2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 27, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HEALTHY HOSPITAL STAYS

S. Hammell: Good morning. It gives me pleasure to rise in the House to speak again on a motion that allows us as members to speak on issues that we are concerned about.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I'd like to talk in terms of a healthy health system, in particular about mixed-gender wards and the practice in British Columbia of having wards that both males and females are in during the time that they are convalescing or being looked after in the hospital.

I'd like to just frame it in the context that my sister was recently admitted to a hospital, and she was admitted to a mixed-gender ward. She commented on the fact that an elderly gentleman was in the bed beside her, and both beds, of course — as were all the other beds in the hospital room — were shrouded by the thin curtains that we all find in the hospitals and are very commonplace. That wall of privacy was around everyone, but that was it in terms of the privacy of the wards that were mixed-gender.

My sister — and I think this is common of most people in hospitals — didn't complain. She was not offended at all that the wards were mixed and that there was this gentleman in the ward with her. But my sister was not well, and she was very grateful to have a bed where she received just superb and excellent care.

In commenting on mixed-gender wards, we have to recognize that they have been around for a long time not only in British Columbia. They've also been in Britain since the '60s and '70s, and they've been in use in Europe and in the '70s were instituted in Australia. So the use of mixed-gender wards is a commonplace technique or strategy.

[1005]

The argument used for instituting gender-mixed wards was the efficient use of high-technology equipment. The research that then followed has identified that the emergency ward and the ICU department are two places that particularly were impacted when the switch was made to gender-mixed wards. From the emergency ward and the ICU ward and a number of other highly specialized areas, this practice then spread to the surgical and medical wards.

Again, the practice was driven at that time by more efficient use of high-tech equipment, but another driver underneath this has been the need to reduce the wait time of patients in emergency wards. The wait time in the emergency wards has grown, particularly in British Columbia, over time, and waiting to be admitted has become a serious problem for most of the hospitals in our province.

I think that in our province that was a major motivator that led to the use of gender-mixed wards. The overcrowding in hospitals, particularly driven through the emergency ward, has led to crowding in the emergency wards themselves, where patients are in the emergency wards in halls. Most of us have seen that.

At times the halls inside the emergency wards have become crowded enough that they've spilled out into the halls outside or the foyers. Of course, we all remember the very highly publicized episode where there was spilling out into the Tim Hortons at Royal Columbian.

So clearly, when you have a problem in the emergency ward and you're trying to relieve that pressure of many people, you want to get people out of the emergency ward into being admitted into the hospital. That's where you want to alleviate any impediment such as having to find a specific ward because of a specific gender.

Of course, we all know that when you have this crowding at the emergency ward, many people do leave in frustration. There are patients complaining. In some cases, physicians have made the case that delays at the emergency ward can be so severe that there is death as a consequence.

So one solution to this crisis was to implement the policy of mixed-gender wards, to at least place people initially into a mixed-gender ward, and if there were further reasons to move the person to a single ward or a same-sex ward, then that would be done.

I think, in terms of this policy, the jury is somewhat out. In a quick blush at the policy, it does not appear to be completely satisfactory. It's clearly a solution to a problem, and it's not ideal.

Most of us, in the clear light of day, would say that the best thing to do in a hospital is to have separate wards for different genders because of the privacy and the intimate nature of being in a hospital. However, patients — and I use my sister again as an example — will readily accept mixed-gender wards if it means being admitted faster or more quickly into the hospital and being looked after. They see them as a necessary evil, and they understand the pressure on the system, and they acquiesce to the solution.

[1010]

N. Letnick: I would like to thank the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for bringing up this issue. If
[ Page 9440 ]
I understand correctly, the background of the case in Cowichan District Hospital was to do with mixed-gender wards and some allegations about what happened there. Of course, these are horrifying allegations, and our thoughts are with the patient and her family at this difficult time.

The ministry staff were in touch with VIHA as soon as they learned of those allegations, and we've been assured that VIHA took immediate action to help prevent incidents such as those in the future. I also understand that VIHA will enforce with their staff that every effort will be made to place patients in gender-appropriate rooms.

All semi-private rooms will be single gender. All three- or four-bed rooms which are mixed-gender should have a minimum of two female patients in them. Patients, both female and male, in mixed-gender rooms should be alert, oriented and mentally competent with an ability to appropriately vocalize concerns. No patients with violent behaviour, known inappropriate sexual behaviour or active mental health issues should be placed in mixed-gender rooms.

The ministry has followed up with the health authorities to reinforce that similar approaches are implemented across the province. You look across the province, and you see that the government has made significant investments all over British Columbia to make sure that we continue to have one of the best health care systems in the country.

Investments. Just recently in Kelowna I had the privilege of representing the Minister of Health at the unveiling of a clock. It is counting down currently about, I would say, 89 days left to the opening of the Centennial tower in Kelowna, which is going to be serving patients and visitors to the Interior comprehensively everywhere from the Kootenays and up north through Kamloops and even north to other places.

What really struck me at that opening was that most of the in-patient rooms are going to be single-patient rooms. They've gotten rid of the mixed-gender rooms. They've gotten rid of the mixed rooms, and for the most part — I think it was — 26 rooms are going to be single occupancy. That is actually a way forward.

But the challenge of course is: how do you afford to do that across the province all at the same time? It's not possible, as we know. We have limited funds given to us through our taxpayers,. We have to continually modernize our capital infrastructure, and we're doing so. The Kelowna example is just one of many that are happening all over British Columbia.

We have funds that are going into Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre in the Fraser Valley. We have millions of dollars going into the Gordon and Leslie Diamond Centre outpatient hospital in Vancouver General Hospital. We've got money going into hospital capital spending outside the Lower Mainland, in Nanaimo — the ER. We have Prince George. We have Vernon Jubilee, of course. We've got more money going into the B.C. cancer centre in Prince George, and the list goes on and on. A 123-bed residential facility in Fort St. John — it's $300 million.

It's just a matter of continuing to upgrade our infrastructure as our population continues to age. We will see more and more need to do so. Given the track record of this government over the last ten years, in which it has doubled by 2014 — virtually doubled — the amount of money going into health care across B.C. from what it took in 2001, I have every confidence that health care will continue to be a priority as we move ourselves over to the time when the boomers impact our health care system.

That's why I'm so happy that in this House we have a Select Standing Committee on Health made up of members on both sides of the Legislature, which will be looking at the impacts of the boomers over the next 25 years on our health system to make sure that together we come up with solutions that will ensure the sustainability of a great health system that is seen around the country as one of the best in this country.

Again, I would like to thank the member for bringing up the issue and to say we on this side of the House are extremely concerned about what happened there, and I'm glad to see that actions were taken to make sure it doesn't happen again.

S. Hammell: Thank you for your response. It is good to hear and have it confirmed that gender-mixed wards are not the most appropriate way to move and that if we have the opportunity, we would move to gender-specific wards and rooms.

[1015]

I think we would all acknowledge that the comfort level of patients would be higher if they had those kinds of circumstances, and so we have agreed that it is less than ideal to have mixed wards. But we do understand that circumstances often drive to a less ideal situation.

I think the critical factors around the concern are things like ensuring that patients are treated with the dignity they deserve when they come into a hospital. Oftentimes in hospitals people are under stress and maybe not understanding all they do. Dignity requires that patients observe, in their place in the hospital, behaviour that is suitable and behaviour that is appropriate.

Also, the issues of privacy become intense in mixed-gender wards, especially around toiletry and some of the more intimate procedures that nurses have to make. Safety, as the member who responded has mentioned…. It is absolutely critical that safety be a primary concern when there are mixed wards.

We have had examples, as was related just a few minutes ago, in both Cowichan and Victoria, where people have been inappropriately placed in mixed-gender wards, and the consequences have been less than appropriate. In fact, we must, especially when we have vulnerable sen-
[ Page 9441 ]
iors who have dementia or some conditions such as some place where they're vulnerable, that they are protected and they are safe inside our hospitals….

I think we agree that it is less than ideal, but are prepared under the circumstances and the conditions today, that mixed-gender wards are there to stay, but they need to be watched. There needs to be strong policy. There needs to be respect not only for people who for a variety of reasons don't want to go into those circumstances, such as religious — that those kinds of things are listened to, complaints heard and appropriate measures taken.

Thank you very much for engaging in this discussion this morning.

CONNECTING COQUITLAM:
EVERGREEN AND THE FUTURE

D. Horne: Well, it's with great pleasure that I stand again this morning on such a nice day to talk about something that is very, very important to my constituents and those in the Tri-Cities, and that is the Evergreen line.

