798 units. They lost 40 units of housing. This is subsidized assisted-living units.

Now, Vancouver Island went from 986. Then in 2013, they had 1,036 but then dropped down to 1,018. So again, we have this fluctuation. But really, over those four years, we gained just 32 beds.

In Northern Health, it stayed at 290 units straight across.

Overall, we have a 0.9 percent increase in four years in subsidized assisted-living units. In 2013, there was a total for the province of 4,472. Then it went down to 4,430 in 2015. I would argue that it’s not really…. We had a better increase earlier on, from 2012 to 2013, and then it dropped off. I think that’s a significant problem.

Now, not all the units in this province are subsidized. I’ve just talked about a certain

section of it. In 2015, there were 3,247 units of private registered assisted-living in B.C., and that’s an increase of 25 beds from 2012. That’s a good thing. There had been an increase across the board, except in Northern Health. They went from 33 beds to 24 beds. But again, across the board, Interior saw an increase of 45 beds over the four years. Fraser Health saw an increase of 256 beds. Vancouver Coastal saw an increase of 98 beds. And Vancouver Island saw an increase of 260 beds.

Now, I want to just point out that these are where people do full pay. I’m going to talk about the cost because I think it’s important that when we talk about this bill and the assisted living that people are going to need and preparing for the demand, we need to appreciate that not everyone can pay for it. And if they are going to pay for it, how much money are you going to need so that you can stay comfortable as you age?

I think people…. We all ought to be preparing. I hope that everyone in this House is preparing. But not everyone is prepared. Not everyone has the opportunity to prepare. Sometimes we just never earned enough in order to make it as comfortable as we would like.

The big growth, though, in assisted-living beds in the province…. The biggest chunk is in private assisted-living non-registered units in British Columbia, where we have over 16,000 beds, 16,000 units. What’s interesting here is that while the number of units has increased from 2012 to 2015, by 1,267 units, the vacancy rate has dropped 3.5 percent. So we’re seeing that the demand is increasing. We know that the demand is increasing. The private sector is certainly there, ready and able and prepared to do that. That’s a good thing because I think there are people in this province who can afford to do that.

But I worry about those who don’t have the capacity to pay. Right now, as of December 15, 2015, 943 individuals were on the wait-list for subsidized assisted living in this province.

[1630]

So 237 were waiting in the Interior; in Fraser Health, 251 were waiting; in Vancouver Coastal, 188; on the Island here, 122; and in Northern Health, 145. That’s significant, and I worry that that number is only going to grow with this bill.

We need to make sure that we’re making investments simultaneously, and if we’re not making investments and ensuring that we have subsidized units, then we’re going to see a backup in the system.

We could change this legislation. I imagine that it will pass. I can’t imagine anyone saying no to this piece of legislation. But it’s not going to change anything if the wait-list keeps growing. Perhaps for those people who are already in, it would change. It means that they don’t have to move. But people won’t be able to access, and I think that’s a critical piece that we ought to be debating in this House and ensuring that there’s access to assisted living.

It’s a good thing for seniors to have this. I want seniors to be able to access it, but I’m not convinced that this government is prepared to make sure that that’s available for all seniors.

One of the consequences of this bill, and I mentioned it earlier, is that seniors will be staying in assisted living longer, and because they’re going to be staying in assisted living longer, they’re going to be more frail. And because they’re going to be more frail, they’re going to be more vulnerable. Because they’re going to be more vulnerable, there is going to need to be more oversight.

Well, part of the mix in all that is that they’re going to need more staffing. As seniors become more frail, their need for more hands, more support, more help is going to increase. So the current staffing levels that we see in assisted living — that’s probably going to have to increase a little bit. Maybe not a lot, not like 24-hour care, but it’s going to have to increase. What’s that going to do to the cost?

Again, we have some really good public policy here. I’m not saying this is bad public policy. This is good public policy, but we can’t look at it in isolation, that we’re just going to do this and somehow it’s going to magically fix everything. We have a significant problem here. We

[ Page 12256 ]

have a backlog. We don’t have enough resources. We’re making a good piece of public policy decision here, but I’m not sure that we’ve thought of all the pieces that are going to be impacted with it.

So while it’s good for people to stay longer, if we don’t put more resources into making that happen, then I’m not sure that we’re actually going to be doing a great service to anybody. Frail seniors in assisted-living facilities — I worry about them. Are they going to be able to stay? Are they going to be able to financially afford it? I worry that we’re going to see the same issues in assisted-living facilities, where we don’t have enough funded hours, just like we’re seeing in residential facilities. That has impact on their level of care. It has impact on their dignity. It has impact on their health. It has impact on their twilight years.

I want to just reflect on what the cost is. It’s not just the cost of subsidized units. It’s the cost of the private units as well. Those costs are going to go up. In 2015, 60 percent of private, non-registered assisted-living units cost $2,500 or more a month. It’s a lot of money. I would like to have seen a breakdown for another leap, because I think that there is actually….

