Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 133

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Monty Bingham

Hon. C. Trevena

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

City Dream Centre and support for children and families

S. Cadieux

Economic Development Week

R. Glumac

Family physicians in Chilliwack and action on recruitment

L. Throness

On the Line book on B.C. labour history

R. Chouhan

Cedar George-Parker and Tsleil-Waututh First Nation

S. Furstenau

Neighbourhood houses

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

J. Martin

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

Real estate speculation and presales of condos

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Real estate industry regulation and dual agency by rural realtors

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

D. Barnett

Use of private email account by Citizens’ Services Minister

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

M. de Jong

M. Polak

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

J. Yap

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

N. Letnick

J. Isaacs

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

MONTY BINGHAM

Hon. C. Trevena: I would like to beg indulgence of the House to mark the sad

passing of Monty Bingham, who died earlier this month at the age of 98.

Monty was known and loved by many on Quadra Island and around everywhere

he worked.

He went to World War II and then stayed in the Royal Canadian Air

Force as a padre, leaving in 1966, when he went to work in the Downtown

Eastside. He spearheaded the Central City Mission. He helped form the

Dugout, which was a supportive, safe place for people living in the

Downtown Eastside. As chaplain to the Downtown Eastside from the ’60s

into the ’90s, Monty was a saving grace for thousands. Bishop James

Cruikshank said that his pastoral presence there was

phenomenal.

He was loved by many, respected by many, continued to play an

active

part in the legion, presenting wreaths on behalf of the province

for many years, up to and including this last year. He will be missed by

his community, by people in the legion and by his very large family —

his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, his nieces and

nephews.

There will be a ceremony to mark his life at the Quadra Island

legion this Sunday. I would like to pass on the respects of this House

to that event.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: We’re joined today in the House by some guests from the Ministry of

Attorney General, hard-working articled students, lawyers, legislative

drafters and editors: Brianna Meyer, Kristina McKinnon, Shawn Courtney,

Adele Lay, Philip McLaughlin, Jillian Thibadeau, David Brownell, Lara

Ulrich, Jacqueline McMorran, Craig Rosario, Shayna Horne, Jillian Shoichet,

Tiffany Percival, Joanna Vander Vlugt and Stephanie Weinhold, as well as

Rebecca Whitmore. I’d like the House to please join me in making them feel

very welcome here today.

C. Oakes: Workplace safety should be every company’s highest priority, and every

employee desires to work in a safe environment. For companies, this is just

good business.

Celebrating its tenth anniversary, the Manufacturing Safety Alliance

of British Columbia is the health and safety association for manufacturers

and food processors in British Columbia. The Manufacturing Safety Alliance

is home to the occupational safety standard of excellence. This

certification is British Columbia’s solution for manufacturers seeking a

comprehensive health and safety management system using a best practices

approach and in cooperation with WorkSafe B.C. Today in the audience, we

have Lisa McGuire, who’s the CEO; Daneen Skilling, who is the chair; and 11

board members.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in thanking

the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of British Columbia for the work they do

for our workplaces to keep them safer for all our British Columbia

families.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a real great pleasure to introduce a blast from the past.

I’d like to introduce Pratik Modha, who is in the chamber with us today.

Those of you from the ’90s will remember Pratik. He was an MA working in our

government at the time.

[10:10 a.m.]

Just a brief story. For those MAs that are watching, I want to tell

you how lucky you are. Pratik was actually my husband’s ministerial

assistant. My husband always said he was a lousy politician because he

didn’t like to call attention to himself.

Pratik showed up one day when we were heading out to Abbotsford, I

think, for an agricultural fair. Pratik showed up in a brand-new rented PT

Cruiser, and my husband said: “I’m not getting in that thing.” Poor Pratik

was beside himself. He said: “Well, you have to, Minister. We’re late.” We

got out to the fair, and who should be there to meet us but John van Dongen,

who was the critic at the time. He looked at Ed, and he said: “What are you

doing driving in a vehicle like that?” Ed never let Pratik forget it. Poor

Pratik. I know it scarred him for years. So all you MAs are very lucky that

you don’t have someone like Ed as your minister.

Pratik has been living in Winnipeg since 2001. He worked for the Gary

Doer government for eight years and continues to work for the Manitoba

government.

Please join me in welcoming Pratik to the chamber.

Hon. R. Fleming: We have a couple of guests that I’d like to introduce in the chamber

today as well. One of them is an indispensable and dear person to me. She is

my constituency association president. Trish Richards is in the gallery, and

it’s wonderful to see her.

She’s joined by Nanami Usi, who is a student from Japan. She lives in

the Yamanashi Prefecture, north of Tokyo. She’s a second-year student at

language program at continuing studies at the University of Victoria, here,

and will be in our city for the next three months.

I would like the House to make both of these individuals most welcome

here today.

S. Furstenau: I’m honoured and delighted to welcome Cedar George-Parker to the House

today. I met Cedar about a week and a half ago on the Tsleil-Waututh

territory. Cedar and his sister Kaiya are extraordinary young people. I was

incredibly inspired by their wisdom, their compassion, their connection to

their nation and to the land that the Tsleil-Waututh people have lived on

and stewarded for thousands of years. Please, will the House make Cedar feel

welcome.

B. Ma: It’s my pleasure today to be able to introduce a dear friend of mine,

Tyler Smith, who is a structural engineer with Tetra Tech now, but I

originally met him when I was in university as an engineering student. He’s

been an absolute treasure to have as a friend. He’s been there with me

through very happy times in my life and through very difficult times of my

life as well. I’m not certain that he’s in the chamber right now, but he

will be joining us for question period. In advance of his arrival, I would

invite the House to please join me in making him feel very

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CITY DREAM CENTRE AND

SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES

S. Cadieux: Former First Lady Michelle Obama said: “All children should have

the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and pursue their dreams,

because in the end, nothing is more important than the health and

well-being of our children.” I couldn’t agree more, and I’m not

alone.

Loretta Hibbs is founder of City Dream Centre. Since 2009, they’ve

provided support to more than 6,000 kids and their families, many below

the poverty line, each and every year. They distribute more than 900

food and produce hampers three times a year, in June, August and

December, to families in need.

They also offer a weekly program for families that don’t have food

through the weekend. Working closely with the schools to support those

in need, they deliver a hamper of food for each identified family every

Friday.

They have noon-hour clubs for boys and girls, a back-to-school

backpack program and other supports for vulnerable families in our

community. For the past seven Christmases, thousands of gifts have been

packaged, wrapped and given to every child within seven adopted schools

in the Surrey area. They currently distribute more than 3,000 gifts, and

they hope to give more. This year they also launched their mobile dental

unit with partners Dr. Ron and Wendy Gaudet and hope to be able to make

twice-yearly trips to their partner schools.

[10:15 a.m.]

City Dream Centre is a registered charity. Last year they opened a

thrift store in my riding called For the Love of Thrifting, which will

help support their endeavours. I certainly encourage our community to

show their support of these great programs by visiting the shop. They

have big dreams and big plans. Let’s help them and their caring army of

volunteers achieve those dreams for the good of our whole

community.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK

R. Glumac: When I was a city councillor in Port Moody, we didn’t have our own

offices. It’s a small town. I had to work somewhere, and I chose to work

in my local café. I got to know a lot of the people there.

A lot of the regulars that came in, working behind their laptops

every day…. Many of them were small business owners. Above the café, in

a tiny little office, was a little tech start-up. Today that tech

start-up is employing over 100 people and working all over the

province.

This week, May 7 to 12, has been proclaimed British Columbia

Economic Development Week. British Columbia Economic Development Week

serves to recognize the contributions of men and women across this

province that are helping to build this economy, making it strong and

innovative and resilient — an economy that takes advantage of emerging

opportunities, promptly addresses challenges, recognizes strengths

across many traditional sectors and opportunities in the technology

sector. We recognize that economic development, climate action and

reconciliation are mutually dependent.

There are people across this province, just like the people in

that café, that are helping to grow the economy. Our government is

working side by side with them to help create good-paying jobs in every

corner of the province and ensure that people from every background have

the opportunity to reach their full potential.

We thank all those contributing to economic development,

strengthening their communities and ensuring prosperity for future

generations.

FAMILY PHYSICIANS IN CHILLIWACK

AND ACTION ON

RECRUITMENT

L. Throness: Across B.C., almost one in four people lack a family doctor.

Walk-in clinics are swamped. They have to close when they reach their

daily quota of patients. Chilliwack is the most needy area in the Fraser

Health Authority, where over 23,000 people don’t have a regular doctor.

The situation will soon get much worse, as 40 percent of doctors near

retirement age.

I wrote to the health authority to ask them to recruit more

physicians in my riding. They responded that it wasn’t their job. It was

the job of the local administrative division of family

practice.

So I went to see doctors of the division, and they told me that

the health authority makes no funds available for recruitment. When the

Fraser Health board met publicly in Chilliwack a few weeks ago, I

presented our city’s problem to them, and they were

non-committal.

It’s amazing to me that we spend $20 billion every year on health

care, but we have a dire shortage of, perhaps, the most basic element in

any health care system — a doctor to see you when you’re sick. Nor is it

fair that some communities have a surplus of doctors while other towns

and cities like Chilliwack are underserved.

Allow me to suggest two simple solutions. First, the Ministry of

Health needs to fund recruitment efforts in underserved communities.

Second, the ministry should exercise discretion in the allocation of

physician resources. Officials should urge doctors to stay in or move to

underserviced areas, encourage more full-time instead of part-time

doctors….

Mr. Speaker: Member, may I remind you that these should be

non-partisan.

L. Throness: Mr. Speaker, this is a non-partisan statement. It applies all over

B.C. Where else can I speak about the needs of my community?

On the Line BOOK

ON B.C. LABOUR

HISTORY

R. Chouhan: Over the years, the unions in British Columbia had to wage a

consistent struggle to achieve the modern workplace. Many times these

struggles are forgotten.

Ten days ago, on May 1, Rod Mickleburgh’s book, On the Line: A

History of the British Columbia Labour Movement , was launched.

This beautiful, masterfully written book documents the history of

struggles and victories of B.C.’s workers. The comments on the inside of

the book’s cover capture the essence of this history.

[10:20 a.m.]

“The B.C. tradition of fighting back against unfair pay and unsafe

working conditions has been around since before the colony joined

Confederation. In 1849, Scottish labourers at B.C.’s first coal mine, at

Fort Rupert, went on strike to protest wretched working conditions, and

it’s been a wild ride ever since. For years, the B.C. labour movement

was the most militant in the land, led by colourful characters like

Ginger Goodwin.