I have to say how excited…. Actually, on my way here last evening I went from downtown Vancouver to the airport on the new Canada Line. I have to say that with the improvement there and the ability to move from downtown Vancouver to the airport so easily, it just makes so much sense to be able to use such a great piece of infrastructure as the Canada Line.

You know, very, very shortly now, with the first contracts being awarded on the Evergreen line…. Soon the people in the Tri-Cities will have the same ability to connect to our SkyTrain network as those in Burnaby and in Surrey and in Vancouver do now. That's a very, very important thing, because moving people in our area, allowing people to live where they want and work in another area and being able to move seamlessly from those areas using rapid transit, is something that really does grow our communities. It is something that truly does make our cities and our municipalities a wonderful place to live.

I'd like to start, perhaps, talking a little bit about how we accomplished some of these goals. One of the things that's been said about the Evergreen line for some time…. Quite frankly, until they see the shovel in the ground, I'm sure we'll still have some naysayers that have called the Evergreen line the Nevergreen line. I have to say that it took quite some time to get the Evergreen line to the reality that it is.

[1020]

I think one of the important features is that our government — about three years ago, I guess — took leadership in making it happen, set up the project office, did the engineering work, did the environmental work, basically put the money where our mouth was and started acquiring properties along the route and really moving the Evergreen line forward so that it would become a reality, and showing the leadership to make certain it does.

I have to say on Friday I was at a lunch with the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce at the Westwood Plateau Golf Club, which is in my riding, and the speaker that day was the Hon. James Moore, who is Minister of Heritage and the political minister for the province of British Columbia. He gave a speech that day to the chamber of commerce talking about infrastructure, talking about the Canadian infrastructure program and all of the great things that program has brought to British Columbia, to the Tri-Cities, to Canada in general. The interesting thing that I saw in project after project that he was highlighting is that, quite frankly, many of those projects, many of the things within the Tri-Cities but also many of the things within British Columbia — basically all of the things within British Columbia…. You know, I could stand up and give exactly the same speech because all of these things were a reality not only because of the federal government contribution to them but because of the matching contribution from the province of British Columbia and oftentimes a matching contribution or a contribution in some form from the cities.

I have to say that the working together, the collaboration between our levels of government, the ability for us to work together and make projects like the Evergreen line come to reality is something that, really, the public who elect us all should be quite heartened by. Obviously, our ability to work together is something that all of them want to see — lack of confrontation, lack of negativity, lack of not seeing it and putting up impediments and putting up obstacles in which to get things done.

You take a look at the Evergreen line, and obviously, it's a perfect example of governments working together — the federal government and their contribution, the provincial government. Not only did we make our initial contribution of just over $400 million, but in order to make the project work we actually increased our contribution to include the shortfall in capital. So our contribution now is almost $600 million. Then, obviously, from a civic level as well — the city mayors have stepped forward, and they too have contributed significant local dollars to make sure that the Evergreen line project works.

Over and above the actual building of the project, there are the local stations. Coquitlam is working very, very hard right now to build another station at Lincoln. With the growth and the towers that exist in the town centre area of my riding, it's something that is being embraced by that community and something that the city of Coquitlam is now moving forward with.

I do have to say there have been some people in the equation that have been significantly more negative in trying to get this done and have been obstacles, and we've been able to overcome that. That's why I think it's important to look at this project and look at the way that it came to a reality and look at the fact that governments at various levels can work together, can see things come
[ Page 9442 ]
through and can see a project reach reality and actually be built. That's why I'm so excited today to stand in my place and talk about the Evergreen line; talk about something that is extremely important to my community; talk about one of the biggest infrastructure projects to hit the Tri-Cities ever and something that for generations to come will truly be of benefit and a great service to connecting the Coquitlam town centre, Port Moody through to Burnaby, through to the airport, through to Surrey, through to the whole Lower Mainland and as the network expands, obviously, bringing it further and further.

I think that rapid transit is something that is a fantastic thing for our neighbourhoods, and I'm really excited about the Evergreen line coming to Coquitlam.

[1025]

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and respond to my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a topic that I think is important to all of us in the Tri-Cities, and that is the Evergreen line. Or, as some people have referred to it, and not out of a sense of negativity as being opposed to the project but rather over the almost glacial pace of time that it has taken for the Evergreen line to get out to our way…. It's sometimes referred to as the Nevergreen line. The member from Coquitlam mentioned that as well.

It is an important project for our particular area because we are one of the fastest-growing areas of the Lower Mainland. We ourselves, along with Surrey, are taking a significant amount of the population growth that's occurring in this province over the next ten to 15 years. You can see it in the communities themselves, how much they've grown over the last two decades, as I have often told this House. In fact, the reason the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain is even sitting here in this House is because of the rapid growth that took place in my riding.

In 1991 my riding encompassed all of his riding, and it had a population of 52,000 people. In 1996 — that is in the '90s too, by the way — it was the largest riding in the province, with a population of over 85,000 people. You know, 35,000 people in literally five years is remarkable growth. That's the type of growth that's taking place. We need transportation solutions, public transit, to be able to maximize the developments that take place in our area, both from people moving in but also economically, which is why the Evergreen line is crucial to the success of the Tri-Cities.

It was part and parcel of the project that was linked with the Millennium Line, which was also built in the 1990s, which went from New Westminster to the Coquitlam-Burnaby border at Lougheed Mall. The second stage was to go to the Coquitlam town centre. That was the plan for after 2001. The member has talked about it being a three-level project in terms of the federal, provincial and local government participation. It was the regional priority at the local government level to bring it out to Coquitlam Centre. That priority was changed after 2001, and it was pushed down to No. 2. What came up was the Canada Line.

Now, the Canada Line is great. It does a remarkable job. But at the local level, the Evergreen line was the key priority. That was an unfortunate delay. However, it is now the priority for local government. It is the priority, apparently, for the province and for the federal government. What we want to see is construction.

I know the member wants to see construction and shovels in the ground. For many people, that will be when they truly know that it is going to be built — not because there is a presentation centre, not because there have been some preliminary contracts awarded, but when they actually see the cement going in the ground. Then they will believe that the Evergreen line is truly on its way. That is something that our area has been waiting for, for a very, very long time, because it will be the completion of the project, the Millennium Line, with the Evergreen line. It will allow those of us in the Tri-Cities to travel to the airport at Richmond in a seamless fashion, and it will get people out of their cars.

It will also help shape the land use and developments in our area, which is crucial to the implementation of the livable region strategy in our area, but will also give us the same level of service that our colleagues south of the Fraser and in Vancouver enjoy.

With that, I take my place. I look forward to hearing further comments from the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

D. Horne: An issue that both the member for Port Coquitlam and myself can agree on. The Evergreen line is a fantastic thing and really will provide a huge advantage.

You talk about the growth in my area, which, as the member pointed out, was part of his riding. Yes, because of the redistribution that took place in 2009, mine was one of the new ridings because of all the growth in our area.

You look at the Coquitlam town centre area that I represent and the number of new towers that are just even today under construction. That doesn't include all of the new towers that have been built over the last ten years. There are currently about eight towers around Coquitlam Centre that are each between 20 and 35 stories, which are currently under construction. That's the area that the Evergreen line is terminating in. That's the area that this new SkyTrain line will link to the rest of the system at its terminus.

[1030]

Also, the other important factor is…. You take a look at the Millennium Line that was talked about, that allows for those that go to SFU to move from the Burnaby campus to the Surrey campus. But the new Evergreen line will also allow for people that go to Douglas College…. It is a great institution in our province and has campuses both
[ Page 9443 ]
in my riding in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain as well as in New Westminster, as was just pointed out.

One of the things that the Evergreen line will allow is for students that go to Douglas College to go from the one campus in my riding to New Westminster on the SkyTrain. They'll be able to make the trip so much easier than they currently do. You know, the way that the current bus system works, for them to move from one campus to another is actually quite difficult. Especially on the weekends, I'm told, the frequency of the services is quite low. So this is a huge thing for Douglas College as well.

Douglas College has been growing. Their new nursing facilities at the David Lam campus are just wonderful, state-of-the-art facilities. So it's the one thing that the Evergreen line does; it really does build communities. It really does build it so that it makes it so much easier for people to get around.

You know, one of the things that Douglas College is now really excited about in the last year or two is that they're joining the U-pass program, which is the program for students to basically be able to get onto transit. It's about habit-forming as well. Once you start using transit, you get hooked. It's kind of like an addiction. You use it more and more. It's a great thing and a fabulous thing for our region.