And 60 percent is a big lump. I would be very interested and will certainly be following up with the seniors advocate to see if she can break out some of those numbers a bit more. That’s pretty expensive.

Those units where people can pay less than $1,500 a month…. That’s only 7.8 percent of the total number of units that’s available for that. Of the rest in between, about 30 percent are between $1,500 and $2,499 a month.

Now, there are seniors who can afford that. There absolutely are. I’m not saying that all seniors need subsidized. But we all have seniors in our lives who just can’t. They’ve perhaps run out of money.

[1635]

I know that my grandfather did, God bless him. He smoked like a chimney. He drank rye. He loved his rye. He lived a hard life, growing up in the Depression. He survived cancer. He outlived two wives. He was a tough guy. Man, I loved him so much.

He ran out of money. He never thought he would live to almost see his 90th birthday. He ran out of money. It’s not like he was extravagant — I mean, he would go to Florida in the winter for a few weeks — but he ran out of money, and he worked so hard. He was an upholsterer by trade. He fed his brothers and sisters.

He certainly told me stories that during the Depression, when he was 12, he went to work. He was an upholsterer’s apprentice. He worked, and he got paid, in his first job, a smoked meat sandwich, two pickles and two Cokes. He ate half the sandwich, he ate one pickle, he drank one Coke, and he brought the rest home for his family. Now, that could be legend, but it’s a good story that he told me, and I loved that story as a child.

He was a hard worker. He ran his own business. He bought a house. He raised a family. He did all the right things. He didn’t buy fancy cars. He didn’t travel extensively. He was a modest guy of modest means. He used his hands to make money to feed his family. And he ran out. He just ran out. He just said: “I didn’t expect to live this long.”

Now, fortunately, for all of us, there were enough people in his life to say: “We got it.” I actually don’t know if my grandfather knew that he ran out of money, because I think it would have been humiliating for him. I think my uncle just said, “Don’t worry, Pop. I got it,” because my uncle was taking care of his finances. But it meant that my aunt and my mom, everyone, threw in a few hundred dollars a month just to stretch until my grandfather passed away.

We all have those people in our lives who’ve worked hard. They did the right things. Sometimes it happens. They just didn’t put enough aside, or they just couldn’t put enough aside, or they just outlived their nest egg.

When I think about this bill and I think about those seniors like my grandfather, I wonder about how the private facilities are going to be changing their fees. This table that the seniors advocate put together. That’s going to bump up, and it’s going to put more pressure on those who can’t afford it or who thought they could afford it or who put money aside so they could afford it. Now it’s going to put more pressure.

Again, I want to just remind the House: I am not upset or think this is bad legislation. I think it’s good legislation, but we have to think about what the implications are all the way down the line. We can’t just see it as this little tiny piece of legislation, and it’s all fine and good. It has real impacts for real people, and we need to be able to reflect on that.

I just want to comment on the kinds of things that keep me up at night. I just have a few more comments before I take my seat here.

Currently we have seniors in residential care who are getting frailer and frailer, and they’re not getting the care hours that meet the government’s own standards. Unless the government makes other choices, this is only going to get worse; it’s not going to get better.

With this new legislation, which is a small step in the right direction, we’re going see seniors in assisted living who will be less able to afford private care, because the costs are going to go up. The government is continuing to choose not to invest in subsidized care, because they’d rather give a tax break to the wealthiest in our province.

We’re also going to see seniors who are in their homes and need home support not get the support they need, given that the number of requests for home support is increasing and the available number of home support hours is decreasing. It’s really not the kind of care these seniors deserve.

I worry that we say the words that these people who built the province, these people who raised all of us, deserve to live out their lives with dignity and with the

[ Page 12257 ]

proper supports that they need, and that with this government, we’re just not going to be able to deliver.

[1640]

L. Reimer: Thank you for the opportunity to speak about seniors care in British Columbia. This debate follows Monday’s private member’s motion on standards for care homes. We covered a vast range of issues in that debate, but perhaps the most revealing fact was that 90 percent of all seniors in this province want to stay in their homes for as long as possible — and for good reason too. People want to remain in their chosen community with their family and their lifelong friends.

It’s a fact that seniors in British Columbia are living longer and better than any generation that came before. Perhaps it is due to a more active lifestyle that we enjoy here in British Columbia. It may also be due to the fact that we are redefining the way we age.

Eventually, all of us will likely require assisted care at some point in our lives and, as we age further, residential care. This legislation, the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, does change the way in which people receive assisted-living and residential care.

Assisted care usually consists of a residence in a semi-independent type of housing which provides residents with some assistance with daily living as well as meal provision and laundry. Accommodations range from private rooms in a home to an apartment-style building with suites.

As we get older, residential care facilities provide 24-hour professional care and supervision in