“Through years of battles with B.C.’s powerful elite and small

victories followed by bitter defeats, B.C. unions established the

five-day work week, the eight-hour day, paid holidays, the right to a

safe, non-discriminatory workplace and many more taken-for-granted

features of the modern work landscape.”

Rod Mickleburgh has done an excellent job of describing the

history of Indigenous people, immigrant workers and women. Starting on

page 211, Rod has also briefly recorded the struggles of B.C.

farmworkers’ fight for justice. Thank you, Rod, for quoting me in this

wonderful history book.

This book is both entertaining and inspirational. It is a

must-read book for anyone interested in the real history of B.C.’s

labour movement. Thanks to Harbour Publishing and the B.C. Labour

Heritage Centre for publishing this book.

CEDAR GEORGE-PARKER

AND TSLEIL-WAUTUTH FIRST

NATION

S. Furstenau: Today I’m going to share the words of Cedar George-Parker, a

Tsleil-Waututh youth who is in the gallery today.

“Thank you to all the elected officials who take time to listen to

the voices of Indigenous people and youth, who are too often ignored.

Please understand that my generation sees it as our sacred

responsibility to defend our ancestral land and water. It fills me with

sadness to imagine what could become of Burrard Inlet if Kinder Morgan

is allowed to proceed. After years of research and hard work, we are on

a path towards restoring the ecosystems my people have relied on and

been the stewards of for many generations.

“Please understand that my people are not anti-development. In fact,

we are entrepreneurial. My people, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, are

developers and own various businesses. We carry forward the work of my

uncle, Leonard George, who sadly passed away last year, and he carried

forward the work of his father, my grandfather, Chief Dan George. They

lifted my people up by embracing our culture, our spirituality and by

incorporating that world view into the economic opportunities that we

pursue.

“My request to you today is if we can find a way to move forward

together. If a government in British Columbia can’t work with Indigenous

people to make green jobs a reality, then who can? Let’s find that

low-hanging fruit of opportunities we all can feel good about, and then

put it in the next budget. Let’s make the fight over Kinder Morgan a

turning point for healing, growth and better opportunities for all of us

lucky enough to live here in this paradise.

“ HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM . I raise my hands

to you and pray for your wisdom and strength to guide us all

forward.”

Thank you to Cedar for these words.

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

M. Elmore: Last week was proclaimed Neighbourhood House Week, and many of us

celebrated with our local neighbourhood houses in our

communities.

I joined the Premier at South Vancouver Neighbourhood House in a

round-table discussion with 15 neighbourhood houses across Metro

Vancouver, from the North Shore to Kitsilano to Marpole to East

Vancouver to Burnaby and Surrey. The common message we heard was about

the need for people to feel like they belong in their community. As

quoted by the executive director of the Little Mountain Neighbourhood

House, Joel Bronstein…. He characterized neighbourhood houses as being

“the living room of the community.”

That’s what neighbourhood houses do. As multigenerational and

multi-ethnic places, they create spaces that bring people together,

people who don’t normally have the opportunity to meet in their daily

lives.

with people who have lived in the neighbourhoods their whole lives.

There are millennials competing against Generation X’ers at local games

night. Chef volunteers meet garden volunteers, creating a farm-to-table

dinner. Lively seniors meet shy kids in choir practice. Community

members eat meals with neighbours who are experiencing homelessness.

Exhausted parents seek supportive conversation when picking their kids

up from child care at the end of the day. Kids from different schools

and different grades paint murals together in after-school

care.

These unlikely friendships, these bridges between people, these

genuine connections are what build healthy and resilient communities.

Thank you, neighbourhood houses, for encouraging and empowering people

to build and strengthen all our communities.

[10:25 a.m.]

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Martin: I have right here an email sent on May 8 from Brenton Walters,

digital manager of the B.C. NDP. It reads: “I’m writing to provide an

update. Within the next few weeks, the Attorney General is expected to

make an an­nouncement about what the question will be, when it will

happen and what the rules will be for the campaign.”

Let’s get this straight. British Columbians are being kept in the

dark on a very important issue, but card-carrying members of the B.C.

NDP get an update from the Attorney General.

Can the not so impartial Attorney General explain why he or his

staff shared information with the B.C. NDP before it was provided to the

public?

Hon. D. Eby: The member can look back in Hansard . I was very clear in

this House: I expected to have results very shortly to this House. I can

advise the member I will in fact, hopefully, have a full report to the

House by the end of the session that will include recommendations around

the question and the rules, and so on. I advised the member in his

previous questions: very shortly. It is still the case, and I hope to

have it before the end of the session.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: Well, I thank the Attorney for that, but it doesn’t change the

focus here that the information is being provided to members of the B.C.

NDP before it’s being shared in this House or before it’s being shared

with the general public. The Attorney General has previously admitted

that his political staff are managing this dubious process behind the

scenes, and we now know that they are colluding with the B.C.

NDP.

When did the very partial Attorney General or his political staff

provide the NDP with the update that they shared with their supporters

ahead of all British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member was up just a few weeks ago saying that,

clearly, the Premier was indicating that the report would be coming out

in October. I mean, obviously, my office has been working independently.

I can advise the member that, to my knowledge, not a single member in

this House, not a single member of the NDP political party, has any

knowledge of what’s in the report. It’s being worked on by Ministry of

Attorney General staff, it’s based on consultation with British

Columbians, and the full report, with all recommendations, will be

released before the end of the session. That is our goal, and that is

what we’re working towards.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a second supplemental.

J. Martin: The information that was shared and used by the B.C. NDP was to

issue a call to action to members. I quote from the email. “When he

makes this announcement, we’ll need your help to hit the ground

running.”

Will the Attorney General table any and all communication he or

his staff have had on this topic with the rank and file of the B.C.

NDP?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any communication with the B.C. NDP party between

me or my staff or any member of the Ministry of Attorney General staff

that is working on this report. If the member has any information about

that, I’d like to know about it. I’m not aware of any. I can’t table any

because, to my knowledge, it doesn’t exist. But if the member is aware

of something, I would immediately table it. I’d make the House aware

because I’d be very concerned about that.

M. Morris: On April 24, I asked the Attorney General to immediately release

all of the raw data received through the public engagement on

proportional representation. His response: “The member is going to have

to accept yes for an answer.”

Why has the very partial Attorney shared information with the B.C.

NDP but not released the information he promised?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any information-sharing with the B.C. NDP or any

other political party in terms of any of the data, of the report,

recommendations or anything like that. In fact, it was the members who

raised the issue that the Premier said the information would be released

in October, which is not correct. I expect to have it out before the end

of the session. And to the member, I expect to have all the information

to him before the end of the session.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Mackenzie on a

supplemental.

[10:30 a.m.]

M. Morris: My office followed up with the Attorney’s office immediately, and

we were told: “We’ll get back to you.” But even after a subsequent

follow-up, there’s been no reply and no data provided, despite the

Attorney General’s promise. It’s outrageous that the B.C. NDP has had no

trouble getting information to update their members and he withholds

information from the public.

Why doesn’t the very partial Attorney make the information

available that he promised me?

Hon. D. Eby: Not only am I going to make the information available to the

member; I’ll also make the information available to all members of this

House — the recommendations based on the data, the breakdown of the

data, the recommendation around rules for the referendum, including the

questions that’ll be asked of voters. The member will receive all of

that information before the end of the session. I will ensure that that

happens.

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION

AND PRESALES OF

CONDOS

A. Weaver: Kathy Tomlinson from the Globe and Mail recently

uncovered a system of speculation and insider trading that is fuelling

the red-hot condo market in Vancouver and crowding out ordinary buyers.

A few select realtors and industry insiders are getting preferential

access to new condos under construction, and some individuals are

flipping the right to purchase these condos multiple times prior to

anyone actually moving in, a process that artificially drives up the

prices for the eventual homeowner.

Industry insiders and speculators shouldn’t be granted

preferential bidding rights on new condo units. Ordinary British

Columbians and young families trying to get their foot in the door

should have the same access.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. What is your

ministry doing to end this egregious practice and to stop the

preferential treatment of industry insiders over regular British

Columbians, and will you end preferential treatment and require that

developers market their condo developments at the same time and at the

same price to everyone?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question, and

thank you for pointing out one more area that has to be addressed in the

housing crisis that we are facing in British Columbia. I’m sure the

member, as we all do in this House, hears the stories, the heartbreaking

stories, every single day of people trying to get into the market. Then

to hear about this kind of action, the insider flipping of presale

condos, is very troubling. It’s very troubling, I’m sure, to everyone.

It’s certainly troubling that that legacy has been left, and it is

something we are taking action on.

We have regulatory authorities right now investigating those

reports. The member can be assured that this is a top priority for our

government. We’re also taking action to actually clean up this mess. I

think one of the things, and I’ve mentioned this before…. One of the

real challenges is that the old government collected no information, so

there is very little information to be able to take a look and get to

the investigation piece.

We are doing that. We are taking action to actually require

information on presale condos, on flipping of condos, to be gathered by

developers. It’ll shine a light on this sector. It’ll ensure that we can

share that information, then, with the tax authorities so that people

are paying their fair share of taxes.

Then the one other piece I just want to mention to the member is

that we’ve also initiated a review of the real estate regulatory system

to also ensure a level playing field. It was a system left to us by the

old government. They put a structure in place that clearly needs some

work. There are questions raised about who has what authority, where

that authority sits. So we’re going to be looking at the roles, the

responsibilities, clarifying the issue of education to ensure consumer

protection, which is the primary issue in this example and so many other

examples in the housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY REGULATION

AND DUAL AGENCY BY

RURAL REALTORS

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that very constructive

response.

As the minister knows, much of the dubious behaviour in the real

estate sector has taken place in the overheated Vancouver real estate

market. I think we can all agree that it’s essential to put in place new

rules to end these abuses and to protect consumers, and I’m thankful

that the minister is taking steps in this regard.

It’s also crucial that any new rules don’t impact businesses and

communities in smaller communities across British Columbia. Scores of

realtors and brokers from smaller communities across rural B.C. have

contacted me with very serious concerns about the government’s plan to

ban limited dual-agency transactions. In many small towns in rural

regions, the new rule may be unworkable for small businesses. It will

have a profound negative impact on consumers as well.

I’m worried, frankly, that this government inherited a

sledgehammer response to reform from the B.C. Liberals that could have

serious unintended consequences for realtors and consumers in rural

B.C.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the minister

consider delaying the implementation of the ban on limited dual agency

to enable a task force to review the effects of the proposed changes on

small communities and to provide a way forward that protects consumers

and doesn’t harm people in rural B.C.?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question, and thank you for raising the issue.