SMALL BUSINESS — DRIVING THE ECONOMY

J. Brar: I'm very pleased to make a statement regarding the contribution of the small business community in the province of British Columbia. Small business is the real engine of our local economy. Small business accounts for 98 percent of all businesses in B.C., and over one million people work for B.C.'s small business community. Without small business, tens of thousands of British Columbians would be without jobs, and so many community and charity organizations serving the poor would be without constant support. They are the life blood of our communities and of our local economy.

I served as the executive director of the Surrey Self-Employment and Entrepreneur Development Society for many years before running for public office. I appreciate the hard work, dedication and optimism that it takes to start and run a small business, and I understand the challenges small businesses are facing in our province as a direct result of economic uncertainty caused by the HST.

The economic uncertainty here in B.C. is hurting small businesses, and it remains the biggest economic roadblock for many struggling small businesses and new investment. Therefore, the best thing this government can do to help the small business community in B.C. is to fast-track the elimination of the HST. The uncertainty surrounding the transition away from the HST system is severely hurting our local economy and costing us jobs.

Let me tell you why this government should fast-track the elimination of the HST. First, the HST increases taxes on families and workers, reducing the amount they have to spend in the local economy and, thereby, reducing the demand needed for small businesses to succeed.

Secondly, the PST protected employment in B.C. by not taxing services. The HST taxes services and will therefore cause consumers to spend relatively less on services. A dollar spent on services creates more jobs in B.C. than a dollar spent on goods. The inputs of services are mainly supplied in B.C., labour being the large input, whereas most goods are imported from other parts of the globe.

Thirdly, the HST is a huge cash flow problem to some small businesses. Under the PST, most business inputs were exempt at the point of sale — for example, if a bar or restaurant could go to the Liquor Distribution Branch with a liquor licence and purchase their liquor PST-free. Now they have to pay 12 percent HST upfront and will not receive the money back until perhaps a year later, when they file their taxes and claim their input tax credits.

[1035]

Many businesses operate on very tight profit margins, and cash flow is a real problem for many small businesses in B.C.

The beginning of HST was a bad surprise to the people of British Columbia, and the end of HST is not in sight. This government shocked the people of British Columbia on the HST, promising they had no plan to impose HST during the election and then bringing it in just days after the election. It was later revealed that the government was considering the HST in the months leading up to the 2009 provincial election.

On a radio show, a radio show host, our Premier, had this to say about the HST. "It is an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in this tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way" — CKNW, July 28, 2010.

More than 700,000 British Columbians signed the initiative petition to stop the HST, but this government will not eliminate the HST. Even after losing the historic HST referendum, this government won't do anything for 18 months because they want to continue favouring their corporate friends and ignoring the small businesses and the people of British Columbia as long as they can.

This government implemented the HST system in just nine months. Why do they need 18 months to eliminate the HST? They are doing it because the HST is a tax shift. The HST transferred $1.8 billion in taxes paid by big businesses onto the backs of consumers and small businesses. Therefore, with this 18-month delay, big businesses will continue to pay less, and small businesses and the people of British Columbia will continue to pay more.

To conclude, HST is hurting our economy, and it's hurting the small businesses of B.C., specifically the service industry. If there is one thing that this government can do to create more jobs here in B.C., it is the elimination of the HST as soon as possible. It is time. It's about
[ Page 9444 ]
time that this government showed some respect to the democratic will of the people of British Columbia and fast-tracked the elimination of the HST and the reimplementation of the PST system in order to bring economic stability to the province and assist small businesses in creating more jobs in B.C.

C. Hansen: First of all, I'll put my own credentials on the table. My wife and I started a small business in about 1988. We built it from scratch. When I first got elected to this chamber in 1996, I got out of the company — we had about 20 employees at the time — and my wife has continued to run that company very successfully ever since.

But I know the challenges of running a small business, and I think there are many of us on this side of the chamber, the government members, who have had that experience of running small businesses and starting companies and building them and creating jobs that families in British Columbia depend on. I don't think that's a claim that the NDP opposition can make to any great extent, and I think it shows in terms of some of the policy. It also shows in terms of some of the statements made in the House, including the one that we just heard.

I actually know what it's like to go to the bank and take out an advance on my personal credit card in order to meet payroll, because you've got employees in the company that are counting on that paycheque. If the company is having a bad month and cash flow is suffering, then it actually comes down to the owner of that small business to make sure that those employees in fact get their pay.

Also, I want to comment a bit on what the member has talked about in terms of the harmonized sales tax. The comments that he made actually fly in the face of what just about every reputable economist has said globally about the introduction of value-added taxes.

The small business community in British Columbia actually advocated strongly for the introduction of a harmonized sales tax, going back to at least the mid-1990s. In fact, I came across the annual policy statement by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce that I'm sure all members in this chamber receive every year.

[1040]

In the 1996 edition they actually had a specific policy advocating that British Columbia should adopt a harmonized sales tax. Why? Because it was actually good for small business. The vast majority of businesses in British Columbia benefit from that type of value-added tax.

Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about what we did right and what we did wrong, because that would take up a lot more than the five minutes I obviously have. But I do want to take issue with the main point that the member was taking, and that was that we should go back to the old PST system faster. That is exactly what this government is doing, and I think it is actually quite naive for the opposition to talk about how it could even happen faster than the timeline it is currently on.

This is not about the introduction of a new tax that happened with the harmonized sales tax and now it's simply a matter of getting rid of that new tax that that brought in. What happened on July 1, 2011, was that we got rid of a tax. We went from having two consumption taxes in British Columbia to one. That's what harmonization was all about. Now to go back and re-establish that second tax, to re-establish the provincial sales tax, is a very complicated process.

I know for a fact that in the Ministry of Finance they are working as expeditiously as they can to make sure that that happens as fast as possible, but it involves re-establishing a division within the Ministry of Finance, and it involves very complex negotiations with the federal government, who administer the harmonized sales tax.

I think the analogy…. It's much like a company that comes along, and they have to tear down a house, and they find out the next day that they tore down the wrong house. So it goes to court, and the court says to the company: "You put that house back exactly as it was." It's a pretty complex process. I think that it's a very complex process for us to go back to the old style of provincial sales tax.

Unfortunately, going back to the PST is going to hurt small business in British Columbia. We heard from small business constantly about the complexity of the PST system, the additional cost of processing paperwork, the additional cost of the extra tax filings that went on and the complexities of dealing with the tax auditors from both the federal GST side and the provincial PST side.

But we know that that was the will of the voters of British Columbia. They passed a referendum that obligates the provincial government to go back to the PST system. That is exactly what is happening, in spite of the fact that it's going to cost the small business community in British Columbia more in the long run.

There's another thing that I wanted to take issue with, but I'll have to find another occasion to do that.

J. Brar: Thanks to the member for the comments. One of the funny comments which I hear almost every day from the members on the other side is they challenge the credentials of the members on this side. I want to challenge every member on the other side against my resumé on business credentials and academic credentials. I would like to challenge that anytime.

I have been the executive director of an organization that provides training programs to new entrepreneurs. Under my training, 500 new small businesses came up and became successful in the province of British Columbia. I would like to challenge the members on the other side against my resumé, and I would like to put that resumé against any member on the other side when they talk about that.

The other thing I want to say is that they claim they know the economy the best. In the last election the mem-
[ Page 9445 ]
bers on the other side said the deficit will be $495 million, not a penny more. That's what the people of British Columbia heard from them, and they said it many times. Then we find out after the election that it was four times more. Four times more — anybody can do that. Anybody, even a person with no academic skills, with no business skills, will even be better, will make a smaller mistake than that. But that's what they said at that time.

I want to come back to the member on the other side saying that the HST is going to help the small business community. Last week I met two business people. One was a kitchen cabinetmaker. He said to me that he has lost a significant portion of his business because of HST. Now people have to pay 12 percent more.

[1045]

I also met a restaurant owner. He told me that he has lost a significant portion of his customers because they have to pay 12 percent more every day, and that is hurting his business as well.

So it is about time — the people of British Columbia have spoken very clearly about this — that the government basically fast-track the elimination of HST. I don't understand why, if they can implement that in nine months, they can't eliminate that in nine months. That's my comment. I will take my seat.

INVESTING IN THE FRASER VALLEY

J. Les: I just wanted to take a little bit of time this morning to talk about the B.C. jobs plan and how that strategy is resulting in increased economic activity and the creation of jobs all over the province and, specifically, in the Fraser Valley and in my community.

As we know, the jobs plan has a real focus on the development of natural resources, such as natural gas, and in the mining sector. The assumption often is that those jobs then will flow to northern British Columbia, where those resources are and where that specific activity takes place. But these jobs are not specific only to northern British Columbia, I'm happy to say. We have companies right in my area, in the Fraser Valley, in Chilliwack and Agassiz and Hope, that are very much involved in the evolution of these new opportunities.

I'm very pleased that we've seen a couple of permits already granted by the National Energy Board to approve natural gas export licences for liquefied natural gas, and I'm also pleased to see that additional mining permits are also being provided for development in the years ahead.

There are three companies in my area that I specifically wanted to highlight this morning. The first one would be Britco, which is a manufacturer of modular office and housing facilities that has completed a number of projects around the world, frankly, over the years. This was a company that started in 1977, in Langley at that time, in a 10,000-square-foot facility.

In 1988 it opened a facility in Agassiz, just across the river from Chilliwack. I still remember the official opening. It was attended by Grace McCarthy, who was the minister responsible for economic development at the time. There was a very fresh-faced, probably very young individual there at the time who today we know as the Minister of Finance. This was his summer employment between university classes.

That was the very humble beginning of Britco in the Agassiz area. Today there are about 300 people that work at that facility. I visited there a few weeks ago, and it's a real going concern. They send their products all over western Canada, and offshore as well. They've put together a major community in Russia as well. Really good to see so many people working there, putting out a first-class product. Their product, of course, can be found in mining communities, in the natural gas and oil fields and in larger projects such as Rio Tinto Alcan and Highway 37.

The second company I'd like to talk about for a minute is IMW Industries, which is based in Chilliwack. Again, their roots go back in Chilliwack many, many years. The acronym IMW actually many years ago, when I was a little boy, stood for Ironside's Machine Works. They've grown, they've thrived, and they've specialized in a variety of areas over the years. Today it is a world-leading supplier of natural gas compression equipment.

They have sold their products all over the world. They have over 1,200 installations of their equipment in 24 different countries, and they have service centres today in the United States, China, Bangladesh and Colombia — so very much a presence on the world scene in terms of natural gas compression equipment. They are a world leader in this technology, and you know, proud to say that they are a Chilliwack company.

They are still based there today, employing 300 highly skilled people. When I go through that facility today, I still manage to meet a lot of people that I went to school with who are enjoying the fact that they have great family-supporting jobs right there in our own community.

[1050]

The third company that I'm very familiar with and that's thriving in the current business environment in British Columbia is Tycrop — again, one of these companies that started in very humble circumstances. The founder of the company, Gary Teichrob, was a neighbour of mine. We lived on neighbouring dairy farms. He was kind of handy with a welder and started out making manure scrapers for farmers in the neighbourhood. He was quite good at that. He made a tremendous product. He got into other agricultural equipment.

Ultimately, today they find themselves making the equipment that is used for fracturing rock in the natural gas industry. They have one unit that goes out every day, worth about $1.5 million. They employ about 500 people — again, in great family-supporting jobs. Their equip-
[ Page 9446 ]
ment goes all over Canada and the United States, and they're located right there in Rosedale, British Columbia. Their facilities are growing, they have great expansion plans, and I'm sure that as the months and the years unfold, there will be many additional hundreds of people working for Tycrop Equipment.

Those are just three examples of how our jobs plan in British Columbia is providing opportunities not just in those areas where there is the physical exploitation of natural resources but throughout the province and, in this case, right in my own neck of the woods in Chilliwack, British Columbia. I am very much looking forward to other small companies in my area also being able to benefit from these tremendous economic opportunities that we now have before us in the province of British Columbia.

L. Popham: It was interesting listening to the member across the way talk about his constituency. I spent Saturday door-knocking in his constituency — knocked on about 150 doors. I got a sense of the state of mind there, and it was very, very interesting.

One of the things that stood out to me as I travelled around was the fact that in the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack is part of the most fertile agricultural land that we have in the province of British Columbia. When I think about investing in the Fraser Valley, I look back, and although I wasn't part of the New Democrats at that time, I look at the very sound fiscal ideas they had in long-term investments to make sure that the Fraser Valley had long-term success.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One of those things was putting money aside for the court system there. It was hard to put it away at the time, but that made it very easy for the government today to spend that money when it was needed. Another long-term vision that we had on this side of the House was the idea of the agricultural land reserve. It's an amazing land use tool, and if that wasn't in place, the Fraser Valley would look certainly much more different today than it did 30 years ago with the pressure for development increasing at all times.

It's interesting that the member mentioned the oil and gas industry. The idea of long-term investment in the Fraser Valley comes along with investing in something like the Agricultural Land Commission, which makes the agricultural land reserve strong. The oil and gas industry up north is something that puts that in jeopardy. Asking for exclusions out of the north to grow the towns that are going to be housing people to work in that industry and taking food-growing land out of our reserve concerns me. The agricultural land reserve was put in place as a long-term investment in our food-producing lands.

It's interesting to see the other side of the House…. I don't think they are actually thinking of long-term decision-making in our future. They want short-term success as far as investments go. So I'm thankful to sit on this side of the House, because I know that vision will carry us to the future for quite some time.

[1055]

The idea of investing in the Fraser Valley also comes along with something like investing in marketing programs like Buy B.C., for example — something that would reflect very well in the Fraser Valley as it's so rich in agriculture — and something like investing in speeding up the process for getting the meat regulations under control. I know that's something that harmed producers in the Fraser Valley, and it certainly wasn't something that I can see as something that's invested. The only thing that's been invested is a lot of time while these businesses fail around us.

The B.C. Assessment farm review process. This is looking at what could be in addition to the list, so farms could make more of their farm income available with value-added products. That, again, is a long-term process. The only thing invested there is a lot of time, and although I don't think the other side of the House recognizes it, even in agriculture, time is money. If you start to look at agriculture as an economic driver in this province, you would want to speed that up to support something like the agriculture industry within the Fraser Valley.

The interesting thing about investing is that we went out this weekend and made sure that farmers in British Columbia knew that if we became government on this side, we would value something like extension services in agriculture. That's investing not only in the Fraser Valley but in all parts of British Columbia. It's not that much money to put towards something that's so valuable. That's the sort of investment that I think the Fraser Valley would appreciate.

It certainly was a great announcement to have when we were at the COABC conference that was actually in Chilliwack this weekend, which represents almost 600 businesses and farms in British Columbia that are looking for that. The government decided that wasn't an important investment for them.

I think that long-term investment in British Columbia includes those things. It's about $100,000 — not that much in the big budget in British Columbia and certainly a very smart decision to be made.

J. Les: I thank the member opposite for her response. The next time she's in my area, I'd ask her to think about stopping by for a cup of tea. We'll have, I'm sure, a nice little chat together.

In any event, the member opposite refers to agriculture, and rightly so. We have a lot of agriculture in the Fraser Valley as well. The agricultural and horticultural producers certainly have stepped up to the plate and are becoming well recognized for the great products that
[ Page 9447 ]
they produce.

We have horticultural producers who send their products right across Canada and into most of the United States from greenhouses and acreages throughout the upper Fraser Valley. I'm very proud of the contributions they make to employment and a strong economy in the Fraser Valley as well.

There is no question that we can benefit in many ways from the very good agricultural land that we have in the Fraser Valley. The blueberry industry, for example, has grown by leaps and bounds over the past number of years. They're now delighted that as a result of the continued growth of the gateway strategy, they can now quickly get their product fresh into markets in China, for example, which provides a great outlet for that industry — one that they will need because of the growth they've had. They need to have significant market expansion as well.

We see cranberries now coming into the Chilliwack area. I suspect that they, too, will become leaders in the industry.

This isn't about short-term successes that the member opposite was talking about. Actually, all of the examples I used were companies that started in Chilliwack and Rosedale and Agassiz 20, 30 and 40 years ago and have grown to become world-leading companies in terms of the technology that they have created, the patents that they have produced and the numbers of people that they now employ — nothing short-term about that.

This is the bedrock of a healthy economy — local companies producing great products with phenomenal staff, committed to their communities, good family-supporting jobs. That's what this is all about, and I'm happy that it's happening in my town of Chilliwack.

[1100]

Hon. T. Lake: We now move to private members' motions — Motion 26.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 26 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 26 — ACCESS TO
DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Conroy: I rise today to move the following motion:

[That this House urges the Government to ensure that DriveABLE and other functional driving evaluations are reasonably accessible to all British Columbians.]

It was back in November when we tabled this motion, when the issue of accessibility to this test was an issue in our rural MLA offices, and that continues today. But as more research has been done on DriveABLE and other functional driving evaluation for seniors in this province, we are discovering that there are a number of issues with these tests.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I want to talk today about DriveABLE and its accessibility in relation to this motion and focus on a couple of issues: first of all, the actual geographic accessibility for rural seniors, and then the accessibility when it comes to the appropriateness of the test itself. I know some of my colleagues will also have issues to bring to this debate.

First, no one I have talked to about this test wants to see anyone driving who shouldn't be. Seniors who I have met with — those who have taken the test or not, and those who will take it some day — all agree that no one wants to see unsafe drivers on the road. But something that everyone agrees with is that there needs to be fairness, and it's just not there.

First, the accessibility issue in rural B.C. People in rural B.C. — we need our vehicles. Transit just isn't in our rural communities the way it is the in the city. People are dependent on our vehicles. In Castlegar, for instance, we have two buses — a regular bus and a handyDART. The bus never comes by many people's homes. We need our vehicles. We need the vehicles to get to stores, to go to doctors appointments. Seniors say they want them to go visit their kids and grandkids, and it's their very independence.

So when someone has to take a test where they might lose that independence, you can imagine the anxiety that seniors face. Then there's the lack of tests in their home community. So they are anxious about losing their licence, and then they have to drive to a different city to actually take the test, sometimes places where they rarely go to.

For instance, a senior from Haida Gwaii has to go to Prince George. That requires a minimum of five days for the trip, including ferries, fuel, motels and meals, and they'd have to go with someone else, take someone with them, in case they didn't pass the test and immediately lose their licence and still need to get back home to Haida Gwaii.

A senior from Prince Rupert also has to go to Prince George for testing, so they're looking at three days of costs. A senior from Bella Coola would have to go to Kamloops — again, three days of costs for them. The senior from Golden has to drive all the way to Kelowna, taking at least two days and, again, having to take people with them.

These are just a few of the examples that we have heard about, and we have heard about numerous, numerous examples. Everyone is getting the examples in their office. It does show that access to DriveABLE facilities is putting
[ Page 9448 ]
rural B.C. seniors at a real disadvantage.

What's frustrating is that the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles policy says that in exceptional circumstances — for example, if a DriveABLE assessment centre is not accessible to the individual — alternate policies are available. These options are not being exercised for rural seniors.

The policy clearly states that if an assessment centre is not nearby, a gerontologist, an occupational therapist or driver rehabilitation specialist can do these assessments. Instead, the government has chosen to ignore that and discriminate against seniors in rural B.C. by not allowing that accessibility.

There are also numerous examples of unrealistic expectations for seniors taking this test. The geographical limitations are just one. The other is the actual test itself.

A number of people who have taken the test and failed talked about the difficulty they had with the actual technology. Seniors who are not computer literate, never grew up playing video games, are dealing with this very unfamiliar technology. Some said that the lighting was really poor, the testers had rushed them, and there was no practising — not like when you go and get your learner's licence.

[1105]

One woman said to me that she had no idea, when it was suggested she maybe should take a DriveABLE test, that it might mean she would lose her licence. She said she would have taken the entire process a lot more seriously if she had learned that.

Then there's the cost factor. If these men and women are asked to take the test, the cost is covered. If they take the test and fail, they have to pay another $300 to retake the test and perhaps get their licence back — and their independence. With combined costs associated with travel and having to go to a large centre to take the test, that all adds up to an incredibly unfair process for rural seniors.

Some seniors, I've heard, were able it go to an office with an advocate and practise the test, and they passed. Others have been told to be proactive — go take driving lessons before you take it — and talk to their doctors about getting a physical and being ready to prove their cognitive abilities. Most of them have passed. But where is the consistency in that?

We've heard there's inconsistent testing all across the province, and there are different rules for different seniors depending where they're taking the test. So we're saying: why wouldn't all seniors have the same opportunities? Why do we have 80-year-old drivers, who are still perfectly capable of driving, coming into our offices so very upset after they've lost their licences and their very independence?

A senior came in, who with his wife had decided they would travel in their retirement years. They bought a truck and a motorhome and saved up. She didn't drive anymore. They recognized that she didn't have that capability and shouldn't be, but he could still drive and drive very capably.

He said that the test was a demoralizing, stressful experience. He did fail, and his wife said it was pure torture for him. He's never dealt with computers, which added to his stress level. He was convinced that he's an excellent driver, but this test just put him in such a stressful situation that he just knew he was going to fail.

He's going to take the test a second time. He's saving his retirement funding right now, his pension, so he can go and take it again. But it begs the question: is this really the best way to ensure that someone can still safely drive once they turn 80?

I think seniors in this province deserve better. Yes, let's keep unsafe drivers off our road, but not at the expense of rural B.C. seniors who are good drivers being penalized by an inaccessible test in so many ways. I know my colleagues have much more to say on this subject as well, Madam Speaker. So with that, I will conclude my remarks.

P. Pimm: Hon. Speaker, good morning. I'd love to take my opportunity to speak to this motion as well: "That this House urges the Government to ensure that DriveABLE and other functional driving evaluations are reasonably accessible to all British Columbians."

First of all, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this issue forward. It's surely an issue that is on the minds of all British Columbians, especially British Columbian seniors. I want to say that I find myself agreeing with parts of what the member opposite has to say. It's a very great day for me when I actually can agree with parts of what the member opposite has to say.

We do want the test to be accessible to any senior, especially those that have been identified to take this assessment. I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak about this issue in this House today and try to give a little more oversight of what the process was before and what the process is moving forward and how it does affect different folks in different areas of the province.

I want to be very clear that this isn't a B.C. Liberal versus NDP type of issue. This is a rural B.C. versus urban B.C. type of issue. We have lots of those issues in rural B.C., which we have to stand up and fight for our constituents on an ongoing basis. I find myself doing that pretty regularly, actually. So it's refreshing to actually be able to talk to this one as well.

We need to be very sensitive to any medical condition that could make even the best motorist unsafe to drive and a danger to themselves and others. It's important the general public does not confuse aging with medical impairments. It's a fact that there are drivers of any age with impaired medical conditions that are of concern.

In an average year in our province, the province will assess about 130,000 drivers of all ages. About 44,000 of those are senior drivers over the age of 80. Of that number, on an average year, about a thousand seniors over
[ Page 9449 ]
the age of 80 are referred to the DriveABLE program for further evaluation.

[1110]

So what did it look like before we had DriveABLE, and what happened in that process before? Well, in years past your doctor was the one person who had the responsibility of removing your driving privileges when you got into those magical years. But today, with DriveABLE, it's actually an improved system where we have more than just that one person or that one process to look and to see if we can't improve the system for you.

So first off, when you turn 80 years old, and every two years thereafter, the superintendent of motor vehicles sends you a notice to complete a driver's medical examination report. You must take that notice to your doctor in order to see if you still have the necessary skills and abilities to continue to drive safely. This is a general assessment that examines a person's medical fitness to drive safely. It assesses vision, physical abilities and medical conditions that affect driving.

If the doctor completes the test and thinks that you're starting to show signs of cognitive issues, he'll make note of the problem on your report and send the notice to the superintendent of motor vehicles to further assess your situation. But I want everybody to be very clear in this House that the process still starts with your doctor's input and that the DriveABLE assessment follows after that process.

Once you've been identified as requiring the DriveABLE assessment, you'll receive notice from the superintendent's office. You'll receive a letter that will indicate where you have to go for your assessment and when it has to be completed. In my area we're working hard with our Minister of Justice and the superintendent's office on keeping folks in our region from having to travel huge, long distances to have their assessment done, and we're having good success on that.

In fact, in my region we now have a mobile unit that gets dispatched from the regional office. We're still trying to get the proper schedule worked out and figured out, and it's going to take some time because we don't always have somebody that needs an assessment. Sometimes we might have one. Sometimes we might have three. But nonetheless, we want to make it accessible for all of the residents in our area. That's what we're working with the ministry folks on, on trying to make that happen. We're having success, I have to say.

All DriveABLE in-office assessments are administered by trained health care professionals, and you actually have practice time before you start. You know, we hear stories in our office from time to time of different things that are happening, and if they are happening in that fashion, they're not supposed to. You're supposed to have practice time. You're supposed to be able to have time to do the assessment.

Nobody wants to take anybody's driver's licence away when you turn 80 years old. I certainly don't want anybody taking my mother's away. But it's a fact that if you get to a point where you're unsafe to be on the roads, it's an unfortunate fact of growing old and getting into those magical years.

After your assessment is done, you're compared to a person of equal age to yourself with no cognitive issues. If you score less than 30 percent on your assessment, your licence is going to be suspended. If you score between 30 and 70 percent, you'll be asked to take a further road test to see if you can actually pass the road test portion of it. If you get over 70 percent on the assessment, you have an automatic pass, and you don't have to do anything further.

In my area we're asking anybody who receives a notice that they must take a DriveABLE assessment to contact my office. I think it's my duty as an MLA to help these folks get the assessment done in the most possible and best way that keeps rural British Columbians happy in their communities.

K. Corrigan: I am the official opposition for the superintendent of motor vehicles, which includes DriveABLE. I certainly — and I think all members in this House — agree that we support getting people off the road who shouldn't be driving. I don't think there's any disagreement on that. We want to make sure that our roads are safe for everybody.

So I haven't been publicly critical of government about the validity of the test itself, but we have been hearing from hundreds and hundreds of people, mostly seniors, who are very concerned about the process, most concerned about accessibility. But we're hearing more and more concerns about the test itself, and I've heard from both sides of the House that there are concerns.

[1115]

My major concern is that if there is a recognition on both sides of the House that there are problems with this test, that there are glitches, it's very unfortunate that it's been rolled out and that people are losing their licence with a test that has admittedly got some real problems.

This motion is about access, and I'm going to primarily talk about that, but I'm also going to talk about transparency and fairness as well.

Seniors across this province have been greatly inconvenienced, and they've been financially hurt by the lack of access. There's a great deal of concern. There are 16 centres across the province that offer this test, but there seems to be a real rural-urban split in terms of access.

There is only one location in the north of British Columbia. That's in Prince George. So if somebody is coming from Prince Rupert or, in the extreme — admittedly, the extreme — Haida Gwaii, it's a terrible ordeal. Dr. Gordon Horner said that for his patients to travel to Prince George presents "an insurmountable financial bar-
[ Page 9450 ]
rier — two people, a week or more of travel with ferries, hotels and meals — for our clients."

Seniors in the East Kootenays are directed to Kelowna, which can be a five- or six-hour drive or more. Then, if these seniors are travelling long distances and they fail, they can't drive home. So they have to take somebody with them. So it's not just one person. It's often two people that have to make the trip. I just really don't understand, when the consequences are so severe in the lives of seniors around this province, why this would have been set up without thinking through the impact that it's going to have and the lack of accessibility that it's going to have for our seniors.

I would note that there are 16 centres. But the goal, according to Dave Dunne of BCAA, was to have 25 DriveABLE facilities open within two years, and that was in June of 2010. So we have 16 so far. We're certainly not close to the 25 that are supposed to be open.

There was also talk of mobile units. It seems to me that mobile units are possible. We had an example of a test. They brought it into the Legislature so that we could take a look at it. If that's possible, I don't understand why this is not happening. Maybe it's happened somewhere, but we certainly haven't heard about it on this side of the House.

The government's own guidance on the test says that if the test is not accessible to somebody, an alternative possibility for the case managers is to arrange for somebody to have the test done locally — for example, by a physiotherapist or other professional. That is not happening either, as far as we know.

So while access is causing the greatest number of complaints, I've got to say that there are many other concerns. Before I talk a little bit about those specific concerns, I want to point out that when a government program has such potentially serious consequences for citizens…. In this case the consequences are indeed severe: the loss of licence and the costs associated. That's a very big deal in seniors' lives, in anybody's life. I think government has an increased obligation to make sure that the process is squeakily clean, entirely fair, entirely transparent and entirely accessible. I would submit that the DriveABLE program, as it presently exists, does not meet that standard.

Here are a couple of examples. All drivers are assessed — everyone — when they reach the age of 80. It's not dependent on any tickets that the driver has had or whether they've been involved in any accidents or any concerns have been expressed by family or friends or the family doctor. All drivers are assessed. So that means many seniors are feeling that they are being discriminated against. Now, I understand it's the view of the ministry that the program is constitutionally unchallengeable, but that does not change the fact that there is great feeling of discrimination amongst seniors, many of whom have had a clean driving record their whole lives.

There are also some concerns that have been expressed about the process in which the test itself was developed. The original research was done at the University of Alberta. But then a spinoff private company was created, and it's that private company that has a contract with government.

[1120]

The contract was single-sourced. Maybe that was necessary because of proprietary concerns, but nevertheless, it's a single-source contract, so the ante goes up on transparency and fairness, I believe.

The department of motor vehicles is ultimately responsible for determining if someone is fit to drive, but that responsibility has been delegated to the B.C. Automobile Association. I'm a member of BCAA and a great fan. I appreciate the services, but they are, again, a private organization without the same standards of transparency and accountability as government.

In fact, I was looking on the BCAA website, and I couldn't find anything about DriveABLE, although it may be there. There's certainly nothing in its financials. So we have several layers of removal from government, despite the fact that government is responsible for DriveABLE. It's a company that has been single-sourced, DriveABLE, and in addition, it's being delivered through the B.C. Automobile Association, a couple of steps away from government.

In summary, a test of a good government program — particularly when it's single sourced and contracted out and when the impact is so great — is that there has to be great transparency and there has to be effective oversight. I haven't seen the oversight. I have concerns about the process. I certainly have concerns about accessibility. I think there are a lot of questions about the government handling of this, the management, and I think that we owe it to our seniors to continue to ask those questions and demand accessibility to this test for our seniors.

J. Yap: It's my honour to rise and join in this debate on this motion. I appreciate the member for Kootenay West bringing this forward. It's a topical one, one which I approach both as the MLA for Richmond-Steveston but also one personally from the perspective of our family, where we recently had to go through this and deal with this issue with my father, who over the past year had to give up driving. He's 92 years old.

I can share with members of the House, as we've heard, about how important the ability to drive is to all of us. It's an important privilege. It's not a right, but it's a privilege that is so important to all of us. I know from a personal perspective the real personal difficulty of acknowledging as we go through life that as we age, our abilities do change. Our cognitive abilities change, and it's a fact of life that all of us face.

The reality is that we have a system that is designed to allow us to encourage people, as we progress through life, to assess our continued ability to drive in a way that is
[ Page 9451 ]
safe for ourselves individually and for the public at large. I think we have agreement. We heard from both members that have spoken on the other side of the House that this is not an issue about the fact that we need a system to encourage people as we progress in life to determine when is the right time to stop driving.

My colleague from Peace River North is right when he says that family doctors have an important role. In our family that was in fact the case, where my father's doctor actually was the one who helped our family communicate to my father that it was time to stop driving. It was a very emotional time, and it was a very sad time, but a process that we had to go through when finally, after almost seven decades of driving, my father, with a very safe driving record, had to finally not drive anymore.

That scenario is played out all over the province. For more and more people, as the demographics indicate, with the reality of our population aging, this will be an important issue of our times.

[1125]

Accessibility to this particular test, the DriveABLE test, which is a tool…. It's not the only tool, but it is a key tool in determining driving ability. We need this to be as accessible as possible.

Others have spoken about the urban and rural aspect of this. Certainly, our government, I believe, recognizes this. If we could wave a magic wand and every single community that had any seniors living within communities could have a DriveABLE facility, we would, of course, wish to see that. But in reality that is not feasible.

However, the commitment is there, I believe, to see the number of DriveABLE locations increased. In fact, if you look at the record, DriveABLE started in 2005 with three locations, and today there are now 17 permanent locations all around the province. Every region is represented. Just to be clear, the 17 include Abbotsford, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Courtenay, Kamloops, Kelowna, Langford, Nanaimo, Nelson, North Vancouver, Prince George, Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver, Victoria, Dawson Creek and Sechelt. And there are two mobile units.

So I'm confident that the government recognizes this as an issue of accessibility, and we look forward to more locations of DriveABLE around the province so that seniors may, wherever they live, have reasonable access to this service.

N. Simons: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to add my perspective on the entire issue around DriveABLE and fitness testing for senior drivers. I think we need to go back to 2010, when the new guidelines were written which called for the DriveABLE test to be used on a routine basis for any driver over 80 years old. The 2010 guide replaced the policy that had existed in the province since 1997 and that had a section in it on driver fitness.

What changed dramatically between the 1997 version and the 2010 version was the assessment for senior drivers, and that involved a two-pronged process. The first would be that the tool used by the physician in the doctor's office to do a pre-screening test, called the SIMARD-MD test, was to be implemented as part of policy approved by the B.C. Medical Association. That test would then determine, according to the office of the superintendent, whether the senior should be going to an ICBC office to get their licence renewed or if they should go for special cognitive testing at DriveABLE.

So the two-pronged process that started in 2010 — coincidentally, when the DriveABLE assessment centres expanded from three to 17 and projected to expand even more…. It was those two introductions to the policy that occurred in 2010 which have created the situation that we have now.

Obviously, every jurisdiction in North America, statewide or provincewide, has its own assessment processes for determining whether seniors should be fit to drive. This is not an urban-rural issue specifically. There are many cases from urban ridings where seniors have called my office to express their concern about the test. I've had situations where at least three constituents of mine have had their tests done twice. The second time, their cognitive functioning was miraculously improved, and they got their licence back after five months of hardship. So there are questions about the test that's being used.

Now, the part of the motion that I think is most important is that driver fitness testing should be available in every community, just as it was in 1997 with the combined input of doctors in their offices and the office of the superintendent, which, prior to 2010, had a medical advisor on staff. Well, somehow the Liberal government got rid of the medical advisor of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, which left the assessment process to a committee.

Now, the other problem that I think needs to be raised about driver fitness testing is that it is a political issue. It's a badly implemented policy. Regardless of the accuracy of the tests themselves, it's a badly implemented policy when you're telling seniors without much notice that their life is about to change, potentially.

[1130]

We have seniors in my riding who live a few kilometres from a bus route, a very infrequent bus route. There is not a lot of use of handyDART. There are not a lot of ideas from government in place which would be necessary to mitigate the impact of drivers losing their licences.

Now, the other thing that I think is problematic — and I think seniors have caught up on this, because it was reported in the newspaper — is that the chief researcher for British Columbia's 2010 guide to assess driver fitness was also the co-creator of the assessment tool that doctors use in their office. She happens to have worked for DriveABLE, as well, and has a close connection with the DriveABLE company.

So I think seniors, when they see a policy that's be-
[ Page 9452 ]
ing implemented that has a huge impact on their life, are wondering: how could it be that such a policy comes out of the blue and causes this huge impact? I've had so many stories of seniors who talk about sleepless nights and shaking and being worried and undergoing all sorts of stress prior to taking a test on cognitive functioning.

I think the average person in British Columbia will say that in order to be tested for cognitive functioning, you should be in a place where you're comfortable, first of all, not in front of a computer screen. Whether it's called a computer test or a video games test, it is absolutely foreign to most seniors.

I think we need to say that driver fitness testing should be available for all seniors, wherever they live, but let's just make sure that that driver fitness testing is one that is fair and that has been scientifically, academically and independently verified to be accurate. There are a lot of questions about the test from every single perspective you can imagine, from the accessibility to the validity.

I think that when we look at a government policy that's been introduced and that has an impact on senior drivers, whether they're 80 and over or under 80, we have to recognize that seniors do get tested for driving capabilities. In some jurisdictions everyone gets tested at 65 and then every five years thereafter. In some jurisdictions it starts at 75, and then they're tested again at 78 and then every year thereafter. Every jurisdiction has the authority to make rules like that, but no other jurisdiction in North America makes it a routine assessment to DriveABLE as a company.

I think that those issues cause enough concern among the people of the province, especially among seniors in this province, to say this needs another look. This needs another look from the accessibility, from the fairness.

I've had people call me from Burnaby North. I've had people call me from Whistler. I think that when you see the number…. The concern is that perhaps the net that the government has dipped in the water is going to have too much bycatch. In other words, too many seniors who could be driving are going to be kept off the road.

Yes, we'll get everybody who's dangerous off the road — plus 20 percent of the population that isn't. I think that's the kind of thing that needs to be looked at from an academic, a scientific and an independent perspective.

N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to stand up once again in the House this morning, this time to talk about a motion which refers to the accessibility of DriveABLE. I'm coming from a little bit of a disadvantage, being the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, because there is a DriveABLE testing facility in my area. I do get the occasional visit from seniors in my riding talking about DriveABLE, the test itself, but not usually about the accessibility of the test.

So with the House's indulgence, I would like to cover two topics. One is the test itself, where it came from and why we have it. The other one will be on the side of accessibility and how maybe we can improve the accessibility of the test.

I know that at the end of the day what I'm hearing — and I think it's just human nature — is that we agree that people who are safe to drive should be driving, and those that aren't should not be driving. The challenge, of course, is trying to find that wonderful balance where we can get just those that are unsafe off the road and keep those that are safe on the road. It's a difficult balance to strike.

I know in the good old days, however far you want to look, doctors used to make that decision. You'd go to a doctor, and the doctor would give you a test. If the doctor felt that you were unsafe, regardless of age — this is not an age thing — if you didn't have the abilities to be driving, then you would lose your licence. That was probably one of the most stressful things, next to telling someone they're going to die, that a doctor had to do — to take away that sense of independence.

[1135]

The only thing that I can feel in an empathetic way is in my time as an employer, when I had to fire people. There was no more difficult decision than to lay somebody off, and rightfully so. It should be a difficult decision. I've laid off workers. I've laid off CEOs of hospitals, in my time in my 30 years before getting this wonderful position here. And I can tell you that it doesn't get any harder than that, in my experience.

So I can just imagine how hard it is for doctors when they have to tell someone: "I'm going to have to pull your licence." As everyone in this House knows, one of the best things you can have when you are young is to get your licence for the first time. To see that licence go when you have some ability issues…. Obviously, there's an impact on yourself, an impact on your family and an impact on your friends. That impact is very serious, and that's why this motion here also should be treated very seriously, which I believe it has been on both sides of the House.

The DriveABLE program itself is approved by the B.C. Medical Association. Not only is it approved by the B.C. Medical Association, it also is being used in other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia — including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico — for eight years. It's also recognized by the Alzheimer Society of Canada for research excellence. So there is some support for DriveABLE.

The program is very different than the driver medical exam report, a required test done every two years on anyone over 80 years of age. And I can say that it's different, because I actually took part of the DriveABLE test. We had a session right here in the Legislature. They were looking for volunteers to take the test, and like most people in here, I'm a keener. So I put up my hand, and there I was in front of this computer screen with about 12 of my colleagues looking over my back, watching me take this test.
[ Page 9453 ]

I can tell you: I was sweating bullets — not because of the test but just because I wanted to make sure I did a good job with all these eyes peering over my back. As I was taking this test, I calmed down, and I realized that it's not a test of my driving skills. It's a test of my cognitive skills. And luckily, I passed the test, I say quite humbly.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Barely, yes. The member from Kamloops says I barely passed the test. Well, there might be some scores somewhere, but I did pass the test anyway, so I would have kept my licence in that case.

But I can understand the difficulty that many people who have to take the test go through. I've had, in my own riding, people come and talk to me about their apprehension during the test. The test, they believed, had some issues because it was a computer test, and they weren't computer-literate. I tried to explain to them that they didn't need computer knowledge to be able to do the test, but still, when you get to that position where you're being threatened with losing your licence, that anxiety does not help when it comes to the test.

I'm sure that DriveABLE has to work out some other ways of better communicating with the public, with the users of the test, with the families. I'm assured that the Solicitor General is looking at exactly that and at how we can better roll out this program not only in terms of to more places, which she's committed to do, but also to better roll it out so that people are more comfortable when they reach the time when they have to take that test, if indeed their doctor sends them to the test.

It's different than the medical exam. It does not provide routine retesting for licence renewal. Drivers with clean driving records who have no indication of cognitive decline that might impair their ability to drive safely are not referred to DriveABLE. It is neither age-based nor does it target seniors specifically, but it's used to test anyone who, a doctor believes, lacks the necessary cognitive abilities to drive. The test is designed to test an individual's motor speed and control, attention span and spatial judgment — I think that's the part that I had a problem with — and so it is a test that can definitely make people anxious, especially in the area that they're about to lose their licence.

Just to finish off, Madam Speaker, I'd like to repeat that we are committed to expanding, where appropriate, the DriveABLE program, to make sure that it is available to more municipalities and more areas around the province, especially in the area of expanding mobile units. I will now take my seat. Thank you for the honour of being able to speak.

[1140]

B. Routley: This issue of DriveABLE first came to my attention with a number of seniors coming into my office. Clearly, accessibility is a major one. I want to talk about some of the heartfelt stories of seniors who came in to see me about their particular issues, and there are clearly issues with this DriveABLE.

There are people that have taken the test and failed and then later retaken the test, after spending the money, and then passed.

One of the first fellows that came in to see me, a senior, was making the point that as a senior he, in his previous life and job, had had various classes of licences. He had always gone to the local testing centre and got tested, and there was the ability to go to the testing centre and actually look at the materials and prepare for what you were going to be tested for.

In these circumstances, he didn't have that opportunity, and he was really quite angry. He pointed out that he had lost 11 pounds worrying about the test that was coming. He had a seniors group that he went down and had coffee with, and he heard all of the horror stories about how people had arrived at the testing facility, had their licence essentially taken away right on the spot and then found themselves in a position of trying to find a way to make their way home.

Those kinds of stories are out there. Why? Because that's what's happening in British Columbia. It's hard to believe. But you know, it gets worse.

I had a lady come in my office. She started to cry before she got very far into her explanation, and I got her some Kleenex and asked her to calm down and if she wanted to come back at another time, that would be okay. She said: "No, I really want to get through this." I gave her a glass of water, and she started in to explain. Then I could see the stress that this had put on this lady in her 80s.

If you can imagine this, this is what our government testing program is doing to our seniors. This lady is in tears, telling me that she lost her husband six months earlier. Six months earlier her husband had died, and she was now driving back and forth. She had her driver's licence. She used to drive to the store for groceries — a rural area out in the remote part of the Cowichan Valley.

She lived for more than 50 years in a home her husband built with his own hands, and now she was there in my office, crushed and in tears because she had to move out. She'd gone to DriveABLE. There was no ability to practise. She was terrified by the computer. She explained to me how she felt in a total different world going into the DriveABLE exam. They were telling her: "Do this; do that." She insists she did not get the kind of….

You know, government now writes letters and says: "Oh yeah, you get the ability to have a trial period, and it's all very gentle." Well, it wasn't that way for this senior. At the end of the day, she lost her licence. It was taken away, and she was in my office in tears because she was going to have to sell the home that she loved, that her husband built and six months earlier had died in, and now she's got to move out. There's no bus service out in this re-
[ Page 9454 ]
mote community.

She had a car that was two years old, and she knew how to drive. She even said to me: "Do you think I should just drive for groceries once in a while?" I said: "No, I can't advise you to do stuff like that. That would be against the law. You can't do that."

She says: "This is so frustrating, because the only option is to sell my home and move into some kind of seniors facility, and I'm not ready for that. I want to live in my home, in my garden and in the house my husband built."

[1145]

You know, I really think it's unfair that people are not given the opportunity. They make the point — over and over I've heard this point made: "Why can't we go and try this kind of program out?" If we're fearful of it, if we've got a senior losing 11 pounds because he can't go to a facility and play with the levers…. It doesn't have to be the same cognitive tests. By the way, if you take a cognitive test, you should…. If you don't have the cognitive ability…. You either have it or you don't have it.

How is it that people take a cognitive test, and then when they pay $300 they pass the test? There's something wrong with that — something very wrong.

I've done enough looking into this that there are all kinds of things that stink about this. There are questions that we need to ask, like: where did this come from? How did it get put in place? Was there a proper tendering process, for example? I don't know. Was this tendered properly? There's all of this talk about nepotism and involvement with other parties. I don't know what's true and what's not true, but I'm very concerned.

I had two fellas come into my office. One is moving to Nova Scotia. He told me: "I'm not living in British Columbia anymore." You know, these guys get up and talk about how we chase people away from British Columbia. I had a fellow in my office that is leaving British Columbia because he says that he's not going to be dictated to by DriveABLE or anybody else. He had been driving all of these years. He's not going to have them…. So he's off to Nova Scotia.

Another fellow told them what to do with their computer system. He had a class 1 driver's licence at 79. He goes in and gets told to go and sit in front of…. He said he was treated like a little boy. He told them to stuff their computer, and I can kind of relate to a guy that feels passionately like that. It probably wasn't the best move because he lost his driver's licence. Now he has said that he's going to go live with his brother back in New Brunswick and be able to drive.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, again, these kinds of things are unacceptable. We've got the access issue, the cost issue. We've got the mystery testing. Why can't people go instead…? It's not available. People shouldn't be in tears. They shouldn't be losing weight over a test.

It's unacceptable to have British Columbia seniors treated…. These are people that helped build this country. It is unacceptable that we have our seniors treated this way. They have to have the right to go in with their eyes wide open, to go to a testing facility, to understand how it works.

I've got a fellow I appealed to the ministry about. I said: "You know, he came in…." He forgot his reading glasses. Why did he forget his reading glasses? He thought he was going for something to do with driving. Oh, well, DriveABLE, and you're going to go and take a test, and he didn't bring his reading glasses. He sits down in front of a computer, and he failed. He said later on that he went and played with his grandkids' computer, and when he put on reading glasses, suddenly everything became clearer. It's unfair, and we've got to treat seniors better.

J. Slater: That was a very passionate job. I don't think there's any question that every one of us MLAs get these issues coming to our offices, but I think that we need to make sure that we understand why we're doing this, and that's for public safety.

Interjection.

J. Slater: Yeah, but I've got 18 communities in my riding. The closest one for any of them to go to is in Kelowna, and that's a big task.

I think that we are certainly not going to have a permanent location in every community, but we need to address where the seniors live.

I know in the Okanagan and the Kootenays that there is a high percentage of seniors that live there. I think the DriveABLE program…. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country…. I was right behind him when he was doing that.

It would be pretty intimidating to have to do that, especially if you're 80 years old and you're not computer-literate. I think that we need to be able to have a practice. Let the people that are going into it have a look at it and then be able to do it. But I think that administering these assessments is very important too because most of the people that are 80 years old that are requested to take these tests are being referred by doctors. That's the bottom line.

[1150]

I know in Osoyoos we have doctors there that regularly request these tests being done. They have to go to Kelowna to get it done, and it is intimidating, there's no question about it, because pass or fail on these tests is really important. But they can take them over again. I think once they've taken it once, that's their practice. Then they go back and take it again, and a lot of them do pass the second time.

I think that from our side this plan is a good one. I
[ Page 9455 ]
think we need to look at it. I certainly know the portable ones are a great idea, and if we can get them into some of the rural communities in the area, I think that would really help.

M. Mungall: With this motion I think it's important to start off recognizing that no one in this House is debating the importance of public safety. We are all on side with the importance of public safety, and at the end of the day we need to make sure our roads are safe.

But what we are debating is fairness, accessibility, transparency, accountability, and, frankly, the lack of it with the current Liberal administration of the DriveABLE program. My own opinion, based on my own research of the current status of DriveABLE and how it came to be in British Columbia, is it's all quite questionable. The test itself does raise many, many questions.

I want to focus on the issue of access because that's one of the biggest concerns for people in my constituency of Nelson-Creston. I've had many phone calls, e-mails and letters into my office from seniors living throughout my constituency expressing their concerns and the difficulty that they've had with the DriveABLE test.

Henry Ginter — his licence was revoked, and when he sought to make an appeal he was told that his doctor would have to provide compelling evidence. "Fair enough," said Mr. Ginter. The only problem is that he's one of the 2,000 orphan patients in the Creston Valley, so where is he going to go for a doctor's note?

Mr. English, also from Creston, has had to fight for his independence because he cannot get the road test in Kelowna. It's a five-hour drive from Creston. Ms. Terriff — she called my office to share the story of several seniors in the Creston Valley who are not able to get to Nelson for the DriveABLE computer test, which is an hour and a half away from where they live. They are afraid that if they fail they will, of course, not be able to get home and have to drive over Kootenay Pass, the highest point on the Olympic Torch Relay. No easy feat, driving over that pass.

There's the story of Bob Sears, who is living in a remote area along Kootenay Lake. He was told to go to Kelowna in the middle of winter. It's at least a five-hour drive from where he lives, along terrible winter roads, and to be dictated to that he has to make that drive in the winter is unconscionable. But on top of that, Mr. Sears was quite ill. He had to fight just to get his exam extended — still in the winter, of course — so that he can make that ten-hour drive, round trip, for a short test.

Just the other day I received in my office a letter from Heather Myers, and she's telling me the story of her father who was tested. His doctor, mind you, said that he was in perfect health and in perfect driving capability and that there should be no reason for the test. But according to the rules, he does have to take it. "Fair enough," said Mr. Myers.

He took the test. The administrators of that DriveABLE test told him that he did very well, but nonetheless, he was still told to do a road test. Lucky for Mr. Myers that he was able to do a test on the random day that it was available in Nelson.

[1155]

Well, according to him he only made two mistakes, one of which was at a very tricky intersection in Nelson. Mr. Speaker, if you ever get the chance to drive around Nelson, you'll note that many of our intersections are quite difficult. Anybody of any age has had trouble with this particular intersection. So it's not uncommon, and I think that's a fair point to make.

The second mistake, according to Orvil, was that when he was parked at the mall, which is one of the few flat places in Nelson, he didn't put up the e-brake. These were the two mistakes he made, and as a result he lost his licence. His daughter now states that she finds DriveABLE totally non-transparent and completely unaccountable.

That is exactly what we're talking about with this motion. We're talking about the need for accessibility and for accountability with this type of driving test so that public safety is maintained and it's maintained in a fair way. I myself have written to the minister on this very issue, and I hope that she takes it with the level of seriousness that we have presented in this House today.

M. Mungall moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada