2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Foresters Act (Bill 78)

Hon. M. de Jong

Agrologists Act (Bill 79)

Hon. J. van Dongen

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

International Selkirk Loop

B. Suffredine

Work of Coastal Parliamentarians committee

G. Trumper

The New Beachcombers television movie

H. Long

Oral Questions

Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Neufeld

Kyoto accord

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Neufeld

Drug costs

J. Nuraney

Hon. C. Hansen

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House

Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73)

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

T. Christensen

B. Suffredine

P. Sahota

D. Hayer

Reporting of Bills

Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73)

Third Reading of Bills

Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73)

Committee of the Whole House

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Coleman

[ Page 4619 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Neufeld: In the House today we have a number of guests that were at our

announcement this morning about an energy plan for British Columbia and a way to

move forward. They are Geoff Morrison, Anadarko Canada Energy;

Patrick Lloyd, B.C. Gas; Mike Doyle, Canadian Association of Geophysical

Contractors; Lorne Grasley, Mining Association of B.C. and Joint Industry

Electrical Steering Committee; Steve Davis and Harvey Campbell, Independent

Power Association of B.C.; and Allen Wright, Coal Association of Canada. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Harris: It's not that often I have the pleasure of introducing someone from

Skeena who gets to come down here, but today in the gallery we have a very good

friend of mine, John Nester. John currently is the president of the Northwest

Loggers Association, a group that he represents extremely well. He also sits on

the board of Northwest Community College, where he is a tremendous advocate for

trades training and just does a great job in the community in a number of

events. Would the House please make him welcome today.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Bond: It's my pleasure today to introduce a number of students who are

visiting with us in the precinct, and I should say that I invited them to

Victoria from a number of institutions on Vancouver Island to talk about

directions in advanced education. I should tell you that the discussion was

candid. They expressed their views — some concerns but also some good-news

things about our strategies.

I'm pleased

to introduce them to you today. From Malaspina University College, we have PS

Sidhu and Melanie Vogels. From North Island College, we have Darren Hutton,

Leann Pitman and Patrick Barbosa. From the University of Victoria, we have Basil

Alexander, Troy Sebastian and Denise Sam. From Royal Roads University, we have

Ms. Terry Rachwalski, Michele Vincenti and Sean Weller. I want to thank them for

their input and participation in the process today and ask my colleagues to help

me make them very welcome here.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today three of B.C.'s

leading agrologists: Wayne Wickens, Larry Bomford and Garth Bean. Also visiting

the House is Mark Parsons, one of my staff. I would ask the House to please make

them all very welcome.

J. Les:

It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House the constituency

assistants for the members of the government caucus who are in the precincts

today. They are here to learn more about the policies and procedures as they

evolve and the things that will enable them to do their jobs better. On behalf

of the government caucus, I want to express my appreciation to all of them for

the wonderful work they do on our behalf and welcome them to the precincts

today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Van Scoffield is the executive director of the Association of B.C.

Professional Foresters, and John Leech is the executive director of Applied

Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia. I think people are

aware of the significance that both those professions play under the guides of

the new forest management regime we're in the process of enacting, and I hope

the House will make both those fine gentlemen welcome today.

Hamilton: Joining us in the House this afternoon are 26 grade 11 students

along with their teachers, Ms. Christine Ersoy and Mr. Marvin Dodds, from

Esquimalt Community School. Would the House please join me in giving them a warm

welcome.

Christensen: It's my pleasure today to introduce a couple of good friends

from my riding of Okanagan-Vernon. Mr. Ajit Sidhu and his son Sid Sidhu are both

leading members in the Sikh community. Sid is the vice-chair of the Agricultural

Land Commission for the Okanagan region. They are both from that fine, fine

tradition and profession in the Okanagan, fruit-growing, and are the owners of

Bella Vista Farms. I would like the House to please make them both very welcome.

McMahon: It's a pleasure today to introduce a constituent and friend from

Invermere, B.C., Buzz Harmsworth, who is in the gallery.

H. Long:

Earlier today, there was a class of students from the Sunshine Coast, and I

don't know whether they're in the precinct this afternoon or not. If they are,

it's a class from Chatelech School, and I would like to make them very welcome

here in Victoria.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FORESTERS ACT

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Foresters Act.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 78 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am very honoured to rise today and introduce Bill 78, the

Foresters Act. This piece of

[ Page 4620 ]

legislation, repealing and replacing the existing Foresters Act which has

been in place since 1947, will bring that act up to date and strengthen its

provisions in terms of dealing with professional accountability.

Members

will know that the Forest and Range Practices Act relies extensively on the

judgment and accountability of forest professionals to ensure that environmental

standards are maintained under a workable results-based code. The key to meeting

this commitment is being able to depend on highly trained, dedicated,

accountable professionals to make sound resource management decisions. With this

new Foresters Act, the judgment of forest professionals can be relied upon as a

cornerstone in the results-based era.

Under the

new act, the association of British Columbia forest professionals will continue

to be responsible for upholding and protecting the public interest by providing

expertise in entomology, ecology, hydrology, silviculture, road planning and

numerous other areas, planning and approving all forest activities and assessing

the effect of activities on the forests.

I want to

thank the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters and the Applied Science

Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia for their invaluable help in

working our way through this legislative initiative.

I move

first reading and move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for

consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 78

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AGROLOGISTS ACT

Hon. J. van

Dongen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Agrologists Act.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I move that Bill 79 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I'm honoured today to introduce Bill 79, the Agrologists Act.

This legislation updates and improves the professional self-governance system

for agrologists. Agrology was first established as a self-governing profession

in 1947, and this is the first time the Agrologists Act has been updated.

The act

continues to enable the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists to oversee the

profession of agrology. The institute is charged with upholding and protecting

the public interest by preserving and protecting the scientific methods and

principles that are the foundation of the agricultural and natural sciences,

upholding the principles of stewardship that are the foundation of agrology, and

ensuring the integrity, objectivity and expertise of its members.

Recently

the hon. Minister of Forests introduced the Forest and Range Practices Act,

which establishes a workable results-based code and reduces the forestry

regulatory burden without compromising environmental values. The key to meeting

this commitment is to ensure that the government, natural resource industries

and the people of British Columbia can rely upon highly trained, dedicated,

accountable professionals to make sound resource management decisions. The new

Agrologists Act ensures that professional agrologists and the B.C. Institute of

Agrologists continue to be capable of fulfilling that role.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 79

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) INTERNATIONAL SELKIRK LOOP

Suffredine: I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a tourism

growth opportunity in the Kootenays called the International Selkirk Loop. The

International Selkirk Loop is a 450-kilometre scenic tour exploring more than 65

vibrant towns in Idaho, Washington, Montana and, of course, British Columbia.

Along the loop, you will find activities to suit every interest and lifestyle.

Encircling the Selkirk Mountains, the International Selkirk Loop is home to

moose, deer, elk, caribou, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and grizzly bears as

well as thousands of species of birds.

While

skiing and golf are primary drawing cards, unique towns exist along the loop

that also offer outstanding shopping, dining, entertainment and events. There

are artisans at Crawford Bay. There's the Hills Garlic Festival, the Kaslo Jazz

Fest and the Harrop-Procter storytelling festival, just to name a few.

Accommodation ranges from budget hostels to four-star resorts. Sunset

Magazine has recently named the loop the best new scenic drive.

Formed in

1999 as a non-profit corporation for promotion of tourism, the loop continues to

draw acclaim and international attention. Directors of the loop recently met

with the Canadian consul general in Seattle to explore joint funding

opportunities to develop this innovative project. The Premier has recently

spoken of the potential of the Kootenays as a major tourist destination. Groups

like the International Selkirk Loop will serve the Kootenays well in realizing

our tremendous potential.

I invite

all members of the House to visit the loop from the queen city of the Kootenays,

Nelson, to the Ainsworth or Nakusp Hot Springs, the Creston Valley Wildlife

Centre, the alpine city of Rossland or the sil-

[ Page 4621 ]

very Slocan. The Kootenay towns on the Selkirk Loop will welcome you with

open arms.

WORK OF COASTAL

PARLIAMENTARIANS COMMITTEE

Trumper: Today I'd like to speak about the Coastal Parliamentarians

committee, which consists of MLAs and MPs whose ridings are on coastal British

Columbia. This was initially spearheaded by Senator Carney, and it was felt that

there was a need for the coastal Members of Parliament and MLAs to get together

to put forward some of the issues that surround coastal communities in the

fishing industry, in the marine industry, and any other issue that affects them.

We meet

once a year at the Coastal Community Network annual meeting, and at that time we

invite local government representatives to be there. We coordinate the issues,

and we hope we have a voice, particularly in Ottawa, with some of the issues

that are very important to us.

Most

recently we have turned our attention to the Coast Guard service, which we all

know has been a major issue on the coast just recently and which we believe is

being depleted, and, most recently of all, the discontinuance of foghorns on the

coast. Now, for those of you who live in the interior, that may not be an

important issue. Ottawa seems to feel that most marine vessels have the various

newest navigational instruments today, but we have hundreds of pleasure boaters

on the water, some of whom use road maps to navigate and have no knowledge of

the marine weather on west Vancouver Island, particularly as that is known as

the graveyard of the Pacific. To us, this is a policy that has been developed by

someone east of the B.C. border.

If there

are issues that can be addressed by the committee, please approach any of us and

myself, as chair of the committee. We would welcome any input that would further

our cause, particularly in Ottawa.

THE NEW BEACHCOMBERS

TELEVISION MOVIE

H. Long:

Last spring I spoke in the House about a hope for production of a two-hour Beachcombers

movie. The Beachcombers , of course, is the long-running TV series based

in Gibsons. At the time, Telefilm Canada had not committed to the project, but

ultimately they did, and tonight at 8 p.m. The New Beachcombers movie

will air on CBC TV.

[1420]

You could

say I'm an old relic of sorts, so I do remember what a positive impact this

series had on the lower Sunshine Coast. The Beachcombers provided good

family-based entertainment for close to 20 years. It had everyday characters we

could all relate to. It was not a cheap knockoff of hit American shows; rather,

it was classically Canadian. I will be working hard to convince the CBC that it

should be given an opportunity to reach a new generation of family viewers

through a regular series. The benefits are significant. The Beachcombers

is still watched by viewers all over the world. It's free publicity for the

Sunshine Coast and British Columbia.

Last week

the people of Gibsons were treated to an audience screening. Hear what Gerry

Parker, terminal manager at Langdale for B.C. Ferries, had to say: "It's

good, clean, family-oriented fun with a lot of fine acting and quality writing.

I will encourage everyone to see it for themselves — a new Molly's Reach with

what life on the Sunshine Coast is still about."

Colleagues,

I will be tuning in tonight at 8 p.m. I invite you all to join me. For those on

House duty, I would ask that you call division only during commercial breaks.

[Laughter.] I join with the community at Gibsons to say to The Beachcombers :

welcome back.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

MacPhail: For generations, British Columbians have benefited from some of

the lowest electricity rates in North America. Today that hydro advantage is on

the way out. While just a couple of years ago the current Minister of Finance

was saying that even with those low rates, hydro rates were artificially high

and should only go in one direction — down — today it's a different story.

In order to satisfy its backers in the private power sector, the government is

handing over responsibility to private power producers to generate new supply.

Can the

Minister of Energy tell us how much more B.C. Hydro customers are going to pay

to subsidize the profits of private power producers?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, we're moving ahead with this government with more good news.

We're moving forward with a publicly owned hydro, B.C. Hydro, to provide

low-cost energy to British Columbians now and well into the future. We're

seeking secure, reliable supply for British Columbians well into the future. We

want to have private sector opportunities to gain their expertise in building

plants in this province, which they have been ably doing since the mid-eighties.

Even under the last administration they were doing that.

We need to

make sure we're environmentally responsible. This is a good plan. This is great

for British Columbia, and I look forward to what it's going to do for the

province in jobs and investments.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, we just heard a good source of wind power, but not much else

there.

It's not

just supply that the government's turning over to the private power producers.

They are also opening up transmission to the private sector. Buried in today's

announcement was news that any new transmission capacity will be built

privately.

[ Page 4622 ]

The

government claims over and over again that it's not privatizing B.C. Hydro. We

hear it from the back bench. The truth is: it's privatizing all future supply,

and it's allowing private transmission. Although the minister didn't want to

admit that today, the technical briefing said that. It's making B.C. consumers

pay more for their electricity to subsidize private profit.

You can

call it anything you like, but British Columbians know that when the MLA for

Prince George–Omineca said it's creeping privatization, he was bang on. Can

the minister tell us how relying on the private sector to build all new

generation and all new transmission will not result in the eventual

privatization of B.C. Hydro?

[1425]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, the Leader of the Opposition has it all wrong. Should we be

surprised?

Transmission

will still be owned. It will be a Crown entity that runs the operation of the

transmission system. The assets — the bolts and nuts — will still be owned

by B.C. Hydro, and British Columbians will own B.C. Hydro from here into

the future, as we promised during the election.

I wonder

when this member changed her mind. She was part of a government in 1992, I

believe, when Anne Edwards was Minister of Energy and Mines. I'm going to read a

quote out of a policy: "IPPs will be encouraged where an electricity supply

is needed and has been clearly identified and where they can provide real cost,

innovation or expertise advantages." That was a policy of that member's

government when she was in government. I can tell you we're going to look toward

that expertise, that knowledge and that ability to get the commercial operations

done in a cost-effective way for low-cost power in British Columbia, moving

forward from here.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I know the Minister of Energy and Mines has flip-flopped perhaps a

half-dozen times in the last two weeks about what his government's intent is on

B.C. Hydro. Today the government announced that future transmission capacity

will be built by the private sector. It was his own government that announced

this just hours ago.

It comes

down to this: public power is cheaper than private power to generate. It's been

proven over and over again, but still the government's handing over

responsibility for supply to private producers and has introduced a domestic

price-setting scheme that is as uncertain as it is complex. That puts at risk

B.C.'s number one competitive advantage, and it's exacerbated now by the

privatization of transmission growth.

I suppose

we'll see how it will settle out, whether prices will go up. We'll see, and the

consumers will judge the wisdom of the government's plan. In the meantime,

British Columbians will know who to blame when and if the plan goes the way of

every other private power scheme in North America.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, let us have the question.

MacPhail: Can the minister tell us again: with all of the experience in the

last two years about private power production throughout North America, why is

he trying to fix B.C. Hydro when it so clearly isn't broken?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I want to tell you that it's no wonder this…. I can't understand

why this member is so confused. We just had a private briefing for the two

members of the opposition, done by the deputy minister that's been responsible

for development of this plan, to clearly explain everything. Nowhere in this

plan does it say that the private sector is going to build all the transmission

from here forward. It will be done by the transmission identity.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It also amazes me how they can change their minds. Mr. Sihota, Mr.

Zirnhelt, a previous Premier called Mr. Harcourt and Anne Edwards, a previous

minister, all talked about the benefits of independent power producers.

Let me tell

you, the only generation that was built from 1985 forward by B.C. Hydro was

under the direction of the NDP for their friends and insiders to build a plant

in Pakistan — a plant in Pakistan that still doesn't have the underground

wires coming back to British Columbia so we can have that power. That's the only

thing that group did.

KYOTO ACCORD

J. Kwan:

Not only have the Liberals put the B.C. Hydro rate advantage at risk, their

energy plan is also a big step backward for the environment. It will make it

harder to meet our Kyoto commitments. Today in Ottawa…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please, hon. members, order. Let us hear the question, please.

[1430]

J. Kwan:

…Parliament is beginning the debate on the ratification of Kyoto. Meanwhile,

here in B.C. the Liberals are opening up the smokestacks to allow private power

producers to burn coal.

Will the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell British Columbians what studies

she has done to

[ Page 4623 ]

determine the effect on air quality of allowing private power producers to

dramatically increase coal-fired electricity production in British Columbia?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, with Kyoto this government is concerned about climate

change. We're working towards having a plan in place for climate change,

something that government never did when they were in power from 1997 forward.

What we're saying is: there is new technology in generation of electricity

either by coal or by natural gas, and we should seriously look at that.

If the

member opposite is saying we should adopt Kyoto as it is — have the greatest

impact on job loss of any jurisdiction in Canada…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …have the greatest impact on investment of any jurisdiction in

Canada and have the greatest impact on our GDP of any jurisdiction in Canada….

That's what the federal government is trying to push down on B.C. We're saying

no. We're standing up for British Columbians and saying that British Columbians

deserve better.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

We learned over the weekend that the pine beetle epidemic in the northern

part of B.C. has reached epidemic proportions with devastating consequences on

B.C.'s economy. According to the real Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection's own report, this epidemic results from global warming and the

increase in carbon pollutants. But the Liberals and the financial backers in the

mining industry want to put even more pollutants into the air by letting…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…the private power producers…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.

I don't

know about the rest of you, but I cannot hear the member's question. Let us at

least give her the courtesy of hearing the question.

J. Kwan:

…burn coal to produce energy for export.

Would the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, if there is one in this House,

please now confirm that this government's plan to burn more coal and add harmful

emissions is the real reason why she and the Premier have been fighting so hard

to block the ratification of the Kyoto accord?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, this government is moving forward with an energy plan that

will have British Columbia Hydro owned by the public. We will go forward with

low hydro costs well into the future, and we will be innovative in how we

generate that electricity across the province.

There are

areas of the province where there is a lot of coal that can't be shipped, and it

has some environmental impacts also. But for a group to sit there and talk about

what we're doing, when they sat idly by with Sumas 2 — never lifting a finger,

never even answering any questions about it, never even opposing it…. It's

pretty hard to take. We're moving forward…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …with a plan that will be good for British Columbia, good for

investment, good for jobs, good for low energy costs and good for British

Columbians, because we will own B.C. Hydro. It was that government that wanted

to sell B.C. Hydro. We are not.

DRUG COSTS

Nuraney: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Under the

current Pharmacare system, low-income families actually pay more for their

prescription drugs than wealthy seniors. While the minister has already

indicated that he's working on a plan that will bring fairness and equity to the

system, many seniors in my constituency have called to express their concern

about how this will impact the low-income seniors.

[1435]

Can the

Minister of Health Services tell my constituents the steps he's taking to ensure

that any change to Pharmacare will not hurt the low-income seniors?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Several weeks ago in open cabinet I outlined our initiative to bring

in an income-based Pharmacare system. We are facing huge cost pressures in

Pharmacare — growths of 14 to 18 percent a year that the previous government

did not fund in the last budget they presented to British Columbians. We are

taking steps to make sure that the benefits are protected for low-income

seniors, and we're also taking steps to reduce deductibles for low-income

families who are not seniors and who are facing very high deductibles.

In the

consultations that we have done, we've had a lot of good feedback from various

organizations in the province, including many seniors organizations that we have

met with. It is becoming more time-consuming than I would have hoped for. I had

originally hoped we could implement this new income-based Pharmacare system on

January 1. That is now not the case. It's going to be delayed by a couple of

months, but when we are in a position to implement it,

[ Page 4624 ]

I can assure the member it will be fair for the lowest-income British

Columbians — in particular, the seniors.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has a supplementary question.

Nuraney: It is important that the seniors have some input into how we

redesign our Pharmacare in order to ensure that their needs are met. Can the

Minister of Health Services tell us what further steps he will take to ensure

that he will consult with the seniors before the changes are made to the

Pharmacare system?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home

Care and I met with several seniors organizations over the last couple of weeks,

and we are going to continue to do that over the next coming weeks. We've had

some great input from those different organizations in the province in terms of

how to make sure that it's fair. One of the things we have to be very conscious

of is that seniors are on fixed incomes. When they start designing their

household budgets, they can't afford changes that are going to disrupt their

planning for their budgets over the course of a year.

For

low-income seniors, we're really taking great efforts to make sure that the

program we designed is sensitive to those who are in lower incomes and really

don't have the flexibility that other British Columbians may have.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 73.

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING ACT

(continued)

[1440]

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 73; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan:

Before I begin debate and ask questions relating to Bill 73, I rise to reserve

the right to raise a matter of privilege.

Debate Continued

section

3 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

Carrying on, then, with the committee discussion on Bill 73, the

section that we

were dealing with last Thursday was

section 3, "Director of

licensing." I was asking the minister questions in terms of the power and

authority that could be directed to the director of licensing. The minister has

responded that under

section 4, it would actually highlight a little bit more

about the powers of the director of licensing.

Before I go

into that, I'd like to ask the minister this question. The minister's response

on Thursday and the act, as well, refer to the medical health officer in terms

of the medical health officer's role. I just want a clarification: is this the

provincial health officer, not the health authorities' individual medical health

officers?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The medical health officer that is referred to in this act is in

fact the medical health officer in the health authority. It is the director of

licensing who fulfils the provincial authority. He is the provincial official.

J. Kwan:

In other words, it's not Perry Kendall, the medical health officer for the

province. Rather, in each health authority there's a separate medical health

officer, and that would be the person to whom powers could be delegated under

the director of licensing.

[1445]

Hon. K.

Whittred: The medical health officer is the medical health officer in the

health authority. The provincial health officer is a medical health officer, but

that is not the usual usage of this in the act as it is defined in

section

3(2)(

b) there.

J. Kwan:

If it's not the usual medical health officer that's being referred to, does it

preclude powers or work to be delegated to the provincial medical health

officer? If that's the case, does it require the minister's approval, or does it

just go straight to the director of licensing?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Any medical health officer appointed under the act can be

delegated, so that would include the provincial health officer.

J. Kwan:

Does that need the approval of the minister, or is it just a delegation by the

director?

Hon. K.

Whittred: It would be a delegation by the director of licensing.

Section 3

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 4, of course, deals with the powers of the director of licensing, and it

outlines those elements in

section 4(1) and (2). The new act, as I understand

it, attempts to separate the roles of the provincial and local officials in

keeping with the spirit of the recent reorganization of health authorities,

putting the emphasis on local autonomy. The director of licensing sets general

standards and policies, collects and shares

[ Page 4625 ]

information between regions, has an overall monitoring role, and where

necessary for the health and safety of the residents, the director may intervene

in respect to a particular facility. Of course, to assist in the enforcement,

health authorities are responsible for ensuring that their employees and

appointees follow the directions of the director of licensing.

Will the

health authorities be funded or compensated for their reporting, auditing and

investigative duties as required by this act, or are they simply supposed to

look within their existing budget to do any work that's delegated to them by the

director of licensing?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The work that is described in

section 4 is already being done by

the health authorities, and that would fall within their area of jurisdiction. I

think it's fair to say that if there was something extraordinary that occurred,

which went well beyond what would be considered normal operations in the course

of a yearly budget, that would be taken into consideration by the ministry.

[1450]

J. Kwan:

As far as I could tell, this

section of the act is new, and there's no existing

provision in the old act relating to it. Perhaps I'm wrong, and if that's the

case, could the minister please advise what

section of the old act it refers to

in terms of the powers of the director of licensing?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member is correct when she notes that this is a new section.

However, the policy described here, which is now in statute, has been in effect

for some time, so the reporting mechanisms have been done for some time as a

matter of policy. They are now written into the legislation. The actual practice

in the field does not change very much.

J. Kwan:

The minister advises that under special circumstances, the minister, the

ministry or the government will consider whether or not additional resources

will be provided to a particular health authority if they are being requested to

do a particular or special investigation. Could the minister please advise how

one would trigger an investigation? What would the procedure be? Would it be by

public complaint to the director of licensing, who in turn would make that

consideration and decide whether or not an investigative procedure needs to be

followed into a particular complaint? How would the procedure work?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The need to provide a special report could, in fact, come from any

number of sources. It could be triggered by a routine inspection. It could be

triggered by an audit or by a public complaint. It could be triggered by any

number of routes, but that would require the director of licensing to order that

a special report be completed.

J. Kwan:

Are there or will there be guidelines or policies that will be set in place for

the director of licensing to consider when an investigative procedure needs to

be executed?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

What are the guidelines?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, in fact, there is a policy framework that is in place, and it

is, of course, being clarified over the next several months. There is also

practice in place from the current system. The ministry will be working to

clarify those policy frameworks before

section 4 is put into effect.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister outline for the House what those policies are right now and

what aspects within those policies are being looked into by government to be

clarified?

Hon. K.

Whittred: We have a flow chart, a protocol chart, that we would be quite

willing to share with the member if that would be helpful to her.

J. Kwan:

I would appreciate this flow chart, but I would also appreciate, perhaps, just

for the minister to outline briefly in this House what that procedure is. I'm

asking this, of course, because it is related to

section 9 on the issue around

inspection of community care facilities as well. Of course, in the last while we

note that in the broader community there have been complaints with respect to

facilities and the problems that have arisen, particularly for the people who

receive their services in those facilities. So I'm particularly interested in

what policies exist now in terms of investigative authorities, how one triggers

that process and, of course, what the changes are going to be. What, in fact,

the powers to investigate and the need to investigate as the complaints surface

even more in the community…. Will the minister actually see to the policy that

would allow for that and for that work to be done as opposed to actually

minimizing and decreasing that work which needs to be done in the broader

community?

Hon. K.

Whittred: If I could just refer the member to the entire

section 4 there, I

think this addresses some of her concerns. This is, in fact, representative of

an enhanced safety net. The powers of the director are enhanced in terms of the

accountability over what was in place previously, and I think that when we get

into discussion later on, on some of the other sections, that will become

readily apparent.

[1500]

To address

her concerns perhaps more fully, there are a number of things that might come up

during the reports around any given facility. These might come from routine

inspections. They might come from complaints from family members. They might

come from licensing. They might come from regulations. They might come from

policies. They might come from statute. Regardless of where they come from, any

one of

[ Page 4626 ]

those things can trigger the need for the director of licensing to

investigate to ensure that the situation is safe for the people who are in care.

J. Kwan:

My question is more specific than that, not just about where a complaint could

come from or the source of the complaint, whether it be triggered by inspections

or a complaint from a family member or whatever the case may be. My question is:

how does the director evaluate that complaint? How does he or she then arrive at

a decision that further investigation needs to be done? So what procedure…?

The

minister had advised that there's some sort of standard procedure that would

apply. There's a flow chart to which that would be applicable. If the minister

could then just outline briefly what some of those steps would be…. Let's just

say, for example, a family member makes a complaint to the director of

licensing. Then what happens after that? Does that automatically yield an

investigative team to look into the merit of the complaint and then to determine

whether or not next steps need to be taken? And if so, what they are, or what

happens? I'm just wondering what that procedure is and how you finally arrive at

a place that says there needs to be, say, an independent audit of the

functioning of the facility or not.

Hon. K.

Whittred: All right. Let's take the member's hypothetical that there has

been a complaint. I think the first thing that would happen would be that the

director of licensing would ask for a report from the medical health officer who

is in the regional authority. He would probably ask for a report from the local

licensing officer. He would ask for evidence to be provided regarding the

complaint. He would evaluate that evidence within the framework of policy,

within the framework of the existing regulations, within the legislative

framework. He might speak with the provincial health officer. He may speak with

the CEO of the health authority. In other words, he may in fact seek counsel

from other officials who would have an interest. Finally, after he has done all

of those things, he would make a decision.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

Would those investigative requests from whatever source be documented and be

made public so that people would be aware of what the nature of complaints might

be and how they are being resolved, particularly to the complainant? I could

only presume that that information would be made available to the complainant,

whatever the process one has embarked on, and then the decision that has been

made and then the justifications behind that decision.

Hon. K.

Whittred: The complainant would have information shared with himself or

herself, providing that the investigation is not compromised in any way.

Obviously, privacy concerns have to be taken into account as well as any

information that may compromise, for example, a police investigation or

something of that nature.

J. Kwan:

Barring confidentiality and privacy issues, will investigations of such nature

be made public?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes. I'd like to just be sure the member opposite understands that

what we're discussing here is, in fact, a very rare occurrence. It would be

something that would happen only in very, very few circumstances. The

complainant would be informed, as appropriate, of the process. However, there

would be no extraordinary measures taken to publicize the outcome of such an

investigation to the public.

J. Kwan:

Certainly, I hope that it would be a rare occasion. What I do want to make sure

of, though, is that in the event such an occasion does arise, the public

actually has the right to know. Also, as we know, there are tremendous changes

taking place across the province. More changes will be forthcoming. What I'm

particularly interested in is making sure that where a complaint is lodged,

there are proper procedures and processes to investigate those complaints and

that where there's merit applicable, that information is passed on to the

public, because I do believe that the public has the right to know.

Section

4 approved.

On

section

Christensen: I just want to get a quick clarification. Does the minister

anticipate that facilities or care arrangements that are not currently required

to be licensed under the Community Care Facility Act, which we're currently

working under, may then be caught by the new legislation and the definition of

the prescribed services? Are there facilities out there now that aren't required

to be licensed as community care facilities but, by virtue of this change, are

going to now be required to be licensed under

part 2 of this act? If so, what

are we doing to try and alert those we may anticipate about that fact?

[1510]

Hon. K.

Whittred: No, I do not think we anticipate that there are, in fact,

facilities that are operating without a licence. That is not a concern.

Suffredine: Under the

definitions

section of the act, this act contemplates

facilities that could affect both the old and the young. It's conceivable that

in smaller communities a school might have several uses, including one that

might be contemplated by this act. Could the minister explain why schools of

varying types are specifically excluded from the operation of this act?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, schools come under the School Act and, therefore, are not

covered in this legislation.

[ Page 4627 ]

Sections 5

and 6 approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 7 deals with the standards to be maintained. This is a major section, if

you will, of this bill. Could the minister please explain why there's only one

line in this legislation about the standards of care? The entire piece of

legislation, one would have assumed, would be focused around the standard of

care for those who fall under this act; yet when you look for the details within

the act around what the standard of care would be and how it would be applied

and so on, there's only one line in this legislation about that. Could the

minister please explain why there's only one line in this legislation about

standards of care?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, I would like to point out for the member opposite that this

section is, in fact, exactly the same as the old act. Provision (b),

"operate the community care facility in a manner that will promote the

health, safety and dignity of persons in care," is, of course, enhanced and

is followed by regulations. There are adult regulations and child care

regulations which provide the detail and put the flesh on the bones, so to

speak, of that particular section.

J. Kwan:

Well, the trouble is that the minister advised that she's undergone consultation

— went and spoke with stakeholders. The whole rationale for bringing this bill

forward is to actually make it better, make it stronger and presumably make it

provide better protection than the previous bill. Yet, when we go to this

section of the act, "Standards to be maintained," I see nothing has

changed. Really, it's not a very good excuse to say: "Okay, well, here's a

piece of new legislation, and it's supposed to be better than before."

[1515]

What we

know, though, across the province is that more and more people are going to be

put at risk as a result of government policies. We know that. We know that

across the board, whether it be long-term care, intermediate care or otherwise,

because funding is being cut. The issue around standards of care becomes even

more pertinent now than ever before. Many of the stakeholders have given this

feedback to the minister. They feel the standard of care issue should be the

centrepiece of the legislation. Why did the minister disregard the stakeholders'

input?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, and when the member opposite speaks of standards, this

section is only one area where standards are addressed in this bill. This bill

goes a long way to, in fact, making accountability much more direct to the

people who are in care and the families who have their people in care. We've

already discussed the enhanced role of the director of licensing at some length.

That is one part of this that makes this bill, in fact, much more able to deal

with direct accountability. We will come to some of the others a little bit

later on when we talk about the role of the medical health officer and about the

appeal process, both of which have been significantly enhanced to make this a

more streamlined process.

As far as

consultation goes, we did consult very broadly, and we have listened to the

people who came forward during the consultation process in order to enhance this

bill and make sure that it is a stronger bill than the old one and that it does,

in fact, focus on the health and safety of people in care.

J. Kwan:

Well, the point I was making to the minister is that on the issue around

standards of care, the stakeholders' comments have been completely disregarded

by the minister. It's not reflected in this bill in terms of addressing those

issues. People have expressed very clearly that this should be the centrepiece

of the legislation. People expressed clearly that they want to make sure that as

all these policy changes and budget constraints are being placed on the broader

community, health and safety would in fact be protected, and those standards

would actually be settled in legislation. We don't see that in this bill under

the

section that is applicable.

The

minister's press release a few Mondays ago said this about the standards:

"The registrar will work with operators to establish basic health and

safety standards." Why did the minister once again exclude stakeholders,

advocates and clients from the development of standards?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member opposite, I believe, is talking about the registrar.

That is in a

section yet to come. But in response to her question of why we

didn't speak to the stakeholders, I consider all of the people that she is

speaking about to be part of the industry.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

Well, let me just clarify. The issue around the registrar…. Yes, that is also

in another section, but it directly goes to questions that are being asked under

section 7, "Standards to be maintained." In the minister's press

release, it actually states that the registrar will work with operators to

establish basic health and safety standards. Under this

section we're talking

about standards to be maintained and what those standards are. What we know is

that there's nothing in legislation. We know that what the government and

minister have done is delegate that authority to the registrar to set the

standards.

What we

also know is that for the minister to say that industry includes stakeholders,

advocates and clients, she's mistaken. She's mistaken because, actually, people

see that differently. People who are in the industry, as opposed to people who

use the services from the ministry, are different groups of stakeholders, if you

will. It's simply not reflective of who the advocates and the stakeholders are

in the broader public — to make such a suggestion.

I will

simply say that this piece of legislation causes me great concern around

section

7, where it does deal with the standards that need to be maintained. In the

[ Page 4628 ]

legislation there is only one line about it, which basically is a statement

that's apple pie. Who could say no that to operate a community care facility, it

has to be in a manner that promotes the health, safety and dignity of persons in

care?

How do you

define health and safety and dignity? Those are the critical questions. It is

unclear by this legislation. There is nothing in it that is defined. It's

further delegated to the registrar to define that.

It does

not, as far as I could see, include stakeholders, people who are most pertinent

in the community care facility sector. Those would be the clients — the people

who live there — and of course the advocates — the people who advocate for

positive changes and who monitor that health, safety and dignity are in fact in

place. When you exclude those people from participation, it leaves a big

question as to what kind of standards would be set. That, to me, is problematic.

Section

7 approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 8 deals with the certification of educators of children. The

minister's website states: "The requirement for early childhood educator

certificates will be continued through regulation for an interim period of time.

Discussion is ongoing with respect to a permanent solution."

Could the

ministry or the minister not come up with a permanent solution prior to the

introduction of the act?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, we've had ongoing consultation with the early childhood

educators. I think the member probably is aware — in fact, I think this

probably dates back many years — that the ideal solution would be a

self-regulating college for the childhood educators. That seems to be a route

that is simply not feasible at this time, so in the meantime the responsibility

will remain with the ministry.

J. Kwan:

Essentially, we're to wait for the regulations, and they will all be defined

in regulations. Why did the minister decide that the opposition and the public

should not have the detailed regulations while debating this bill?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I just wish to remind the member opposite once again that this is

not a brand-new act. It is, in fact,

an act that is replacing

an act that was

here for many, many years. Therefore, there are existing regulations.

[1525]

I've

already explained that the existing regulations are being reviewed. This is an

ongoing process. There is consultation occurring as that process continues. If

the member wishes to review the regulations, the place to look is under adult

care regulations and child care licensing regulations.

Sahota: I'm just looking for a bit of clarification on

section 8. Bill 16

had indicated there is no longer a registry for early childhood education, yet

section 8 of this bill indicates that it's still in place. Can the minister

please clarify?

Hon. K.

Whittred: One of the groups we heard from very frequently in the

consultation process was the early childhood educators. In the earlier draft of

the bill, the certification was going to be left to the regulation. Something

that came out in the consultation was that they preferred it to be in the

legislation, and that is why we made the change. It was based purely on the

consultation process.

J. Kwan:

Before I was interrupted with my flow of questions, the minister said that this

is just amending regulation, that it's an amendment of an existing act — fair

enough. The issue is this: the government is going to be bringing in new

regulations. What those regulations are is the crux of the debate here. The

public needs to know. The opposition needs to know and wants to know, so we know

what the changes are.

Simply to

say that there's already an existing set of regulations and we're amending that,

yet nobody knows what those changes are going to be and what the amendments

are…. That really makes for, quite frankly, the introduction of a piece of

legislation when the government and the minister are not ready.

Does the

minister know what ratio of children to caregivers will be set?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Those ratios are set by regulation, and those regulations will

continue.

J. Kwan:

There will be no changes to the ratio of children to caregivers. If I'm correct,

I ask the minister to please confirm that with the new regulations, there will

be no changes to the ratio.

Does the

minister know what training will be required for early childhood educators under

these new regulations?

Hon. K.

Whittred: There would be no changes without consultation.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister expecting changes? Her answer has just changed from a few

minutes ago. When I asked her a question, she said there would not be changes to

the ratio of children to caregivers. Now, in asking the question again, there

appears to be some possibility that the ratio would be changed. Does the

minister know what that ratio would be?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I think the member opposite realizes the regulations that are

currently in place evolved over the last 30 years, and I anticipate that there

will continue to be an evolution of regulations. We would be very remiss in

government if nothing was ever able to evolve and to change. I anticipate there

will be some evolution as time goes on. We have, however, no plan at this time

to change those regulations.

[ Page 4629 ]

[1530]

J. Kwan:

What is at issue is this. Where changes are to be taking place, what I'm asking

and what British Columbians have said to me that they want to know is what those

changes are and for them to be debated in this House, which is why Bill 73 is

before us. The problem is that we don't know what any of those changes are. Like

so many bills that have been brought to this House, all of the changes that

would greatly impact British Columbians, positively or negatively, are not being

shared in this House, because that information is simply not made available.

That is what's at issue here. You know, it sounds almost a bit defensive to me

for the minister to get up and say, "Well, gee, we don't want to stand in

the way of progress and change," and then to say: "We're not changing

anything, but we want to reserve the right to have the possibility for

change." People in the child care community are particularly interested in

what those changes would be.

The

minister says she doesn't know. That's what it comes down to: she doesn't know.

It does beg the question: why are we debating this bill when there are so many

questions being asked of the minister, and she simply doesn't know the answers

to them? It does beg the question of why this bill is before us to be voted on

in this House.

Does the

minister know what training will be required for early childhood educators under

these new regulations?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This act went through a very transparent public consultation

process, and the process continues. There is, as I've already stated several

times, an ongoing review of the regulations. That is something that goes on, I

think, in virtually every ministry around many, many bills; there is an ongoing

review of regulations. The same transparency that worked around the whole bill

will follow with the regulations. There will be website consultation with the

sector, there will be public documents, and there will be meetings with various

members of the child care community, but at the present time there has been no

change in the regulations.

J. Kwan:

Well, I have just a stack of information sent to me by people in the community

who are concerned about this bill and who are concerned about the process that

they have actually embarked on. I know the minister and this government like to

pretend that they have done a fantastic job on consultation, but it is

notwithstanding that people have concerns. I have this and more information from

the public who have raised these issues with me, with my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings, with the opposition caucus. I raised some of those issues in

second reading debate, and I don't wish to go back and rehash all of that

information.

The

question I ask of the minister is this: does she know what training will be

required for early childhood educators under these new regulations? Is she

saying that there will be no new regulations in place in terms of new

requirements for early childhood educators? Is that what she's saying?

Hon. K.

Whittred: We have made no changes around the qualifications of early

childhood educators. However, I have no knowledge of what might come up in the

future that may in fact become an issue with the child care community. We have

to remain open to the possibility that that will emerge out of the ongoing

consultation process.

Mr. Chair,

I would like to make an offer to the member opposite. If she has information

that is useful to the government on the policies in this bill, I would welcome

her to send them, and we would be quite happy to review them.

The

Chair: We will take a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 3:35 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

section

8 ( continued ).

J. Kwan:

Just prior to the break the minister said she doesn't anticipate that there

would be any changes to the regulations. I wouldn't actually venture as far as

to think that my suggestions for the minister's consideration would be what she

might deem to be valid. We've made many suggestions, certainly, in this House

and in this debate, and so far all the indications have been that the minister

doesn't even think some of the questions are all that valid. Nonetheless, there

are lots of people in the public who have these issues and questions and will

continue to raise them. It would be fantastic if the minister does actually take

to heart the questions that have been raised in the Legislature as well as the

comments made in second reading debate as the regulations are being redrafted

and recrafted, given that there is no information available for the public to

determine what the ramifications are.

The fact is

this. There is a lot of uncertainty about these kinds of regulation changes, and

they do create great anxiety for parents and caregivers alike — not knowing,

as an example, what the ratio changes might be in terms of caregiver per child

versus the other question around the training that might be required for early

childhood educators and so on. When one does not know what those changes might

be, one does not know what the ramifications might be and therefore the impact

on all sectors involved and all the people we're concerned about regarding

changes to the regulations.

That is the

point here that I wish to make with the minister. When the information is not

forthcoming, it creates anxiety in the broader public, and people do want to

register that concern for the minister's information.

Section 8

approved.

[ Page 4630 ]

On

section

D. Hayer:

I'll have a few different questions on different sections of Bill 73. The first

one is…. Many people in my constituency in this province are living

independently but require some help for a few day-to-day basic tasks. Can the

minister please tell us if the assisted-living units will be considered primary

dwellings?

[1545]

Hon. K.

Whittred: If you're speaking of a primary dwelling as a private residential

facility, then the answer is no, it would not apply. In order for this act to

apply, there are very specific criteria which must be met. Among them is that it

must provide housing, it must provide hospitality, and it must provide at least

one or two of what are itemized in the bill as prescribed services.

Suffredine:

Section 9 refers to a facility being open at all times to

visitation and inspection by the director of licensing or the medical health

officer. Should this give rise to any privacy concerns for any of the people who

are patients in these facilities — that they might be subject to an inspection

of their rooms, it seems, at virtually any time of any day?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The first thing I think we need to keep in mind when addressing

the particular issue that you raised is that there is a whole practice of

professional ethics around this question. Certainly, the medical health officers

are very practised practitioners in this field and would be very aware of the

need to respect the privacy of the individuals in the home.

In fact, I

have to say that when I am visiting long-term care facilities, the privacy of

the residents is one thing that virtually all of them take very seriously.

Sometimes I'm invited into a suite to visit with the resident and to look at

what it is like, and privacy concerns are always addressed, so I think that

whole area of ethics and practice is one that is important.

Secondly,

if we're talking about an assisted-living unit or a private home, then the act

specifically states that a warrant would have to be achieved before the

licensing officer can enter the premises.

Suffredine: When will facilities for seniors accommodation not require

licensing? This sets out the things that are appropriate when you are licensed,

but when is it that facilities don't require a licence?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This act addresses the need for licensing when care is provided to

dependent and vulnerable persons. There are, in fact, many kinds of seniors

facilities that are there for seniors who do not fall into that category of care

to live in. The most noteworthy amongst those are those complexes that are often

called retirement homes. Typically those homes offer housing, and they offer

hospitality. They do not, however, venture into the area of care. The people who

live in them are quite competent to direct their own well-being. Those kinds of

facilities do not fall and are not captured within this bill.

[1550]

Suffredine: Is there a particular level or kind of service that triggers the

licensing requirement, a particular level of care?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes. What the bill says about licensing is that a facility must be

licensed if there are three or more prescribed services offered by the facility.

The prescribed services are established by regulation. They are as follows:

regular assistance with activities of daily living such as eating, mobility,

dressing, grooming, bathing and personal hygiene — all of those are captured

in one prescribed service; administering and monitoring the taking of

medication; the central storing or distribution of medication; the maintenance

or management of resident cash resources or property; the monitoring of food

intake or therapeutic diets; structured behaviour management and intervention;

psychosocial rehabilitative therapy or intensive physical rehabilitative

therapy.

If a

facility addresses and offers services to a client in three or more of those

areas, then it would require that it be licensed.

Suffredine: In many of the communities in Nelson-Creston, there are fears of

the seniors and their families that they will be forced out of what they

consider their homes and their home community as a result of reclassification

when they are evaluated.

Recently I

was given a copy of a letter from the chief operating officer of the health

service delivery area to the residents of Halcyon Home, which is an extended

care facility at Nakusp. Without disclosing the name of the recipient — and I

understand this went to all residents — it says:

understand that you and possibly members of your family are very concerned

that there are changes coming to Halcyon Home. It is true that Halcyon Home

will eventually be closed. The interior health authority is moving to develop

alternate forms of housing for seniors in the Arrow Lakes, upper Slocan Valley

area. These will be available for citizens in the area who are not presently a

resident of Halcyon Home for their future needs.

"Please

be assured that you will not be required to leave the community of Nakusp when

Halcyon Home is closed. Accommodation arrangements will be developed to ensure

that you can remain in Nakusp when Halcyon Home closes.

"Halcyon

Home is to be closed because it no longer is suitable, nor does it meet the

provincial standard of care of residents requiring higher levels of care and

support. The interior health authority will be offering in Nakusp different

forms of independent housing accommodation that you may wish to consider.

"Whether

you wish to consider relocating to independent housing or not, I wish to

re-affirm that you will not be asked to leave the community of Nakusp at any

time, unless you request to do so. If you or members of your family require

any further information or

[ Page 4631 ]

clarification regarding the future of Halcyon Home, please

contact Deborah Austin, director, or myself.

hope that I have been able to calm some of your concern with respect to the

future of your accommodation in residential care.

"Yours

sincerely,

F. Riley, chief operating officer."

That's

good news for Nakusp residents, but can the minister advise whether other areas

of the riding and of the province can expect any different treatment than that

in Nakusp?

[1555]

Hon. K.

Whittred: The member is aware that we are, in fact, in the process of

renewing our home and community care facilities across the province. It is the

goal of the ministry to ensure that there is a more substantial network of care

available to clients. One of the things we have certainly learned is that the

kind of network that is available, for example, here in Victoria, where there is

a broad network of services available to serve the senior community —

including various kinds of facilities, bathing programs, meal programs and so on

— is often not available in smaller communities. We are looking to find

appropriate programs for communities such as Nakusp and others that are in your

area.

This is

certainly a particular challenge, considering that many of the facilities that

exist in some communities are very old, and they are outdated. They will not

support the kind of complex care needs of today's client. Health authorities, as

the letter has indicated, are working very hard to ensure that all clients are

suitably cared for at a level that is appropriate to their needs.

J. Kwan:

Section 9 is "Inspection of community care facilities." Why is it left

to the medical health officer, who "may" inspect as opposed to

"must" inspect? Why is there this change in this act?

Hon. K.

Whittred: To address the member's concern in

section 9, the registrar has

the power to inspect if he believes or has reason to believe there is a problem.

That is, he is empowered to use his judgment to determine what course of action

he would take. That is why the term "may" is used there. He has the

duty to inspect in

section 15, so the power you're looking for is in fact

defined. It is simply defined in a different section, under the duties of the

medical health officer.

J. Kwan:

Well, the difference is this in

section 9. The current act says that you are

required to inspect facilities and that these inspections will be done by the

ministry. What does the new act require? That you may inspect. And this task is

being devolved to the health authorities by way of the medical health officer.

There is a fundamental difference in terms of what was in the current act, which

will be revoked as Bill 73 comes into force after this debate, and a weakening,

if you will, in terms of the role of inspection.

When you

deal with

section 15, the duties of the medical health officer, of course, that

deals with investigating complaints. That's on a complaint basis as opposed to

regular inspections, which I will get to

section 15 in a few moments.

[1600]

The issue

here is this: why would you weaken a piece of legislation that formerly actually

required inspections to take place and now simply says that inspections may take

place? Can the minister confirm, as well, that the health authorities could

themselves be running the community care facilities? Would there not be a

conflict if they also get to decide whether or not inspections should be taking

place, to make that decision as opposed to the routine inspections that were in

place under the act prior to the changes — prior to the enactment of Bill 73?

Hon. K.

Whittred: For the information of the member opposite, the current act is….

The wording is similar in the old act. What is currently in

section 9 of the new

act was

section 16 of the current act. It is defining the power of the medical

health officer to inspect. The other power is the duty to inspect; it means that

he must inspect. That is in the current act in

section 14, and in the bill we

are discussing, that is

section 15. The member is not correct when she says that

there has been a change. In fact, there has been no change. It is just in

different sections of the act.

J. Kwan:

Can the minister then confirm that health authorities who could themselves be

running the community care facility may be in a conflict of interest in terms of

doing their own inspections?

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Hon. Chair, just to continue on with that question, to add on — also to be

able to make the determination whether or not they should be inspecting a

particular facility which they might be running themselves….

[1605]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I would like to go back to the previous question that the member

was asking and refer her to

section 14 of the current act — well, the original

act — not the bill that we are debating before us. In

section 14(

c) it says

"carry out inspections, whenever the medical health officer considers it

necessary…." That is the same as the new act in both the power of

section

9 and the duties as defined in

section 15. I hope that clarifies that for the

member.

To add to

that, the medical health officer has a framework of risk assessments that is

used to determine when inspections would be necessary, and that has not changed

from the old act to the new act.

Finally, to

address the member's question about the conflict, that really has been built

into

section 3. We have already discussed that section. We have actually added a

safety net to that.

Section 3 — the director of licensing has the power to

delegate and could, in fact,

[ Page 4632 ]

delegate some other person to carry out the director's powers.

J. Kwan:

Are there guidelines in place that actually outline, as an example, that the

medical health officer from the same health authority cannot investigate and

inspect their own facilities — facilities which they are operating? Is it a

standard guideline that is now in place, or will there be one?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, public health officers have a statutory authority. Their

responsibilities are clearly defined. They have the power to protect the public.

They have the power to protect water quality. They oversee public health safety,

infection control, safety in food services and many other areas such as that.

They are, of course, also guided by their own professional sense of ethics and

practice.

All of

those accountability frameworks are in place, as well as the role of the

director of licensing, who has the power, as I've already pointed out in

section

3, to delegate another person. Also, the provincial health officer has a

statutory obligation to oversee the medical health officers in each health

authority. There are, in fact, a number of accountability frameworks, and this

is nothing new. This is not a change in this act. This is something that, in

fact, has been in place for, I think, many, many years.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps on resorting back to the fact that Bill 73 is not a change

from the existing act, but the fact of the matter is that we're actually in this

House debating a bill to replace the old bill. This is supposed to be a new,

better and improved bill. There are these questions that exist, and they need to

be addressed.

Can the

minister confirm, then, that a medical health officer from the same health

region would not be able to do their own inspections on facilities which they're

operating? If inspections are to be required and to take place, that work must

be delegated to somebody else outside of that health region by the medical

health officer's direction.

Hon. K.

Whittred: Medical health officers have a role, a statutory role, to inspect

facilities in their health authorities, and that will continue. It is

appropriate that it continue. However, the change that is in this act, which

adds a safety net to that particular issue that the member raises, is the

inclusion of

section 3, where we have added the "Powers of director of

licensing" to delegate, and that addresses the new portion of the act that

strengthens the accountability of the medical health officer.

J. Kwan:

I think the question to the minister is a simple one. Where there may appear

to be a conflict or at least the appearance of conflict in a particular

facility, that facility's operated by the health region. The medical health

officer in that health region is charged with the responsibility to do with

inspections. Is this, then, an automatic delegation that that inspection would

be done by somebody else — be delegated to somebody else so that that conflict

or the appearance of conflict would be eliminated? It's a simple question. Yes

or no from the minister's policy?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The answer to that question is no. The medical health officer in

the health authority will continue to have responsibility to inspect facilities.

J. Kwan:

Including facilities which that health region is operating itself?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, that is correct.

J. Kwan:

Well, then it does raise the question from the public, particularly around:

just how thoroughly does one think and does this government think that they will

inspect themselves? It does raise that question, especially around the

appropriateness of that. It's not to say that medical health officers don't do

their jobs well, but there is an issue around the perception of conflict. In

this instance, it would certainly apply if they were to inspect their own

facilities in their own regions. That's problematic, and the question is not

being addressed by the minister, nor is it being rectified by the minister as a

problem that has been identified, and that's a shame.

The

minister says there's nothing that's changed between the current act versus this

bill, Bill 73, the current act on the community care facility. I'm interested in

knowing whether or not this act, Bill 73, still puts in place the mandatory

inspections of facilities and the annual inspections of facilities. If it does,

could the minister please advise what

section refers to that?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, the mandatory inspection that the member speaks of was not in

the old act. It is not in this act. Again, the responsibility of the medical

health officer…. He will continue to use his risk assessment and his

experience and judgment in order to inspect facilities.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

Well, that's another issue, then, that the minister herself has just highlighted

in terms of the need for annual inspections or mandatory inspections, if you

will. Just because it isn't in the old act doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in

the new act, particularly as I raised earlier around the changes that are now

taking place within government policies with the budget constraints that are

impacting every sector throughout British Columbia, and particularly for

facilities that require government funding. To simply not put in place that

routine inspection is remiss of government. It's remiss of this minister by

introducing a new bill that does not address that question.

How does

one actually make sure, then, that the standard of care that was debated in the

previous

section would actually be maintained? The only recourse

[ Page 4633 ]

that people can go through is then on the basis of complaint. There would be

no routine inspection to check into whether or not there are violations of

standard of care. Whether or not the standard of care that is supposedly being

established is certainly not clearly articulated in this act, but nonetheless a

standard of care that would be established…. How would one know that they're

actually being followed in the different facilities if no routine checks are

being put in place?

Section 9

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Didn't even wait to see whether or not the minister wishes to answer the

question, and we've moved on to

section 11. The speed and the cooperation with

which all concerned in this House are assisting the minister to speedily go

through the sections of the act is unbelievable. Of course I mean every member

in this House, whether it be in the chair or elsewhere.

Section 11

deals with the powers of the medical health officer. The medical health officer

has the authority to judge a person's personality, ability and temperament. Some

would argue that that is a tall order. How much time would the medical health

officer be spending with potential licensees to enable this judgment to be made?

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. K.

Whittred: The medical health officer would do an interview. The extent of

that interview would be in keeping with his responsibility to determine at the

end whether a licence should be awarded, and I would assume that that interview

would be quite extensive.

J. Kwan:

Will they be subjected to personality tests? The minister says they'll be quite

extensive. I couldn't say that I could fairly judge the personalities, the

abilities and the temperaments of the members of this House based on the time I

spend with them. I also like to think that their behaviour in this chamber is,

well…. Anyway, let me just not go there.

[1620]

Section

11(2)(

b) seems to have a typo, actually. Perhaps the minister will amend that.

It says: "(

b) if a corporation, (

i) has a director permanently resident in

British Columbia." Was the intent to say "permanently residing in

British Columbia"?

Hon. K.

Whittred: "Permanently resident" is the intended language.

J. Kwan:

That must be the new plain language that is running rampant throughout this

ministry and this government elsewhere.

Under this

section, I understand that the standards for facilities, licensees and employees

will now be prescribed by regulation. Why is the minister eliminating the

statutory authority for the protection of clients?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could ask the member to repeat her

question. We are not quite sure what is being asked.

J. Kwan:

The question to the minister is this. I understand that the standards for

facilities, licensees and employees will now be prescribed by regulation. Could

the minister please advise why the minister is eliminating the statutory

authority for the protection of clients?

Hon. K.

Whittred: It's standard practice for the statute to say that the regulations

will define the standards. That is the way it was done in the old act, and that

is the way it will continue to be done.

J. Kwan:

I'll simply close with this. It just seems to me that that has been the practice

of this government. They say: "Here's new legislation." They say:

"Here's better legislation. Here's the new, improved piece of

legislation." They say they've consulted with people, and they say:

"Here are the new changes." Yet when you go through the act, the

minister's response when questions are asked about why this is not changed and

why these concerns are not addressed…. The minister simply resorts to saying:

"Well, gee, that's how it was."

Well, the

whole purpose of bringing in new legislation is to address concerns that have

been raised from stakeholders. The minister says she has consulted, but the

reality is that we don't know what the new regulations are. When asked about

those questions, the minister just says: "Well, they're existing

regulations, but then they will be clarified." In terms of what direction

would they be clarified? What are the changes? The minister has no idea

whatsoever. Yet we're in this House right now debating a bill that is going to

go through — that is going to go through with, actually, I would venture to

say, the minister not knowing what the ramifications are.

[1625]

The

concerns that have been raised, questions that have been asked in this House,

raised by the community, are simply not addressed. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair,

it's simply not good enough.

Sections 10

and 11 approved.

section

D. Hayer:

Many facilities across the province currently operate under the Hospital Act.

For all those facilities that currently operate under the Hospital Act, how is

the minister proposing to transfer them to the Community Care and Assisted

Living Act?

Hon. K.

Whittred: There are two groups of hospitals that are affected by this

section. The first is private hospitals, and the second is extended care

hospitals. Both those groups are presently licensed under the

[ Page 4634 ]

Hospital Act. The ministry has written letters to the facilities that are

affected and has told them of our plans to bring them under the umbrella of the

Community Care and Assisted Living Act. We have included in the communication

that we will be consulting with them broadly before they will be brought under

the jurisdiction of this bill.

Section 12

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 13 deals with suspension or cancellation of licence.

Section 13 uses the

term "in the opinion of the medical health officer" for the medical

health officer to decide whether or not to suspend or cancel a licence. I'm not

disputing whether or not the medical health officer should have the authority to

do that.

[1630]

The

question is that the term "opinion" in this

section of the act strikes

me as broad. It actually doesn't really say what some of the conditions or

criteria are that would apply in formulating that opinion, other than to say

that if the licensee no longer complies with this act or the regulations or has

contravened a relevant enactment of the B.C. or Canadian licence provisions.

Could the minister please explain the term "opinion," and is the

minister comfortable with this term?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, the medical health officer is a professional, and we do think

it's appropriate that we rely on the professional judgment of a medical health

officer. It needs to be pointed out that items (a), (

b) and (

c) in this

subsection itemize the areas that he would be making judgments upon. I think we

need to point out once again that the medical health officer will be basing his

opinion, making his professional judgment, on the basis of information that he

has. That information will come in the way of inspections. It will come in the

manner of making a judgment about whether or not the regulations have been

applied properly. It will come around a judgment about whether or not the

statute is being properly enforced. He will look at his risk assessment tool. He

will, I'm sure, assess the problem and take some appropriate action.

The other

thing I think we need to point out here is that the decision of the medical

health officer can be appealed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the medical

health officer that his decision be justifiable, because he may have to justify

that before an appeal board.

J. Kwan:

Under the current act the requirement is that the director can determine,

following a hearing, whether or not to cancel or suspend a particular licence.

Why is that process being eliminated?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This

section is, in fact, one of the sections that the member has

been asking about around what is different about this act. Well, this

section is

one of the areas that is different. It is, in fact, one of the areas that

significantly enhances this bill. It significantly improves the ability of the

medical health officer to protect the health and safety of persons in care,

because it gives him the opportunity to take immediate action to ensure health

and safety for residents.

One of the

things that came out very loud and clear is — also, practice over the last

number of years has shown us — that in the old act, the local hearing process

often became bogged down. It went on for weeks and months of process, and that

was not to the benefit of the people in care, nor did it add to the ability of

the act to ensure good care. The new way of dealing with that will actually be

addressed in

section 17, when we get to the reconsideration process, but I wish

to point out once again that this is an enhancement to the act. It is an

improvement.

J. Kwan:

The minister says it is an improvement. The trouble I'm having here is that it

is unclear to me what constitutes the opinion of the medical health officer;

therefore allowing the medical health officer to either suspend or cancel a

licence, I think, works both ways. One has to be clear so that people will know

under what circumstances they will actually risk losing their licence. I'm not

saying that that work should not be done by the medical health officer. I'm

simply saying that the rules and guidelines need to be very clear so that people

understand them.

[1635]

Would the

minister agree that any violation or contravention of the act would yield a

suspension of a licence and potentially the cancellation of a licence? What

constitutes the extent to which a licence could be suspended or cancelled? Is it

only to the degree to which health and safety would be compromised? What about

the issue around quality of life as it applies to the client who is residing in

such a facility? Quality of life is actually not prescribed under the standard

of care as established in this act.

Hon. K.

Whittred:

Section 13 gives the medical health officer the authority to do a

number of things. It gives him the authority to use his professional judgment. A

very simple reading of the bill says that he may suspend, he may cancel or he

can do to enhance the community care facility.

There is a

common practice, I think, that is well known. That is the practice of what is

known as progressive enforcement. The medical health officer may, in fact, issue

a warning. He may put some conditions around some aspect of the community care

facility. He may suspend a licence, or he may cancel a licence. Or all four of

those things may happen over a period of time. It is the responsibility of the

medical health officer, really, to evaluate when there is grave danger and where

health and safety are compromised and to take measures to ensure that that is

not happening.

J. Kwan:

That was an interesting answer, because if you look at the current act, the

Community Care Facil-

[ Page 4635 ]

ity Act, it actually says….

Section 7 reads: "The director may,

without notice or a hearing, attach terms or conditions to or suspend a licence

or interim permit until the commencement or completion of a hearing under

section 6 if the director has reasonable grounds to believe that the health or

safety of persons cared for at the community care facility is at risk if the

terms or conditions are not attached or the suspension is not imposed."

In other

words, actually, there are provisions by which you can override the process of a

hearing for the purposes of health and safety protection.

[1640]

It's

interesting, because earlier on the minister said that under this

section of the

act, the hearing procedure was cumbersome, so we needed to find a way to

override that. In the existing act there is a way to override that. One must

actually justify that on the issue of reasonable grounds to make that

determination. It's just a curious thing, because the terminology has changed.

It's one's opinion to be used to make an evaluation as opposed to measures or

tests, if you will. It's simply a matter of opinion, so it's intriguing in terms

of how the words have changed.

We'll watch

and see how this

section of the act will play out in due course — whether or

not the health and safety of people who are in these facilities would actually

be protected; more to the point, whether or not people's quality of life would

be protected and enhanced; and how government would deal with facilities that

are being operated by the health authorities themselves where they may come into

contravention with the act and its application. We'll be watching very closely

on all those fronts.

Sections 13

and 14 approved.

section

D. Hayer:

I have a question for clarification from the minister. With this new

legislation, local medical health officers will have increased decision-making

authority. They will have responsibility for evaluating and reviewing, issuing

and enforcing the community care facilities' licences. Can the minister tell us

what the procedure is for appealing the decision of the medical health officer?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The appeal process is actually a two-step process, so what happens

in terms of a licensing decision is this. Let's suppose someone has gone and

applied for a decision, and the person applying does not like something that has

been decided. They may ask the medical health officer to reconsider, and they

would discuss the matter. This process of reconsideration is a fairly informal

procedure, and the situation may be resolved or may be changed. However, it may

still in fact remain, in which case the person would have the right to go to the

second stage, which is the appeal board, to actually appeal the decision of the

medical health officer.

J. Kwan:

This

section of the act deals with the duties of the medical health officer,

including investigating every complaint that is made. I think it is important

that when complaints are made, investigation takes place. But as I mentioned

earlier, I also feel very strongly that there ought to be annual inspections.

Those need to take place as well. I don't think we can simply rely on a

complaint basis to ensure that a standard of health safety is being maintained.

[1645]

This is

problematic because nowhere in the act does it indicate there would be annual

inspections of facilities. Could the minister please advise that…? Is it her

opinion that annual inspections are not required? Why does she make that

determination not to require annual inspections in addition to inspections that

are triggered on the basis of complaints?

Hon. K.

Whittred: For the information of the member, this is really a decision that

is based on best practice in the field. The literature clearly supports the

philosophy that risk assessment is a route to be followed. There are many things

that go into the risk assessment program. There are action plans from various

facilities. There are incident reports. The medical health officer, in fact, has

a whole risk assessment framework. That risk assessment framework would

undoubtedly indicate there are some facilities that, in fact, need far more

frequent inspection than once yearly, and there are others who have never been

called into question who probably would not benefit from an assessment.

In

summary,

the best practices in the field all indicate that it is far better to focus

resources on those areas that require more frequent monitoring than to try to

use a kind of overall approach where everybody's going to get one visit a year,

even if that is clearly inappropriate and is not going to accomplish the task.

J. Kwan:

Nobody's suggesting that's the only method in which inspections should take

place. In the minimum, though, one would assume that annual inspections with

facilities would take place on a random basis, so that you can actually go in

there and see what is going on and whether or not standards are being violated,

whether or not people's quality of life is being compromised in any way, shape

or form. Without doing those inspections, you would never know. Yes, you can use

risk assessments as a tool to make that evaluation. You can use complaints as a

tool as well. But the fact of the matter is that there is no inspection being

required even on a random basis to actually check out whether or not what people

say is going on is in fact the truth.

What I'm

worried about is this. In some of the facilities so much of it is dependent on

the complaint, or the investigation is dependent on complaint. As we know, many

of the clients who use these facilities may well not be in the position to file

a complaint or to make a complaint. When that happens their health and safety

and standard and quality of life are being compromised. That's what I'm worried

about.

[ Page 4636 ]

I want to

make sure there is a process in place from government to ensure that those

individuals who may not be in the position to make a complaint would…. Someone

would actually ensure that those facilities are operating in a manner that is

appropriate and not in violation particularly of health and safety standards but

also, in my view, quality-of-life standards.

[1650]

Hon. K.

Whittred: Certainly, I share the goals of the member opposite that we want

not only health and safety, but we want quality of life. However, there is

absolutely nothing in the literature that supports the idea that a regular

inspection of any kind is going to either enhance quality or, in fact, improve

health and safety. The literature clearly states that when a clearly followed

framework of risk assessment is adhered to, the risks can be identified and

managed much better when that procedure is followed. The best practice is one

where we want to focus upon those that are clearly perhaps not providing, as

you've suggested, the best quality care. Those are the ones where we would want

to put our resources.

I might

also add that the member's concern that some clients might not be able to speak

on their own behalf…. This act, again, clearly allows family members, staff

members, volunteers — all of those individuals — to report incidents as is

appropriate.

Section

15 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

section 16, which deals with the issue of exemptions, the change as I

understand it from the government side — the rationale, if you will — is

that it allows for the medical health officer to grant exemptions, which

provides greater local autonomy and as well removes one administrative process.

The granting of exemptions will be guided, of course, by regulations, and these

regulations will be designed to encourage, as the minister or the government

says, innovation and special projects.

Obviously,

no exemptions should be able to jeopardize the health and safety of persons in

care. In the standard of care definition there is no mention of the issue of

quality of life. Quality of life, as the minister just said minutes ago with

respect to questions around

section 15, is an integral part of the standard. In

my opinion, that certainly is the case, and it should have equal standing with

health and safety concerns. Does the minister agree with that? How will one then

ensure that quality of life is being maintained?

Hon. K.

Whittred: We are, as I've mentioned earlier, in the process of renewing home

and community care in this province. One of the goals that we are pursuing is to

ensure that there is, in fact, appropriate care given to people to suit their

needs. At the present time we have many, many examples around this province

where people are channelled into levels of care that are not appropriate and do

nothing to enhance their quality of life. It's precisely around the issue of

quality of life that we are focusing our resources. We are looking at ensuring

that the facilities that we have are conducive to enhancing independence for our

residents and in fact to enhancing their family life, enabling them to live as

normally as possible as they reach that time in their life when they need some

support in order to live independently.

[1655]

J. Kwan:

Where in the act does it refer to the standard of quality of life being

maintained? Who gets to set that standard?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Two things. I would like to again remind the member of areas that

we've already passed. In

section 7(1)(

b) it talks about a community care

facility being operated in a manner that will promote the dignity of persons in

care. Dignity, I believe, is the word that comes to mind when we're talking

about quality of life.

Returning

now to

section 16, which is the

section we're dealing with right now,

section

16(1)(

a) says "there will be no increased risk to the health and safety of

persons in care…." We must remember that is the absolute, fundamental

bottom line in terms of what can be looked at. I am thinking particularly in

that area of an example which is one of my favourites: a mobile child care

facility for the film industry. The regulations in the present act deny child

care to the workers in the film industry, because it is not possible to meet the

prescriptive regulations.

This act

will enable the child care industry to have a child care setting in a mobile

form, which is the way that those workers work. This is one that I'm quite

familiar with, because I have a great deal of the film industry in my home

riding. I see this all the time. There are a lot of workers that go out for very

long days. They have great difficulty getting child care because of their long

hours and their very different settings. This act will allow that. However,

there must not be any increase in risk to the health and safety of persons in

care.

J. Kwan:

There's a disconnect with what the minister says versus what the act says. It's

true that

section 7 deals with the health, safety and dignity of persons in

care. Not to go back to

section 7, but I just want to set this in context in

terms of the standard of care we're talking about.

When the

minister is asked what exactly that means, the minister actually doesn't know,

because that is yet to be developed in regulation. Whether or not quality of

care, quality of life, actually is incorporated in that remains to be debated,

in my view. The standard of quality of life and how that would be defined remain

to be debated. We don't have the regulations before us at this time so that we

can make that judgment.

[ Page 4637 ]

We go to

section 16, which deals with the exemptions issue. The issue around exemptions

deals specifically with only two standards of care: health and safety — health

and safety only. It makes no mention of quality of life or even the vague words

of "dignity of persons in care."

There's a

disconnect in terms of making sure that the provision is there in terms of the

standard of quality of care, quality of life, actually being maintained and

where exemptions may be applied. I'm not quite sure how one would be able to

deem, from this act, that exemptions to the regulations would not be granted,

because the only two requirements that are there would be health and safety

requirements.

[1700]

Where does

it say in

section 16, which deals with quality of life…? If the minister likes,

then the words "dignity of persons in care…." Where is that in

section 16 that would actually disallow for an exemption?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Even with an exemption, the act still applies. In the example I

gave around the childcare facility in a mobile facility to accommodate the

children of people in the film industry, that would still have to meet the

requirements of the act, including the child care regulations and including the

broader aspects of the act that speak to the dignity of, in this case, the

children who are in that program.

J. Kwan:

Have the regulations that apply in this

section been drafted?

Hon. K.

Whittred: In this instance, when an applicant is asking for an exemption,

they would have to propose alternative arrangements to the medical health

officer. If I can go back to the example that we've been using in the film

industry, if this is Lions Gate Studios who are wanting to set up a child care

program for the people working in their film industry, then they would have to

show what alternate arrangements they have in place that are not going to

increase the risk to health and safety of the children in their care and, at the

same time, satisfy the medical health officer that the terms of the act are, in

fact, in place.

J. Kwan:

Will there be draft regulations attached to this

section of the bill?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Yes, there will be work done on describing what the prescribed

requirements would be. That would be done following the passage of this act.

[1705]

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise who requested this change to this act?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I believe the question was: who was it that asked for this? In

response to that question, I can go back to the five years I spent in

opposition. This was something that was, in fact, acknowledged by both sides of

the House — that the old act was extremely rigid and often stood in the way of

what were really just seemingly commonsense solutions to things. We would hear

this over and over again.

In fact, I

can remember, in opposition, bringing forward an instance where a child care

setting in a rural area had been closed down because it had a muddy driveway.

Now, that was clearly silly. I've already given the example of the child care in

the movie industry. I can give you another example of child care centres where

ethnically appropriate food could not be given because the regulations stated

that a certain type and standard of food had to be met — not just that the

food was nourishing, but actually prescribed what it was.

This

section is a response to many, many stakeholders in the system. It's a response

to the child care community. It's a response from medical health officers. It's

a response from people in the seniors care sector who see that there are other

options that might be appropriate and that need to be looked at. I point out the

remarks of Dr. John Blatherwick, who said that this new legislation allows for

greater flexibility at the local level to meet the needs of the population. It

gives communities something they've been asking for. Communities have been

asking for this.

previously had in this province

an act that was so prescriptive that it didn't

matter whether you lived in Atlin or in Vancouver. The regulations were

precisely the same, yet the conditions around how you care for your elders or

how you care for your children or how you care for your mentally handicapped

were all lumped into one. It made it particularly difficult for people in the

outlying and rural areas. In answer to the member's question, that is the

reason. The asking for that came from many, many sources and, I think, has been

widely known around this province for some time.

Now, to

address the member's question perhaps more specifically, this act endeavours to

simplify the process that was in the old act. In the old act you would have to

go to the medical health officer and request a change. That change would then

have to be referred to the provincial variance committee, who would make a

ruling. That, in fact, could be appealed, so it could go to the Community Care

Facility Appeal Board. This was a very complicated process that was frustrating

to everyone in the field.

This change

is a response to the communities who said: "Let us have some local input

and allow communities to make sensible decisions that will not put health and

safety at risk but will enhance the delivery of community care to the people who

live in those communities."

J. Kwan:

The example the minister used, of muddy driveways…. Whether or not a child

care facility should be shut down because of a muddy driveway obviously does not

impinge on the question around health and safety, if that's the only issue here.

Nor is it applicable to this

section of the act around exemptions,

[ Page 4638 ]

quite frankly. Really, the example she used is rather…. Well, it's not

relevant or applicable.

[1710]

The other

issue around food, as an example…. I know of facilities that actually serve a

variety of different ethnic foods, especially in celebration and recognition of

the ethnic diversities throughout our community.

Before I

got elected to this Legislature, there used to be a program called "adopt a

politician." We used to be adopted by particular, different care centres

around the community, to visit them and to be familiar with them. Ethnically

diverse foods were often served, and there were never any questions as to

whether or not that was appropriate. It's not a question of whether or not they

should be exempted by regulation. As long as the food is healthy, clean and safe

for people to consume, then it is being consumed. That ranges from health care

facilities for children, child care centres, to those for seniors. I've been to

both where that is applicable.

I'm not

quite sure if the examples which the minister has highlighted are particularly

relevant to the question or applicable to this

section of the act. If it was

indeed the case in the past that people or facilities were being shut down

because ethnically diverse foods were being served, then I do question the

efficacy of the work being done and the appropriateness of it, but to my

knowledge, I actually haven't come across that. I've seen a number of different

facilities where that is, in fact, being encouraged.

We'll see.

On this issue my biggest concern remains around people's quality of life and

whether or not those standards will be maintained and, if so, how. Will people's

care — whether they be children or seniors or somebody in between or people

with disabilities — be compromised as a result of this act? We shall see, and

we'll monitor that very closely.

Sections

16 to 21 inclusive approved.

section

D. Hayer:

Unfortunately, there are occasionally incidents of abuse reported in the

assisted-living facilities. Even more unfortunate is that often employees are

scared to speak out in fear of retaliation from their employers. They fear they

could lose their jobs or be discriminated against in the future.

How will

Bill 73 protect employees that speak out against abuse and in turn protect the

residents of these facilities?

Hon. K.

Whittred:

Section 22 is indeed another example of how this act is improved

from the old one and is a significant enhancement. The member has mentioned or

asked how people are protected. Well, that is the purpose of this section. It

protects people in care — whether it is the person themselves, a family member

or a volunteer — from any kind of reprisal, intimidation or that sort of thing

if in fact they do report what they consider to be abuse.

Sections 22

to 24 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

This

section of the act deals with the powers of the registrar. The bill doesn't

deal with any of the major affordability issues on assisted living. Under this

act there are no restrictions on what can be charged for rents, for services or

for care aides. Can the minister tell us why not?

[1715]

This was

canvassed earlier under the

definitions section. The minister simply says that

the question around affordability is not applicable to this act. One would argue

differently, that it's particularly applicable, because seniors and their

families will be impacted by that.

Hon. K.

Whittred: The purpose and the scope of this act are to provide a framework

that addresses the health and safety of individuals who live in continuing care

facilities and assisted-living facilities. The purpose of this act does not

address the issue of financial eligibility.

J. Kwan:

That's precisely the point: it doesn't. Therefore, if you look at this act, one

could certainly determine and arrive at the outcome that rents could be charged

and increased on a regular basis, and there could be no justifications to why

rents were being increased for those who live in the assisted-living facilities.

They could increase as often as someone wants to, hence creating a problem for

seniors.

The notion

of separating out the assisted-living

section from the Residential Tenancy Act

actually provides zero consumer protection on affordability for those who live

in assisted-living facilities. Isn't that a problem? Isn't that a problem that

the minister should be worried about?

Hon. K.

Whittred: We are aware that consumer protection is an issue. The member has

raised it before. We have had the issue raised, I have to say, by other sources.

I might

also say that that member was a member of a government for ten years. The issue

also existed then, and the issue was not addressed. The issue remained all of

that time and was not included in any legislation.

We have

taken the step to include assisted living as part of a community care facility,

and we have made that decision on the basis that there is an element — one

criterion of care — that goes into the definition of that. I repeat what I

said the other day. We are in consultation with the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services around appropriate consumer protection for other

kinds of living arrangements.

[1720]

J. Kwan:

Prior to the changes that will be forthcoming today or the next day around the

Residential Tenancy Act, at least consumer protection applied to those

[ Page 4639 ]

living in assisted-living facilities. That is no longer the case, because the

RTA no longer provides that protection. Under this act it doesn't either. There

is no affordability protection, consumer protection, which the minister admits

is applicable to people living in assisted-living facilities. That's a problem.

In fact,

just a few days ago we even received correspondence from various people,

including the Canadian Reformed Senior Citizens Home Society, who raised a variety

of concerns around this act including the assisted-living provisions within the

act. That's a major problem, in my view. Can the minister advise? She said the

Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is going to come forward

with a separate act dealing with the consumer protection on that. Could the

minister advise what the time line is on that? How long will there be a lapse in

which no consumer protection would be afforded to those who live in

assisted-living facilities?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I do not believe I have said that the Minister of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services is going to be coming forward with

an act. I

have said the minister is in consultation with stakeholders. We have been part

of that consultation, and the member will have to ask the Minister of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services exactly what his intent is.

J. Kwan:

So the minister is saying she doesn't care. Is it the case that the minister

doesn't care when

an act, if there would be

an act, would be brought in to

provide consumer protection for her clients under the assisted-living provisions

of this

section of the act? She is saying it doesn't matter if there are no

affordability provisions, and whatever the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services decides to do is fine with her, even if he doesn't bring

forward the consumer protection that would be required, I would say, for British

Columbians.

Hon. K.

Whittred: T he member is quite mistaken in her remarks. I, in fact, do care,

but I have also pointed out that this is not my jurisdiction. I have said

repeatedly that there are ongoing consultations. I am part of that consultative

process, and I'm sure there will be movement on this file, as they say, over the

next weeks or months.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps years, with the exception that this minister is charged with

responsibility for people living in assisted-living facilities. This minister is

actively moving people out of long-term and intermediate care facilities into

these supposedly assisted-living units. This minister is charged with the

responsibility of supposedly building some 5,000 units of assisted-living

facilities over the next four or five years.

In the

process of doing that, there's nothing to protect consumers on the issue around

affordability, and somehow the minister says: "Oh, but I do really

care." Tell that to the people who are faced with substantial rent

increases — rent hikes with zero protection and nowhere to turn to and no

homes to go to because the government has evicted them.

[1725]

Sahota: Can the minister elaborate on the process if the registrar were to

determine that standards are not being met on an assisted-living facility? What

would the process be?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The process that the member asks about will be developed by a

registrar who will be appointed by myself. Perhaps just to make that a little

bit clearer, the first thing that's going to happen is that an interim registrar

will be appointed. It will be the duty of that registrar to put in place a

process, in fact, to see that standards are developed. It will be the

responsibility of that person to consult with stakeholders and that sector. That

sector, and I'm very clear here, includes the broad cross-section of people who

are affected and who are applied in that sector. They will come up with not only

the process but also the standards.

Sahota: As the minister just said that the minister will be appointing a

registrar to the process to monitor the complaints, has the minister given

thought in terms of who will be appointed as the assisted-living registrar?

Would it be a bureaucrat, a private sector worker, a health authority employee,

etc.?

Hon. K.

Whittred: There is no necessity in this bill for the registrar or the

interim registrar, for that matter, to be a public servant, so I would

anticipate that we will be looking for someone who is in fact very knowledgable

around the industry. We would, of course, be looking for somebody very well

qualified who would have the ability and the background to put the process in

place.

Sahota: I know that the registrar will work to establish basic health and

safety standards and will have the authority to conduct inspections, but what

will trigger the registrar to inspect a facility?

Hon. K.

Whittred: The criteria are listed, I think, quite clearly in

section 25(2).

If the registrar has reason to believe that an unregistered assisted-living

residence is being operated or that health and safety are at risk, the registrar

may enter and inspect. He may inspect. He may make copies of things and so on.

The registrar, in fact, has powers that are quite similar in that field to the

powers of the officers in the community care side.

Section 25

approved.

section

[1730]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I would like to move the amendment to

section 26 that is in the

possession of the Clerk. I will read the amendment now — that the

[ Page 4640 ]

Community Care and Assisted Living Act be amended as follows:

[SECTION

26, by adding the following subsections:

(6) Subsection (3) does not

apply to a person if the spouse of the person

(

a) will be housed in the assisted-living residence with the

person, and

(

b) is able to make decisions on behalf of that person.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. K.

Whittred: Just to give some explanation around that, Mr. Chair, if we look

section 26(3), it says that a registrant must not house in an assisted-living

residence persons who are unable to make decisions on their own behalf. The

floor amendment addresses a point that has been raised in feedback that we have

received. It would prohibit assisted-living operators from housing persons

unable to make decisions on their own behalf. It has been pointed out to us that

there are situations in assisted living where the decision-making capacity of a

spouse diminishes, but the other spouse is able to provide the assistance that

would allow them to remain in their assisted-living home. In these

circumstances, it is appropriate that the prohibition in

section 26(3) not

operate to force the couple to relocate. This floor amendment addresses that

situation by providing an exception to

section 26(3), allowing a person with

diminished capacity to continue to live in their assisted-living home if their

spouse is able to make decisions on their behalf.

Amendment

approved.

Section

26 as amended approved.

Sections 27

to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

Kwan:

Section 33 deals with the offence and penalty

section of the act, and

I see that's changed quite substantively from the existing act. The new

section

under Bill 73 around offence and penalty states: "A person who contravenes

section 5, 6, 18 (2) or (3) or 26 (1) of this Act or a term or condition

attached to a licence commits an offence." It goes on to talk about what

the fines are. The question that I have for the minister is this. It would seem

to me that

section 7, which stipulates the issue around health and safety

provisions and the standards that need to be met, as well as the quality of life

standards that need to be met…. One would assume that violation of

section 7

ought to warrant an offence or a penalty to be applied, yet that is not the

case. Why is that?

[1735]

Hon.

K. Whittred: To address the member's question, the most stringent penalty

that could be imposed upon a licensee would be, in fact, the suspension or

cancellation of a licence. The member mentions this in terms of

section 7 around

the dignity of a person. If, in fact, the medical health officer believed that

was not being addressed, he would have the power to withdraw that person's

licence and remove him from his livelihood.

Sections 5,

6, 8 and so on are actually offences which have to do with more administrative

things, such as operating without a licence, a non-adult managing the facility,

prohibited financial inducement of persons in care — in other words, an

infringement on some of those sorts of sections of the act. It is breaking the

kind of punishment than having one's licence suspended or cancelled.

J. Kwan:

Under the old act, the suspension or cancellation of a licence would apply if

one contravenes the act, but also the offence and penalty of that contravention

would include any contravention of the act or the regulation that would be

deemed to be an offence. That actually allows for application of both to be

applied, whether it be the suspension or cancellation or a fine being imposed.

There is now only one level of penalty of offence that would be applied. In my

view, one of the most important sections of the act is to make sure that the

standards of health and safety and quality of life are being maintained, yet

there is not a broad range of penalties that could be applied.

It would

seem to me that there's actually a reduction in trying to enforce the act, as

opposed to the broadening of the enforcement of the act. It just strikes me as

odd. I would think the violation of

section 7 is an essential component that

should also be incorporated under the offence and penalty

section of the act —

not to say that's the only application, but it also shoul