I’ve certainly heard the concerns directly, but I know members on all

sides of this House have heard those concerns in their communities, as

well, and have heard the concerns from realtors.

Just to be clear, the office of the superintendent is an

independent regulator. As the member said, they’ve introduced new rules

banning dual agency designed to protect the public that are effective

June 1. As I’ve said, I’ve certainly heard those concerns. I’ve met with

the superintendent. I’ve met with the real estate board to raise those

concerns, to make sure that they are well aware of them.

We want to make sure that the regulators are working as

effectively as possible. As I mentioned, we’re also doing a review of

the regulators themselves. But my expectations are clear. Consumers have

to be protected. All consumers should have the right to representation

whether they live in rural B.C. or whether they live in urban B.C.,

whether they live in a small community or whether they live in a large

community. I made that very clear to the superintendent and to the real

estate board.

D. Barnett: It is nice to see that someone from government finally recognizes

there is more to British Columbia than the Lower Mainland and Vancouver

Island. The Minister of Finance is well aware of the concerns of

realtors in my riding and all over rural B.C. regarding the proposed ban

on limited dual agency. This change was intended to help address the

housing crisis in the Lower Mainland, but the situation in Vancouver is

much different than the situation that exists in northern and rural

B.C.

My question to the Minister of Finance: when will the minister

listen to the people of northern and rural B.C. and respect the

realities of those of us that live in rural and small communities

outside the Lower Mainland?

Hon. C. James: As I’ve said already, the office of the superintendent is an

independent regulator. Certainly, the concerns that have come forward

are concerns that I have brought to the superintendent. As the member

may know, there was an exception created for remote and underserved

communities that has to satisfy all three of the following conditions:

be remote, be underserved and have it be impractical to get separate

representation. This was an issue, again, to try and address some of the

concerns that have come forward.

I recognize that there are a number of real estate agents in

individual communities who feel that more needs to be done. Their own

Real Estate Council of B.C. determines the proper application of this

exception, and I know they’re continuing to raise the issues, as I am,

with the Real Estate Council and with the superintendent.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental.

D. Barnett: This minister says she likes to listen. Well, please listen to

this. I speak to this issue as someone from rural B.C. with almost 26

years in the industry, and I speak on behalf of all my rural colleagues.

But if the minister will not listen to me, she should pay attention to

the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board, who say: “The practice of real

estate in the north and north central areas and rural areas of the

province is unique, and imposing rules without considering that

uniqueness will lead to unintended and negative

consequences.”

My question to the Minister of Finance…. I ask the question again:

when will she listen and act to those of us that live in rural

communities in this province?

Hon. C. James: I certainly hope the member, as I have done, has taken those

concerns forward to the Real Estate Council and to the superintendent. I

certainly hope the member would encourage…. I know some of the groups

that she mentioned have done that, but I would encourage the member

herself to raise those issues.

They have an independent structure that is their authority. It is

important that they hear these issues. I’ve been doing that as minister,

and I would hope that other members have done that as well.

[10:40 a.m.]

USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT

BY CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

J. Johal: Two weeks ago the Minister of Citizens’ Services said: “Our

expectation is that government and elected officials would

use…government email when they’re doing government business.” However, I

have here 60 pages of records with the minister’s own private email that

she used to conduct government business with her political staff and

even the Premier’s own chief of staff.

To the minister, will she confirm that her outrageous use of

private emails violates the rules?

Hon. J. Sims: As we are aware, our members use government emails, but there are

times when personal email can be used. In this case, my emails that were

sent were also transferred into my government email so that there was a

permanent record made. They were emails of where I read articles or was

needing to reach someone when I didn’t have access to my government

email.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: I have the list in front of me here. I’m just looking at some of

the names here. Jill Kot, deputy minister of Citizens’ Services was

emailed. Geoff Meggs, the chief of staff of the Office of the Premier.

Even Trish Rorison, the communications director.

There is no question as to whether or not the minister understands

the rules. She is the minister responsible for them. The rules read:

“Personal email accounts should never be used to carry out government

business.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

J. Johal: Let me repeat that again. The rules read: “Personal email accounts

should never be used to carry out government business.”

I have here 60 pages of emails, from as recently as the end of

February, sent by the minister through her own personal email account

and in this building during this session. The minister responsible for

the rules broke the rules — and in using personal emails to correspond

with the Premier’s office.

Again to the minister, will she confirm that she and her political

staff have and perhaps still are blatantly flaunting the

rules?

Hon. J. Sims: Those emails were transferred into government records, and I

followed the rules in that way. When I was on my iPad, I found some

newspaper articles I forwarded on to people, but once again, all of

those were transferred into the government record.

J. Tegart: The minister and her staff have acted as if the rules do not apply

to them. You cannot get more blatant than this. What I find particularly

outrageous is that this is the minister in charge of the rules that

apply to all ministers and political staff, including senior officials

in the Premier’s office, who participated in her breaking the

rules.

This minister is responsible for corporate information and records

management, as well as B.C.’s chief records officer. Can the minister

tell British Columbians how they can have any confidence in her to

fulfil the statutory responsibilities for records management given her

poor judgment?

Hon. J. Sims: It’s very hard for me to listen to some of this stuff from people

who brought us triple delete and were not transparent.

Let me say again: those emails, once I became aware, were

transferred into my government account, and there is a record of them

there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: Truly it’s hard to believe that this minister will be able to act

with any credibility in her role as the minister responsible for B.C.’s

chief records officer and for corporate information and records

management. She is the minister responsible for the rules, and she and

the Premier’s office have broken them.

To the minister, how can British Columbians trust her with these

ministerial responsibilities given her history and disregard for the

rules?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: The fact that my colleagues have those emails shows that there was

a record. They were not deleted. As a matter of fact, they were

transferred into that account and into my government account so a record

exists.

C. Oakes: The minister and her staff prefer to conduct government business

through personal emails instead of using secure government email

accounts. That much is clear. It also appears that political staff in

the Office of the Premier are also not using their government

email.

Freedom-of-information requests for all sent emails have come back

with nothing. No records of response for the Premier’s director of

operations. No records of response for the Premier’s director of liaison

and coordination. No records of response for the Premier’s assistant

deputy minister. No records of response for the director in the deputy

minister’s office. No records of response.

To the minister, how many other ministers and political staff are

following her example and using private email accounts?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to assure the members in the House that other members of

government, and staff, are following the rules. There are

times….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. J. Sims: Right in the rules it is written that there are times when other

emails may be used. Let me assure you that we are not a government of

triple delete. We are not a government that is trying to hide

things.

What happens is that when we have found out…. In my case, the

emails were transferred into the government account. Records were

created, and we are following the rules for deleting transitory records.

We are following the rules of keeping government decisions, but as good

practice would have it and as the commissioner told us, it is perfectly

logical and good practice to delete transitory records.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: Well, again, I am at a loss for words. Again,

freedom-of-information requests for all sent emails have come back with

nothing. No records of response. So either no one is working, or there

are no records of response.

Again, the minister’s conduct is in contravention of policies that

she is responsible for overseeing. She broke the rules by using her

private email to correspond with the Premier’s office. Officials in the

Premier’s office had no records of this on government email.

How many rules, to the minister, have been broken?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say again: those emails, communications, were transferred

into government record, as is the requirement. And let me tell you that

people on this side of the House are practising good management for

records. That is that any transitory emails we expect to be

deleted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:50 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Never mind the irony; I remember the sanctimony from the other

side of the House.

Look, let’s be a little more specific about this. On February 14,

the day after the throne speech, we were sitting in this chamber. I

can’t remember for certain whether the minister was in the chamber but

would certainly have been in the precincts. About five o’clock that day,

she decides to send, from her private email, a message to the chief of

staff of the Premier about a pending multi-billion-dollar

project.

Will the minister confirm that is entirely inappropriate, entirely

out of step with the guidelines that she is responsible, as minister,

for enforcing? And while she’s at it, will she table, at some point, for

the House and release the message she must surely have received from the

Premier’s office telling her that that was inappropriate conduct on her

behalf?

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said previously, when I did use my personal email, those

records were transferred into my government email once I became aware of

it, and they are part of the record. Then any transitory emails were

deleted, as is common practice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: The reason we have the emails, of course, is because they were

sent to addresses within the government entity and were therefore caught

by the FOI. What we know is that the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it will be good to hear the question.

M. de Jong: The results of that search, of course, confirm that the minister

responsible for preserving the integrity of government records was

actually attempting to operate a parallel communications network that

was separate from that system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: What we don’t yet know is the extent to which the minister was

using her private email address to conduct government business with

other governments or other third-party agencies.

My question to her today is: will she voluntarily release that

correspondence, those emails, that she was sending or receiving through

her private email address with agencies outside of the government that

weren’t captured by the FOI request?

Hon. J. Sims: Any emails that were sent from my personal email, inadvertently

were transferred into my government email to make a record. Then,

following good practice, transitory emails were deleted.

M. Polak: Those who have been around this chamber for a number of years will

be aware that this has been a topic of concern for members of this House

and for a previous government. Before you get too excited about your own

position with respect to these emails, I want to highlight a change in

practice that occurred as a result of that controversy. It was one that

we stuck to in a previous government, where ministers were ordered to

retain all sent emails. That was strictly adhered to. All sent emails

were kept, whether they were transitory or not.

It is surprising to me that the current government, after all

their bluster about this, did not continue with that practice. But I

think we have seen today that it is absolutely necessary that that

practice be re-engaged.

I want to know: will this minister reform not only her behaviour

but, as the minister responsible, ensure that the practice of ministers

retaining all sent emails will now be reinstituted with this

government?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: It’s surprising that the opposition has the nerve to ask about the

proper keeping of records. When the FOIPPA request came in to their

government on the Highway of Tears, their staff triple-deleted the

records and then misled the public. The Information and Privacy

Commissioner’s report at the time found: “These practices threaten the

integrity of access of information in British Columbia.” They refused to

change their “whatever it takes to win” culture until they got

caught.

We follow the rules carefully and ensure that records of decision

are retained appropriately. Our government is managing records

appropriately, including — and this is part and parcel of the process —

disposing of transitory records, consistent with the recommendations of

the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That’s what we are doing on

this side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, the Insurance

(Vehicle) Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the

estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

section 18 (continued) .

M. Lee: Just before we leave

section 18, I recollect from our last

committee session on this particular

section that the Attorney General

referred to the increase, of course, of accident benefits coverage from

$150,000 lifetime to $300,000 lifetime. I’d just like the Attorney

General to indicate how many instances there have been where a person’s

lifetime level of $150,000 has been exceeded.

Hon. D. Eby: There are about 40 every year.

M. Lee: Just in terms of that figure, if it’s less than 40 every year,

what potential benefits will there be, then, to individuals from

increasing it from $150,000 to $300,000?

Hon. D. Eby: There are about 40 every year. These are people who are

catastrophically injured in a vehicle accident, typically rendered

quadriplegic or otherwise severely impaired by their injuries.

Individuals like this face major expenses, including retrofitting their

homes in order for their home care support to help them move around,

vehicles appropriate for motorized wheelchairs, and the motorized

wheelchair itself, as well as additional medical devices in order to

cope as best as possible with their catastrophic accident

injuries.

It’s very easy to go through $150,000 in a hurry. Once that’s

exhausted, then that’s it. The issue is that many of the expenses, then,

are transferred, as best as possible, into other public programs.

Really, those should be captured within the car insurance program. Also,

just as a matter of fairness, there should be better coverage for

people. They should not have to live in poverty because they’ve suffered

a catastrophic car accident and there were insufficient benefits. That’s

why we’ve proposed doubling the amount.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. Obviously, in situations that the Attorney

General described, certainly benefits would be necessary to assist those

individuals. Would the Attorney General agree that this particular

shift, then, doesn’t really mean a lot for many British Columbians

because the $150,000 cap doesn’t get exceeded, other than the 40 cases a

year?

Hon. D. Eby: I would not agree.

M. Lee: The reason for that…. It is only 40 instances. What part are we

not agreeing on?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it is a great dishonour to our province, and to the fact

that we can afford to do better for people who are catastrophically

injured in car accidents, that this has been an amount that has been

unchanged for 25 years. For many years, advocates for disability rights

in our province have said that this is inadequate, that people are

living in poverty after they have catastrophic accidents and that they

are unable to access the services they require because benefits aren’t

sufficient. I would say that that should be a concern to every single

British Columbian.

M. Lee: Is there a linkage, then, in terms of increasing the level of

benefits to imposing a minor injury cap?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a linkage in the sense that ICBC’s finances — for many

years and increasingly, dramatically, recently — have been compromised

by an escalation in litigated claims, an escalation in the number of

accidents, an escalation in the awards for minor injuries, in excess of

260 percent, and an escalation in the cost of automobile

repairs.

This bill is part of a systematic reform of car insurance in

British Columbia, to achieve two things. One is to ensure the delivery

of affordable car insurance to British Columbians. The other is to

ensure that when people are injured in accidents, they get good benefits

and are cared for.

I agree with the member. Well, I’m not sure, actually, if I do.

What I would hope to hear from the member — it’s certainly the intent

here — is that there is a shift away from the administration of a very

expensive B.C. Supreme Court system for minor injuries.

[11:05 a.m.]

That shift, and the savings that come from that, is going into two

sources. One is to get ICBC back on a firm financial footing. The other

is to increase benefits that haven’t been increased for 25 years — not

just for catastrophically injured people but also for people who have

lost wages as a result of an accident, people who have to visit a

physiotherapist and who are currently paying out of pocket to top up

insufficient benefits. These benefits needed to be addressed as

well.

The deficit at ICBC wasn’t just the financial deficit year over

year. The deficit was also the fact that these benefits haven’t

increased. British Columbians were paying for insurance benefits that

they were not receiving to the level that they should have.

M. Lee: I do acknowledge that the level of benefits increase, from

$150,000 to $300,000, is certainly helpful and important, and others

have made that comment. What level of savings, then, from the imposition

of a minor injury cap will go towards extending those benefits —

recognizing, again, that only 40 instances occur in any given year where

that increase is necessary?

Hon. D. Eby: The catastrophic injury benefit, the lifetime limit. The net

benefit to these 40 people each year is about $6 million. You just take

$150,000, which is the increase in the benefit, multiply it by about 40

claims a year, and you get that $6 million figure. The reality, though,

is that that is one of many benefits that are being increased by this

proposal. There are about 60,000 British Columbians who rely on these

benefits to one extent or another and that will be seeing increased

benefits as a result of this proposal.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Of the 60,000 other British

Columbians that will receive benefits under this proposal…. They

currently receive those benefits, though, because, presumably, that’s

part of the $150,000 envelope. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: They do receive them, somewhat, at 1993 levels and only for a

restricted number of providers. We’re expanding the number of providers

that are covered and also increasing the amounts for those providers so

that people are not paying out of pocket for these benefits, which they

are currently.

M. Lee: I think I appreciate that with the overall level, of course,

increasing that is not affecting these 60,000 British Columbians. But as

the Attorney General just indicated, the actual fee rates would affect….

What is the intended cost, then, of what the government is proposing, in

this area of benefits, for those 60,000 individuals? Recognizing that

that is a historical indicator, it’s just so this House can get a sense

of what the actual costs of this benefit change will be.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s about $200 million a year. Just to be really clear about it —

because the member keeps making statements that I don’t agree with —

this is an increase. Currently people get 1993 levels: “Here’s your

amount of money to go see a physiotherapist.” It’s based on what

physiotherapists were charging in 1993. That was when movie tickets were

$5, if that gives you some perspective about inflation since then.

They’re given this 1993 stipend, and then they have to top it up with

whatever the physiotherapist is actually charging.

The increase in benefits will top up what ICBC pays, up to market

rates currently, and then it’s tagged to inflation. So it will increase

year over year to ensure that it keeps up with inflation. In addition,

currently ICBC has a closed list of practitioners that are funded

through these benefits. We are expanding that list to add basic things

like counselling, which would be available to people as a benefit after

an accident. There’s an expansion of the number of service providers.

There’s an expansion in the size of the benefit that people receive

under

part 7. So this group is going to see a significant

improvement.

J. Yap: Just in terms of the significant improvement that the Attorney

General commented on. That, then, is the level of benefits. Currently in

our system, though, is it not also the case that those who are not at

fault would still be able to recover all of that benefit

cost?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure how much clearer I can be.

Part 7 sets out benefits.

The benefits are increasing, and the group of providers is

increasing.

J. Yap: Just to clarify, I heard the minister refer to a figure of $200

million. If he could confirm what that amount is regarding.

Hon. D. Eby: That is for the increase in

part 7 benefits.

J. Yap: So using…. Just by simple math…. I believe 60,000 was the number

of British Columbians who would benefit from this. That works out to,

roughly, an average of about $3,000 per British Columbian, using that

math. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s correct that that is how you calculate an average, but

actually, this is disbursed in a very different way. There are people

who are more seriously injured that will see far more significant

benefit from this increase than others who have more minor injuries that

don’t require as much treatment. They’ll see a smaller benefit because

they’re paying the market rate for their physiotherapy, but they won’t

see as large of a financial benefit as someone who is rendered

quadriplegic.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that.

Averages being what they are, I understand there’d be a range. For

some of the 60,000 British Columbian drivers who are injured, who have

fallen in this category, they may receive a much smaller amount and then

others a larger amount. But the average is roughly, by my simple math,

about $3,300. Would the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: These are incremental amounts. There is an amount that ICBC pays

currently for benefits, and then this $200 million is incremental and

additional to that level — just for clarification. I would encourage the

member to canvass this thoroughly in estimates. There’ll be very

detailed information available with ICBC financial staff

present.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

J. Yap: What is the purpose of this section?

Hon. D. Eby: We canvassed yesterday the elimination of the basic premium and

additional premium classes. This is housekeeping consistent with

that.

J. Yap: Why the deletions of references to classes of vehicles, subclasses

of vehicles and drivers?

Hon. D. Eby: These are consequential to the changes we made in

section 34.

Everything is laid out in that

section now, so it’s not necessary

here.

J. Yap: Can the minister detail the changes made to this

section with

regards to how the commission can operate under the act, with regards to

premiums?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no substantive change.

J. Yap: Just to be very clear, to confirm the powers that the B.C.

Utilities Commission has today. Once this legislation passes, it will

remain unchanged in spite of this section?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

J. Yap: Can the minister confirm that changes under paragraph (n.1) are to

enable the ability of the tribunal to handle disputes from the Insurance

(Vehicle) Act side of things?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The existing

section says “may,” and the drafter noticed that the

regulation said “may or must.” So this is just housekeeping to ensure

that the law and the regulations are in sync.

Hon. Chair, I notice that we were joined by a school group. Just

so they understand what’s happening, we’re here with staff from the

Ministry of Attorney General and from ICBC who are helping me answer

questions from the opposition about a bill that’s in front of the House

dealing with car insurance. They’re going to ask me questions about the

bill, and I’m going to do my best to answer so that all of the members

of the House understand the bill before they have to vote on it at the

end of this process.

Sections 20 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell the House if patients will be subjected to

caps on medical care related to pain and suffering?

Hon. D. Eby: This

section talks about health care fees, and it ensures that

health care fees that are sued for are limited to the market rates as

set out in

section 45.1.

J. Yap: How will the agreed-upon reasonable rate be determined? Who will

the minister be consulting with?

Hon. D. Eby: Government, ICBC and the medical associations are currently in

negotiations on exactly that issue. It’s the same way, for example, that

Doctors of B.C. reach agreements with the government of British Columbia

around fee-for-service under our public health care system. Those

negotiations are taking place right now.

J. Yap: It’s good to hear those discussions are taking place. So the goal,

I understand, is to ensure full coverage with no caps. We need to ensure

British Columbians do have certainty that they will not be dinged with

an amount that they cannot recover because they were the victim of a

reckless driver. Can the minister commit to that?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that this is a…. I may have inadvertently used the

word “negotiation.” This is a consultation. There’s an important

distinction there because ICBC cannot negotiate with physicians due to a

legal restriction, but they are consulting with physicians. I want to

clarify that.

The member and British Columbians can have confidence that there

will be market rates set, that there will be practitioners providing

those services at market rates in the communities. That’s how the rates

will be set to ensure that British Columbians have access to health care

services if they’re injured in an accident.

J. Yap: Has the minister reached out to groups — he’s named a few of them

— and can he tell us the nature of those conversations? And if he’s not

able to, can the minister indicate the time frame for conclusion of

those consultations?

Hon. D. Eby: For any group that has a prescribed rate, the organizations that

represent those groups are being consulted and will be consulted. ICBC

hopes that these consultations will conclude within the next couple of

months. Certainly these rates need to be set by April 1, 2019, when

these changes come into effect.

[11:20 a.m.]

J. Yap: When can we expect an announcement with further details on

this?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re targeting early fall to have the regulations in place. It’s

difficult to say, just based on the consultations and the discussions,

exactly when the member can expect an announcement. But just in terms of

timelines, we’re targeting early fall for regulations in place, and then

these systems all have to be in place for April 1, 2019.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

We canvassed this issue somewhat yesterday. Again, I ask to the

minister, would he consider moving this power outside of his purview,

from the political realm to a less political or partisan

process?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s ICBC that’s engaging in the negotiations with these different

groups. The negotiations will result in a determination of market fees

by ICBC for the area. The government will look at that, and the final

amounts will be passed by regulation, by cabinet. That is the process

that is pictured here.

J. Yap: Why not put a number in the legislation? Why give sweeping powers

to arbitrarily determine what the costs will be with regards to health

care?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will recall our conversation from yesterday. These

numbers are going to change over time. In fact, we’ve put safeguards in

the bill to ensure that they change. They are linked to CPI, to account

for inflation, and then a review every five years. Our intent is that

government is held accountable to ensure these numbers are reflective of

actual market rates, where people can actually access service at those

levels.

J. Yap: Will the minister be consulting with practitioners, and can he

outline who and with which groups he’s consulting with?

Hon. D. Eby: I can underline for the member that any care provider with the

prescribed rate will be consulted. To provide some specifics, the

Doctors of B.C., the physios, the chiropractors and the massage

therapists have already been engaged in these consultation

processes.

J. Yap: I understand the aim of this is to help people and to cut down on

lawsuits to ICBC. But in the event someone is on the lower cap and then

are brought outside of the definition of “minor injuries” after

treatment, how will costs be addressed by ICBC for British

Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: The minor injury cap has nothing to do with health care costs.

It’s only with respect to what are called pain and suffering awards. So

there’s no relationship between the minor injury definition and the

health care benefits.

J. Yap: So to appreciate the minister’s answer, to be clear — and I think

he said it previously in answer to a previous question: there are no

caps on the health care costs.

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of the minor injury definition and injuries that fall

inside or outside of that definition, there is no implication for the

health care benefits that you would be entitled to receive as a result

of the injury, whether you fall inside or outside of that

definition.

[11:25 a.m.]

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask: in terms of the proposed new subsection

82.2(2)(b), when we talk about the value of the particular health care

loss, how is that value determined?

Hon. D. Eby: If there’s no prescribed fee, then it’s whatever it costs the

individual.

A. Weaver: Just for the record, I’m wondering if the minister might provide

some context as to why this section, to limit health care costs, is

being included so that an independent person looking at this

clarification here would be able to get a sense of what the minister is

thinking of in terms of the purpose for introducing the definition of

“health care loss” so that that can be limited.

Hon. D. Eby: What it does is it assures British Columbians that they’ll be able

to get the health care costs covered, as they need them, going forward.

And it restricts expenses associated with time, administration and

expert opinions on future cost of care awards, where the judge gets out

the crystal ball and tries to determine how much health care is going to

cost in the future and tries to figure out how much a person’s going to

need and how much it’s going to cost and provides an award based on that

projection.

This provides some level of certainty to the individual and to the

court about the fact that future cost of care will be covered and that

the rates will be reviewed. And there are the safeguards with inflation,

which we talked about previously, on a go-forward basis.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us what the purpose of this

section

is?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of individuals that may have some sort of

insurance coverage — disability coverage, some other type of benefit —

if they’re injured that covers them. The current system has it that

those coverages that they may have are reimbursed by ICBC in the event

of a car accident. ICBC pays anything that they may be paying out to

cover someone’s disability caused by a car accident.

This says that that recovery by the disability or other benefit

provider cannot be recovered from basic insurance — that basic insurance

won’t be paying insurance companies back anymore.

I just want to clarify, because it is a bit of a technical

section, that I didn’t misspeak on any of that. Yes, that is the intent

of this section, and that is how we hope it will work.

J. Yap: Perhaps this is a technical issue, but what is referred to in this

section as “…things or services provided or to be provided in kind,

directly or indirectly….” Could the minister explain what’s meant by

that description?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s meant to capture if an insurance provider, for example, pays

directly to a service provider to provide a service — or provides a

thing, like maybe a wheelchair or crutches or something else. That is

meant to be captured in this

section as well. It wouldn’t be for ICBC to

pay back that insurer for those expenses, whether they were a physical

thing or whether it was a service provided that was paid for by the

insurer or whether it was money paid by the insurer to the

individual.

[11:30 a.m.]

M. Lee: Just on

section 26(d), this proposed bill suggests that if a claim

goes to trial and the court awards an amount for future costs of care,

any potential benefits must be deducted without regard to the likelihood

that ICBC will actually pay those benefits.

To the Attorney General, is it not likely to result in a full

deduction from the tort award? Is this not likely to result in a full

deduction from the tort award, yet leave the claimant at the complete

mercy of ICBC?

Hon. D. Eby: This

section doesn’t eliminate the rights of any individual

against ICBC or against their own insurer, and the bill that we passed

previously ensures that ICBC can be held accountable through the civil

resolution tribunal. If someone has a dispute with another insurer, then

they have actions that lie against that insurer, as they do today. This

bill doesn’t change that.

M. Lee: I appreciate what the Attorney General just said and responded to.

But if there is a situation where ICBC does cut a claimant off from

ongoing treatment, what recourse would the claimant have?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill that we previously passed, in relation to the civil

resolution tribunal, establishes the jurisdiction of the civil

resolution tribunal in situations with claims under $50,000 in relation

to disputes over accident benefits or the definition of “minor injury.”

So the recourse lies through the civil resolution tribunal.

M. Lee: If I’m reading this

section correctly, though, it may be a

situation where ICBC is effectively being set up to handle these

claimants’ future care needs indefinitely. Does the minister have any

estimates on how many adjustors would be required to administer these

benefits?

Hon. D. Eby: We expect there’ll be a fairly dramatic shift in what people are

doing at ICBC but maybe not in the number of people doing it.

If I can illustrate a little bit, there are a lot of people that

are currently working on litigation in relation to B.C. Supreme Court

actions. There will be a shift away from that because many B.C. Supreme

Court actions will now be going to the civil resolution tribunal or will

be otherwise resolved. Because ICBC’s benefit regime is so much better,

the shift will be increasingly to people dealing with administering

benefits and claims outside of the litigation system.

In terms of specific financial implications, I’d encourage the

member to attend estimates. We’ll have ICBC’s financial people there.

They can discuss projections around how they expect this to play out.

It’s part of the costing around the system changes. The folks who are

here today are the legal…. We have the chief legal officer for ICBC to

answer members’ questions about this bill and the effects. Then, during

estimates, I’ll welcome questions from members about detailed financial

projections related to ICBC’s internal operations.

M. Lee: Under the current system, many people are currently offered

treatment that is helpful to them but not within the scope of the

medical benefits provided by ICBC.

[11:35 a.m.]

Under this proposed bill, would ICBC retain the right to decide

what treatments are to be compensated and what are not?

Hon. D. Eby: Two responses. One is that ICBC — and the government, through this

initiative — will be increasing the number of service providers. There

are a number of people that fairly say: “Look, I would have really

benefited from having access to a counsellor, but that wasn’t a covered

benefit” — or a massage therapist or a kinesiologist or an

acupuncturist. All of those will now be covered, under these changes,

for accident benefits.

If you have a tort claim against an at-fault driver, you can still

claim benefits for the cost of service provision for other care

providers. This bill doesn’t change that. You can still make that claim

for areas that are not covered, if there is an at-fault driver that you

are suing in tort.

M. Lee: I understand the comment around increasing the number of types of

service providers and the rights under a tort claim. But the question I

was asking was whether ICBC has the right to determine what treatment is

to be compensated and what is not.

Hon. D. Eby: This bill doesn’t change the authority, but it’s actually set by

regulation, by government.

M. Lee: If I’m hearing that correctly, then, ICBC does have the authority,

and that will be spelled out by regulation. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: No, the member didn’t hear it correctly. A list of approved

service providers is set out by regulation by government, by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

M. Lee: There is no ability, then, for ICBC to override that

list?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC could potentially pay things that aren’t in the list, but

they can’t refuse to pay something that is on the list.

M. Lee: If a person opts for treatment that is not covered on the list,

will these individuals still be able to recover these costs as part of

their settlement against an at-fault driver?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not payable as a benefit. It’s still recoverable against an

at-fault driver.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

J. Yap: I appreciate that the minister is trying to cut down on costs

being billed back to ICBC, but with respect to ICBC not paying out

third-party providers, has the minister considered that this could

result in the rise of third-party health coverage premiums?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t believe that ICBC should be reimbursing other insurance

companies for benefits contracts that they’ve entered into with other

individuals. It’s up to those companies to determine what the insurance

contracts are that they enter into with various individuals — what their

costs are. ICBC has no knowledge of those things.

What I can say is that we don’t believe that basic insurance from

British Columbians should be compensating major insurance companies for

private contracts they’ve entered into with individuals.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

[11:40 a.m.]

J. Yap: Can the minister provide an example or two of how he envisions

making regulations with regards to the priorities of claims? While I

appreciate there’s nothing nefarious, understanding the intent here, I

think, should be the key for customers, right? Can the minister give us

an example as to how he sees this being used?

Hon. D. Eby: This is about where there are multiple insurance policies

governing a certain accident. For example, the driver may have

insurance. The vehicle itself may have insurance in the situation of a

rental car. It might be a family member’s vehicle, and it might be their

insurance. So this is about which insurance policy pays first, second,

third, and so on. After the first policy is exhausted, then the limits

of the first policy kick in and the second, and so on.

That’s the intent of this section: to be able to say, so that

people know and so insurance companies can price it accordingly so that

ICBC can project accordingly with their actuarial data and so the

insured can know which coverage would pay out first and second, and so

on.

J. Yap: How does the minister see the process for prescribing the amount

that will be set? Will that be provided by third parties, or is that

wholly decided by the minister in regulations?

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 94 incorporates existing measures within the existing act

for subsection (1)(a)(

b) and (c). These are all existing powers of

regulation which are used by government in consultation with ICBC.

Subsection (

d) is new, and it relates to the benefits that we’ve been

talking about.

The member will note that in the old act there’s a longer list,

and the remaining powers have been transferred over to

section 105,

which relates more broadly to the act as a whole, as opposed to just

this part.

J. Yap: Does the minister not see how it would concern a third party that

there is such a sweeping power to determine what a payout should be for

indemnity and such?

Hon. D. Eby: I just wonder if the member could point us to, specifically, the

section that he’s concerned about, and then I’ll do my best to

advise.

J. Yap: Does the minister not see how it could be concerning that

determining circumstance and classes for costs falls to him and could be

changed at any time?

Hon. D. Eby: I think I have the member’s question. I’m just not sure which

section or subsection he’s referring to, which power of

regulation-making.

J. Yap: This power to make regulations in regards to health care

costs.

Hon. D. Eby: If it puts the member’s mind at ease, I can tell him that as far

section 94, we can’t see how this

section relates to any power in

relation to health care costs.

Section 28 approved.

section 29.

[11:45 a.m.]

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us why he chose to go this route rather than

placing more punishment on the person who is at fault in the

accident?

Hon. D. Eby: I agree with the spirit of the member’s question. We have a very

serious issue in our province of a rising numbers of accidents. We have

people who are driving while distracted, using their cell phones. We

have the federal government legalizing recreational cannabis and

implications around driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol. In the

context of a public insurer, these are all matters of

concern.

It would be incorrect for anyone to suggest that the government is

going easy on people who are driving in a manner that increases risk for

a cost to ICBC and the health and safety of other British Columbians.

We’ve increased fines for those who are distracted driving by $2,000 for

the second occurrence. We have new technology for police to be able to

detect and ticket people who are distracted driving.

We have a pilot in place around technology that may be able to

provide assurance that a person is not using their cell phone while

they’re driving and the possibility to link that either to a repeat

offender, a new driver or someone who takes it on voluntarily in their

car.

In addition, we are engaged in a rate-design process where we

consulted with thousands of British Columbians who provided feedback on

ensuring that people who are high-risk drivers pay more, and good

drivers get a better discount. We are not going easy on people who are

high-risk drivers, driving up costs for everybody.

What this

section does is it provides a defining line for injuries

that are more minor — although I acknowledge, certainly, that for many

people, these will be serious injuries in their lives — to put a process

in place that is proportional; to not send it to B.C. Supreme Court with

multiple experts and massive costs and years of delays; to send it to

the civil resolution tribunal, which is independent of both ICBC and the

government, to resolve any disputes that people might have.

It’s also to put a limit on pain and suffering awards, which is

not health care benefits, not out-of-pocket expenses, but an award given

by the court to recognize that the person has been injured, to cap that

at $5,500 and to recognize that the amount of these awards has been

increasing exponentially over the last ten years, at over 260 percent,

in dealing with these minor injury claims. It’s not

sustainable.

We had two options. One was to increase premiums paid by British

Columbians for car insurance. The other was to fix the system. So we are

fixing the system, ensuring that minor injuries go to a more

proportional dispute resolution process that is faster, more efficient

and more cost-effective but still independent and able to resolve

disputes and that recognizes that while we definitely, through pain and

suffering awards, want to recognize that people have been injured, the

balance should go to care to help them to get better and to covering

their out out-of-pocket expenses.

That is why we put a limit on that pain and suffering award of

$5,500, to still recognize that someone has been injured and they are

hurt and they are suffering, but to place the emphasis back on helping

them to get better and also helping them recover their out-of-pocket

expenses related to an accident.

J. Yap: The minister, in his response, referred to increasing premiums. I

know the minister has stated bad drivers should pay more, and we

canvassed this, somewhat, yesterday. But without anything more than a

vague statement to this effect that bad drivers should pay more, how can

drivers, generally, who are injured, have any faith that the government

will not punish them for being in the wrong place at the wrong

time?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve had far more than vague statements. I don’t agree with the

member on that.

We did a consultation with thousands of British Columbians. We’ve

passed sections now in this bill that enable ICBC to do a full rate

redesign to ensure that bad drivers pay more, giving them the

legislative tools to ensure that they can provide good drivers with

better discounts and charge more for bad drivers. We have new

enforcement initiatives. I think British Columbians can be assured that

we are taking this very seriously.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Yap: I share the concerns of many that it appears that the minister and

the government are reviving parts of the previous NDP government’s, in

the 1990s, commitment to bring in no-fault insurance and have done

nothing to actually deal with the problem, which is the increased

crashes due to, as we know, distracted driving. What is the minister

actually doing with regard to this file?

Hon. D. Eby: My colleagues the Solicitor General and the Minister of

Transportation have been very busy on a number of initiatives improving

road safety, including expanding the use of red-light cameras to 24

hours and adding a speed function in as well. There’s going to be a big

sign at the intersection saying: “If you speed through this

intersection, you will get a ticket. If you go through a red light, you

will get a ticket. Don’t do it.” We want the revenue from those cameras

to be zero, because we don’t want people to go through red lights or to

speed through red lights.

If you use your cell phone when you’re driving, the second time

you’re caught, it’s going to cost you $2,000. Put down your cell phone.

Police have new technologies that allow them to detect, with more

accuracy and with greater ease than ever before, the fact that you’re

using your cell phone. So, please, don’t do it.

The Minister of Transportation is identifying dangerous roads and

intersections and identifying remedial work to make roads safer through

physical changes to the roads and intersections where the majority of

accidents are happening. We’re also engaging in conversations with

municipalities around potential increased revenue from red-light cameras

and hoping that they will direct that to improving roads and

intersections in their own communities to make them safer. There are a

number of major initiatives underway to make our roads safer.

I would encourage the members on the other side not to fearmonger

about these red-light cameras, calling them photo radar, and to

recognize that this is going to actually save lives. There are many

families that have been devastated by people who’ve sped through red

lights, colliding with people who are going through a green light,

driving along and minding their own business, and the consequences have

been quite devastating. So I would encourage the member to support these

road safety initiatives rather than attempting to use them as a wedge

issue.

I would also note for the member that this is not no-fault

insurance, although he has suggested it is. One of the reasons why we’re

doing this minor injury definition is to ensure that for the most

serious injuries, people still have access to the full tort system.

That’s the only reason why we do this.

When I arrived in the office, I had a report on my desk prepared

by the previous government that recommended a full no-fault system as

the greatest cost saver for the government of British Columbia. We

deliberately decided not to do that, because for serious and

catastrophic claims, the tort system is a proportionate response and can

be quite useful in resolving it.

For minor injuries, it doesn’t make sense to have multiple

experts, paid for by car insurance, to have years of resolution, when we

could instead be using that money to help people to get better, to get

them the equipment they need to recover from their injuries, to cover

their out-of-pocket wage loss expenses and to keep insurance affordable

for British Columbians. That’s the strategy behind this. That’s why

we’re having this discussion about what a minor injury is. It’s not to

devalue anyone’s suffering. It’s to recognize that we need proportional

responses to people’s injuries.

I hope that clarifies the member’s misunderstandings.

J. Yap: The minister, from all outward appearances, is moving towards

no-fault light — it’s not no-fault; it’s no-fault light — and making

vague statements about punishing bad drivers. Instead, with this change,

you will punish the victims. How can you say you have solved the problem

when you’ve done nothing to address the roots?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll do my best not to really get too far outside of the bill

here. ICBC is in financial crisis. They are losing a huge amount of

money. This escalated under the previous government’s watch, in which

longtime friends of the B.C. NDP, the Fraser Institute, said that the

government knew they had to do something. They knew they had to act.

They had to make decisions, and the decision they made was to do

nothing.

When we took over government and were facing billion-dollar

deficits at ICBC that carve money out of public services that are badly

needed across the province, we had to act. I did not sign up for

politics to work on car insurance, but I recognize that it is critically

important that we get ICBC under control to do two things.

One is to deliver affordable insurance to British Columbians. The

second is to deliver appropriate benefits to British Columbians. And

actually there’s a third thing, which is to ensure that money intended

for public services isn’t going to subsidize a car insurer, because ICBC

was set up to provide affordable insurance and good benefits to British

Columbians. That is the intent of this legislation.

The member can call it whatever names he likes, but there’s still

a full tort system for serious injuries. There was a report on my desk

prepared by the previous government, that I released to the public, that

said very clearly that the direction to go for this was full no-fault

insurance. That is not the bill that is in front of the House. I regret

very much that the member is suggesting that, because we’re going to a

lot of effort to preserve the full tort system for serious and

catastrophic injuries.

[11:55 a.m.]

J. Yap: Other than the red-light cameras, photo radar 2.0, can the

minister tell us what is planned to address distracted

driving?

Hon. D. Eby: It is absolutely unacceptable to describe red-light cameras with a

great big sign that says, “If you speed through this intersection, if

you drive through a red light, you will get a ticket,” in order to save

lives as photo radar 2.0 because the intent of the member is to

discourage government from pursuing this initiative that will literally

save lives.

At every red-light camera intersection, 84 collisions a year — at

every single one of those intersections. If we prevent even just ten of

those really serious collisions at each of those intersections…. The

devastation and the cost to the health care system is really

significant. I don’t understand why the members opposite would think

that this would be a good thing to try to stop happening in British

Columbia.

We are definitely taking steps to make intersections safer for

British Columbians. There will be great big signs. If someone wants to

speed through, they can certainly do it. They’re putting their own lives

at risk, other people’s lives at risk, and they will face a ticket

because of it. I hope they don’t. I really hope that it works. I hope

that we get out there as soon as we can despite the opposition of the

opposition to this initiative.

The Chair: Attorney General, note the hour, please.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair. This will be better if I get some lunch

into me. I’m sure of it.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $19,606,664,000

(continued) .

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I just wanted to share in response to some of the questions the

opposition critic, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, asked

yesterday, and I’ll share the documentation with her as well. This is

the full data for the 2016-17 fiscal year.

The total number of clients in long-term residential care in that

year was 36,326. That’s obviously more than the number of beds, because

clients move through, or they either pass away or other circumstances.

But that’s the total number of clients.

The number of clients less than 65 years old is 2,171, or 6

percent. The number of clients less than 50 years old was 414, or 1.1

percent.

If you look at other categories…. The number of clients in

long-term residential care with a developmental disability was 222. Of

those, the number of clients less than 65 years old was 89. The number

of clients less than 50 years old was 23.

Finally, the number of clients in long-term residential care with

an acquired brain injury was 5,322. The number of those clients less

than 65 years old was 845. The number of clients less than 50 years old

was 208. And finally, the clients with an acquired brain injury in

acquired brain injury specialized family care home facilities was

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his first answer to yesterday’s

questions. Did he have a chance, or did staff have a chance, to look at

the question regarding people with MS, for example, who are in

residential care with seniors, and what the cost difference

is?

There are some that believe it’s less expensive. Some research was

presented to the minister last night that it’s less expensive to keep

them at home and provide them the services they needed at home, rather

than putting them into residential care with seniors and the complexity

that comes from that. If we can get an answer to that question,

please.

Hon. A. Dix: Just to talk a little bit about the circumstances in which

high-needs clients arrive in residential care…. Usually it follows the

exhaustion of other options, from the CSIL program to home support,

etc.

The reasons why people get transferred into residential care are….

They can no longer direct their own care and don’t have a representative

to do it for them or when unscheduled care needs can’t be met with a

home support worker and/or the need for 24-hour on-site professional

care. Really, it’s when all community options are exhausted that we move

to the residential care model. That’s understandable, given that most

people, as we’ve discussed, want to be in the community.

Just a couple of facts, though, that kind of lay out the

circumstances of the situation. The average cost of someone in

residential care, per day, is approximately $238, and the average cost

in terms of home care, per hour, is about $48. So that gives you a sense

that it’s a more complicated question in terms of the costs, as this is

sort of the direct analysis of the system.

I think our approach should be to absolutely exhaust other options

and increase other options in communities in order to ensure that people

can live where they generally want to live, which is in the

community.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Those are the costs, and

I appreciate them being conveyed through us to the people out there that

are listening.

[11:10 a.m.]

My last question on this file, before we go back to seniors care,

probably till a couple hours before we close for the day…. Then at that

point, I would like to talk about a national PharmaCare program and

understand British Columbia’s position or numbers on that. What steps is

the government taking to support disabled British Columbians to live

with dignity in an age-appropriate environment?

Hon. A. Dix: The member, of course, will be aware of the options that are

available, which include things such as the CSIL program and things such

as home support programs that are generally directed by health

authorities but sometimes by other agencies, depending on the

circumstances.

I think it’s fair to say I would agree with him and a lot of

people with disabilities that we could do a better job here, especially

as he discusses in age-appropriate circumstances. So you’re talking

about, as we talked about earlier, a relative minority of people in

long-term care. It’s 1.1 percent of people in long-term care facilities

who are under the age of 50. Obviously, if you’re in those

circumstances, you might want, in terms of living your life, to live

with more of your contemporaries.

Part of it is listening to people, and that’s what we’re trying to

do in the system. I think there are some options that can help us in

that regard — different care options. Some of the ones that we’re

looking at are forms of group home or congregate housing, which are

useful options. Finding out ways to co-locate people and share costs of

care are examples.

Some new hybrid models that can be developed to bridge some gaps,

including the creation…. This would largely be, unfortunately, larger

urban care centres where you could bring people together in particular

care services and build care homes and build a kind of hybrid model

where there would be better social circumstances. These are the kinds of

things that we’re looking at, in particular with the funding we’ve

assigned to seniors care.

I think that we have to also look more broadly at community

resources, not just for people with disabilities but also for seniors,

to create and to ensure that we’re providing adequate resources in the

community so that people can live — not just live but enjoy the life of

the community in a full way and play their full role as citizens in the

country.

We have to work with people, though. We have to listen to them.

It’s not just my view that we need to, from on high, decide what the

right approach should be. We need to, in addition to that, it seems to

me, listen to people and listen to what they want. I think members of

the Legislature are doing that. I know I do in my own

community.

In the apartment building I live in, there are a significant

number of people who are living there and being supported where I live,

in our apartment. They just happen to have found accommodation there,

and different systems, be they health systems or other systems, are

accommodating them there. They live very successful lives, and they’re

great neighbours and friends.

I think we have to be imaginative about this. We have, obviously,

options there. Those options, for budget reasons, can be expanded. To

address the specific problem the member raises, which I think is

absolutely on point to what people are telling me and telling him, we

have to find more options as well, and those options we’re

exploring.

J. Isaacs: Good morning, everyone. We’re just going to pick up where we left

yesterday, also, on the spending for seniors care. I’m just wondering

what the current cost of a publicly funded care bed is across B.C. —

whether it’s the same cost across health authorities and across the

province. In other words, someone in Salmon Arm would pay the same price

for a publicly funded bed as one, say, in Coquitlam.

[11:15 a.m.]

Advise if there’s any kind of a change that has occurred in the

last year with some of the funding lifts — maybe you could speak to that

as well.

Hon. A. Dix: For people in residential care themselves, the cost is uniform, in

the sense that everyone is paying 80 percent of after-tax income to the

residential portion of residential care. Whether you’re in Salmon Arm or

in Coquitlam or in Victoria, that’s the same.

There is a maximum, which means that the maximum client rate is

$3,278.80 per month. At that point, you hit the maximum. That’s the

maximum you would pay on the 80 percent thing.

There is also a possibility — this is required in certain

circumstances — to provide some waiver of fees under specific

circumstances. But the general rule, in terms of costs to the client, is

the same everywhere.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to the minister.

The last time we were speaking in estimates, we went over some of

the wait times. It was interesting how it fluctuated from year to year.

In 2014-15, it was 17 days. But in 2015-2016, it went up slightly to 23

days. I understand that the current wait time is 45 days.

I’m wondering if the minister could confirm if that is about right

and whether or not he could provide a breakdown per health authority of

what the average wait time is for 2017.

Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just take the member through, a little bit, some of the

numbers, if that’s okay. The average wait time across British Columbia

for 2016-17 was 45 days. In ’15-16, it was 46 days. In ’14-15, it was

40. Then in ’13-14, it was 36. So in that period from ’13 to ’17, the

average wait time increased somewhat. The median length of wait time —

which is a different statistic but important, I think, for people — was

17 days in ’16-17.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’ll share all this detailed information with the member, but I’ll

put some of this on the record. The shortest average wait time was in

Vancouver Coastal Health, where it was 17 days, and the median length of

wait time was six days. In Fraser Health, the average length of wait

time was 42 days, and the median 18. In Interior Health, the average

length — this is for 2016-17, the year that ended March 31, 2017 — was

56 days, and the median was 27. In VIHA, the average length of wait time

was 62 days, and the median 38 at that time. In Northern Health, it was

the longest. The average length of time was 73 days, and the median wait

time was 45.

This is the wait time from the day of approval to go into

residential care to the day, I think, you go into residential care. It’s

always important to define what we’re talking about, because some people

might say: “Well, we felt like we were waiting longer than that.” That’s

the specific information that the health authority keeps and has kept

consistently. The useful part of continuing to use it at that thing is

you have a baseline to compare to.

J. Isaacs: Does the minister know what the vacancy or occupancy rate is for

both government-owned as well as privately owned and operated care homes

but publicly funded care homes?

Hon. A. Dix: For the publicly funded beds, I think…. We’re discussing that

there might be a statistic around 98 percent. That is of occupancy,

right? But really, it’s 100 percent. If you look at those wait times for

long-term care beds, there is a constant demand, and they’re constantly

in use. So the publicly funded ones — whether they’re in non-profit, in

private or in public health authority–owned and –operated — are all,

essentially, used all the time.

The only time that there’s a vacancy, really, is in a transition

period. Someone, sadly, passes away, and so on and so forth, where there

might be…. Obviously, throughout the system, there’s a small amount of

that. These beds are used, and they’re used constantly. There are

obviously people, if you look at those wait times, waiting for the beds

as well.

J. Isaacs: I understand that there were about 20 available beds in Abbotsford

and 20 empty beds in Menno Place, which were in a non-profit care home.

I’m just wondering if there is availability in the private sector, in

the privately owned and operated homes, that could be used immediately

to help increase capacity, and be publicly funded, and maybe take some

of the pressure off the publicly funded beds and the wait

times.

Would the minister be open to utilizing those private beds and

increasing the capacity?

Hon. A. Dix: Last September, for example, we did that in some long-term care

beds in Langley and in Chilliwack. As well, the health authorities will,

over the course of a year, contract for short-term beds. What happens, I

think, often…. If you look at private residential care homes, usually

they’re funded based on the receipt of public contracts. That’s how the

private care home is funded, is financed. Generally, they have a couple

of beds.

I know of a case personally at Dufferin, for example, where there

are one or two private beds in a care home which are usually left open

and charged, obviously, a different rate by the provider. So there’s

some capacity there.

I mean, we go through, both the previous government and ourselves,

request-for-proposal processes to add residential care beds. So people

are able to bid into those processes. That’s the general way that we’ve

gone about things. For example, there’s one in the Comox-Courtenay area

right now before us, and there are others.

There is some capacity to do that. Since I’ve been minister, we’ve

done that. It’s one set of options to consider in building residential

care. That’s not to say that people should be building care homes on

spec and then saying….

[11:25 a.m.]

That’s generally not what happens. What generally happens is that

private providers win a request for proposal and build the care home.

They have almost entirely publicly funded beds. Usually it’s the case

that they have one, two, three, four, five private beds as well, in that

care home, which they use to meet a private market they might

have.

In general, we’re open to those issues, of course. Partly, the

challenge is to make sure that we are building out in the areas of

demand. People will know that I’ve been to Comox recently. The growth of

Comox and Courtenay and those communities…. I say, without judgment or

comment, a lot of people have come from Alberta. They spend their lives

paying taxes and come to beautiful British Columbia to retire. We love

to have them, but, obviously, those create interesting

things.

That’s the great thing about Canada, which is that we have a

public health care system from coast to coast to coast. Regardless of

where you come from or what your circumstances are, we do our best to

meet demand and meet need, but that issue is a broader issue for British

Columbia.

The previous government dealt with it as well, which is that the

most recent change in the Canada Health Act didn’t recognize the

demographic fact of Canada, which is that people leave other provinces

and come to British Columbia. That wasn’t recognized in the formula that

was imposed on British Columbia by the government at that time, which my

predecessor Terry Lake objected to vigorously, I think. It is a fact and

a challenge in terms of seniors care into the future that we’ll be

raising consistently with people in federal jurisdiction.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for those comments. It certainly makes more sense to use

beds that are already in existing structures, rather than going through

the capital costs and permitting and the delays to create a new building

when one is sitting there.

The issue for people and families that are looking for publicly

funded beds is where they’re located. While there might be 20 available

beds in Abbotsford, if someone lives in Vancouver, it’s not first on the

list, and that becomes the challenge for people.

The B.C. Care Providers Association did create an inventory

mechanism through MyCareFinder, where anyone, including the health

authorities, can go on the site and find a location of an available bed.

I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of that and if he feels that

that would be a good idea, where the public can actually go to see where

beds could be available.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m aware of it. What I said before indicates the challenge, which

is that there is a wait-list for publicly funded beds — at any given

time, maybe a 1 percent vacancy rate. That led the previous government….

We’re working on that, and they were working on it as well, to deal with

the first-available-bed policy, which is a very challenging policy for

people, in fact, because the success of people in their lives in

residential care frequently depends on the participation of their

family.

It’s not just a question of the beds available in Abbotsford and

here in Vancouver. It’s also where your support system is, and that’s

critically important to people. If a family member, a spouse — whoever —

doesn’t drive and so on, that distance can become prohibitive and

problematic to the overall success of moving into long-term

care.

[11:30 a.m.]

All of that is true, but it’s basically 1 percent in the public

system. The challenge of keeping that up to date in that context would

be difficult. I think what the care providers do, as well, is they

provide access to information about private beds, and that’s obviously

useful for people who have the means to find beds in that system,

whether it be assisted living or long-term care. The care providers who

we work with all the time do some excellent work in that

regard.

The challenge here is a relatively low vacancy rate and high

turnover. If a bed becomes available, often there’s already someone in

place for it. So having a system where people can see that, through the

system, would be both time-consuming and may not be very useful. Where

it is useful, I think, is in terms of private beds. You see that with

privately funded, privately paid beds — where knowing the availability

of beds is maybe quite useful to people seeking long-term

care.

N. Letnick: I just want to probe a little closer on an answer that the

minister gave before the last one, which is with people from across the

country, including Alberta, coming here with no recognition by the

federal government for the higher cost that we incur as British

Columbians to fund the health care needs that they have in their senior

years.

I think everyone understands — at least everyone in this room

probably understands — that the biggest chunk of health care consumed is

when you’re born, and then the graph clearly drops down to next to

nothing, and goes on till about 65, and then boots up from there. I’m

only 60, so, I hope, five more years to go, and I’ll start incurring

some of those expenses. My colleagues are saying for me to be careful. I

wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle.

I don’t really want to throw this into a bad light, because I

believe health care transcends politics. I know some people out in the

community are joking about a speculation tax with a differential rate

for other Canadians being put in — to actually get some of those funds

from other people from other parts of the country when they move here

with their higher cost for health care.

My question is: what can we do? The minister has clearly said that

the previous minister and government — it was not only Terry Lake but

all the government — were quite upset. And I imagine the opposition was

quite upset when the federal government decided to actually go forward

with a per-capita basis for the transfer payments.

What can we do together to change that so that there is some

recognition in British Columbia, and maybe in other provinces as well,

that the cost of providing services to other Canadians is different?

They pay in other provinces throughout their life, their income taxes,

but then they come into British Columbia and, on average, incur higher

costs.

I want to make it clear. I agree with the minister. We are one

country, and we should welcome all Canadians to move anywhere freely.

It’s something that we believe fundamentally. Actually, it’s in the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — that they should have no barriers to

access, to move into other provinces.

The federal government, I think, needs to understand that, with

that freedom of movement that’s provided to all Canadians.... They need

to step up and recognize that it costs more money in certain provinces

to deal with the health care needs of seniors. And as we continue to

attract more and more seniors, because we do live in wonderful British

Columbia…. I, for one, am one of those people that moved here through my

lifetime, and I’m not going anywhere. I love this place.

What can we do together to really encourage the federal government

to change the formula so that we can get the amount of money that’s

really necessary from the feds to take care of those extra

costs?

I know the minister might say there are other provinces that

probably will squeal loudly, because, you know, there are winners and

losers. But that’s fine. Let them squeal.

[11:35 a.m.]

The question is: what can we do, even with them, to have a cost

structure, through the program the federal government has with us, that

more accurately reflects what the previous government wanted and what

I’m sure the current government wants as well?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the member is right. First of all, as I said, we are all

Canadians, and this is an important principle. When seniors come here, I

think we have to acknowledge, as well…. It’s part of the thing that the

member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and I, I think, spoke about in

estimates last time. There is a tendency to address issues involving

people as if they are problems, and of course, seniors coming here

contribute to the economy. Many seniors in Kelowna, obviously, who had

moved to Kelowna would contribute to the economy. They are maybe living

on pension income, but they are contributing enormously, as they do in

Coquitlam and in Comox and everywhere else.

This is a wonderful thing, but it presents a challenge. The

federal government unilaterally changed the rules, and that benefited

other jurisdictions. I could say what names they rhyme with, but I’m

sure the member can guess which ones they are. I think we just have to

continue to make the case collectively, as British Columbians, to the

federal government that there has to be a recognition of demographic

change. And the fact that British Columbia, unlike other

jurisdictions….

People sometimes talk about a seniors glacier, because it goes

slowly but consistently, as opposed to terms like “tsunami,” which

aren’t really accurate. This is going to be an issue not just in 2018

but in 2028 and in 2038 for Health Ministers, and we need the federal

government to recognize that, so we consistently make that

case.

The final thing I would say, though, is we’re in an agreement now.

They’ve changed the formula now. So while we consistently make that

case, we also have to work with the federal government every day and

work with the other provinces on issues such as the one we’ll talk about

later today with respect to PharmaCare. We need to consistently make

that point all the time, but we also need to work with them on other

things. So we have to work with what we have, and right now what we have

is a federal transfer that I think underfunds British Columbia, from the

federal government, and needs to be dealt with.

As you know — and I just say this; we may be discussing this later

as well — British Columbia was recently fined $15.9 million by the

federal government in the previous fiscal year, at the end of the fiscal

year in March, with respect to the Canada Health Act and private

clinics. That obviously has an effect as well. People say: “Well, the

budget is really big. What’s $15.9 million?” Well, I can tell you. It’s

55,000 MRI exams, for example, which is one of the issues that we are

being fined about.

These are significant issues with the federal government, and we

make the case to them all the time. But they’re also our partners, so

every discussion with them isn’t going to be about us complaining about

them. We have to engage with them in dealing with the reality that’s in

front of us.

The issues we’re talking about for Canada are very important.

There’s a tendency…. We’ve had a little debate between provinces, as the

member will know, in recent times about other issues, but these are the

things that make the country what it is. I have no issue with someone

living their life in Edmonton and paying taxes in Edmonton and then

moving to retire in Comox or Surrey or Coquitlam or White Rock or

wherever they retire. That’s fantastic. That’s Canada. We are a part of

this country, and we have to celebrate that and celebrate them. It does

present certain challenges to the health care system. That’s

undeniable.

J. Isaacs: I just want to return to the first-bed policy. A constituent of

mine had sent a letter to me regarding the time of her life where her

husband had to go into long-term care. A bed became available, and she

and the family went to the facility to have a look at it. She was not

happy with the facility, so she didn’t want to leave her husband

there.

How I understand this is that if you are offered a bed based, of

course, upon the urgency of your care needs, there are some factors that

are taken into account, such as your care home preference, the

availability of care-holders and community supports, clinical needs, if

the facility can actually deliver the appropriate level of care needed,

and certainly assessing the risk of the individual if the individual was

to return home.

[11:40 a.m.]

Can the minister provide an update regarding what the

first-available-bed policy is and just confirm if that’s sort of the

protocol that you go through in order to decide that you don’t want to

go ahead with a bed?

Hon. A. Dix: I think what the member said was accurate about the existing

policy. We’re reviewing and revising that policy, working, obviously,

with the health authorities. What we’re hoping to do, and what we’re

looking to do — this is not now; that’s the policy now — is to provide

clients with more than one option to choose from with a limited period

to choose because of these very issues of availability and

vacancy.

I think it’s a reflection of what I’m sure she’s heard in the work

she’s doing on seniors issues. What I’ve heard in my years as an MLA is

that the first-available-bed policy can cause upset to people. It’s not

where they want to go, and the moment of moving into residential care,

for some, not for everyone but for some, is itself upsetting. So if

people are not at their…. This is not their best moment to deal with

challenges — right? — because they’re in these circumstances.

What we’re hoping to do, and our goal is to achieve this by the

end of 2018, is to revise the policy so that people will have not a big

menu but a small menu of options, where possible, to choose from and a

limited amount of time to choose. I think that’s really excellent work

by people in the health authorities and the ministry working on these

issues, because it’s very, very challenging — the management.

The reason first-available-bed was brought in by the previous

government wasn’t because they wanted to deny options, but because it

was made necessary by practical realities. We’ve looked at that. We look

at the struggles in the system, and we’re trying to provide a few more

options to people so that this notion of first-available-bed isn’t

completely limiting to them.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for the answer there.

Can the minister advise what happens to this family when they

decide that they don’t want to go into that care home? Is their name

sent to the bottom of the list to have to wait all over again? What’s

the process for that?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: That is, of course, sometimes a challenging situation. No one goes

to the bottom of any list. You’re on that list because you need to go

into long-term care. You’ve been assessed to go into long-term care, and

it’s a significant need.

What sometimes happens — because then the health authority has to

find an available bed and, essentially, make another offer — is that in

that interim period they definitely would provide supports at home,

potentially. Or if there are urgent circumstances, they’d simply find a

bed, as a temporary measure, in advance of getting a new bed. So no one

goes to the bottom of any list. But obviously, for the system to work

successfully, most people do take the first available bed. If they

don’t, then that creates some challenges.

The new system, we hope, will empower seniors a little bit so that

when we’re going through the process, they can review care homes in

their communities. In some communities, of course, that’s one care home,

right? Let’s be clear. In Williams Lake, it would be two care homes. It

would be Deni House and Seniors Village, right? In that case, when we’re talking about

choices of three,

we’re talking about up to three. Those are the practical choices in some

communities.

If you would go to Dawson Creek or Fort St. James or wherever,

you’re going to have much, much more limited options. Often the

flexibility of options that we’re talking about will be best felt in

Metro Vancouver and on Vancouver Island — where there are, obviously,

more care beds and more care homes — than it will in those other

communities.

What we’re trying to put in is flexibility in the system so that

people can select not the one care home they want — because if the care

home is full and there are no available beds, that’s essentially a

stalemate — but a number of care homes that they, hopefully, or their

families will have seen beforehand and that they can choose from. That’s

the direction we’re moving in.

I think we’ve been encouraged in that regard from the seniors

advocate and from lots of people in the community, as well, to try and

find flexibility, where we can, in the first-available-bed policy. But

if you’re in a community with one care home, then that of course changes

that perspective entirely, unless you’re prepared to move from that

community elsewhere, which sometimes people have to do as

well.

Those are the changes; those are the circumstances. I think the

staff at the health authorities work very, very hard on the residential

care, on this question. Like I say, it’s a difficult time for people,

often, and they work very hard to satisfy people’s needs. This isn’t a

question of being punished. It’s a question of getting people the care

they need — that they’ve been assessed to get and that they need to

get.

With that…. Is that the note I’m getting?

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: The Chair is very, very decisive.

The Chair: Wedded to the standing orders.

Hon. A. Dix: He doesn’t even have to speak to inform me that I need to act as

he directs.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada