2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House today professionals that work hard every day supporting those suffering from addictions. Recent data suggests that about 14 percent of people aged 19 to 35 experience substance use disorders, and rates of mental health and substance use disorders are highest for people aged 15 to 24, at nearly 12 percent.

[1005]

The Ministry of Health invests more than $1.42 billion each year in mental health and substance use services, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development also invests another $94 million to address child and youth mental health challenges in British Columbia. We’re very happy that there are people helping us in this quest to assist those with substance use challenges.

In the gallery today we have Lynn Pelletier, who’s the vice-president, B.C. Mental Health and Substance Use Services, which is an agency of the Provincial Health Services Authority, along with the executive director of BCMHSUS, Connie Coniglio. With them are Jennifer Johnstone, the CEO of Central City Foundation, a philanthropic organization that provides real estate to provide for facilities to help those with substance use issues, and Carla Shore, who is the communications director for Central City Foundation.

Would the House please join me in making them very welcome here today.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is Pastor Tim Schindel, not unknown to many of us here, the founder and president of the Leading Influence Ministries who every day on Twitter says something good about someone in this place. I know I always feel better when he says something good about me.

Joining Reverend Tim in the gallery today is Pastor Al Funk from the Colwood Pentecostal Church in the riding of my colleague from Royal Roads. Pastor Funk is retiring from Colwood Pentecostal after 28 years in the same church, in the same community. He and his wife of 42 years, Verna, plan to do some travelling in a Gold Wing motorcycle and a travel trailer. I think Verna’s on the Gold Wing and Al is in the travel trailer.

However they work it out, would the House please give them all the best for the next number of years in their life.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know that all the members of this House appreciate the sacrifices that families make when we do our work in this House, but also, those of us who have the responsibility for a ministry have great staff.

I have a tremendous deputy minister in Jacquie Dawes. With her today in the House is her nine-year-old son, Brendan, who is a great hockey player and aspiring baseball great. He loves to talk to adults, so we’re going to have a little meeting after question period. He says that I keep his mom too busy. Brendan, I do apologize, but it’s great to have you here.

I’d ask all of the members to welcome Brendan to the House today.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome the B.C. Doctors of Optometry to the House. These are wonderful health care professionals who provide exceptional service every day in their communities and are also involved in many community endeavours.

I want to give a special welcome to Dr. Brenda Horner from New Westminster, FYidoctors, who not only provides me with my eyewear — and thank you for that, Dr. Horner — but also has recently won an award from the chamber of commerce, a Platinum Award for the local business that shows the most diversity in its hiring practice.

She is also involved in so many community activities, including a wonderful program that the Doctors of Optometry pioneered a few years ago which provides free eye exams and free glasses for young children in the schools who might not otherwise have access to them. We know how vital seeing is to learning.

Welcome to Brenda Horner and to the Doctors of Optometry. I hope that both sides of the House will join me in saying that we’re really happy to have you here today.

D. Plecas: Today in the House, we have 24 criminology students from Mount Royal University. They’re ably led by Prof. Kelly Sundberg. I’m not sure why they chose Mount Royal over the University of the Fraser Valley. I’m told that they’re very bright students, but….

Anyway, they’re here on a study tour today. I’m not sure how much they’re going to learn in question period, but their time here, I’m sure, will be valuable.

R. Fleming: Joining us in the gallery today is a large group of students from Ecole Reynolds Secondary. Before I get interrupted, yes, he is an alumnus, the member for Juan de Fuca, and yes, he was the class president. There — now I’ll introduce our guests.

[1010]

These students are part of the school’s flexible studies program, and they’ve been involved in a remarkable seven-month partnership with the Royal B.C. Museum and the Songhees First Nation. They created an exhibit at the RBCM called Youth Echoing Truth, which had over 250 people attend its opening night.
[ Page 12612 ]

I’d like to introduce our guests, grades 9 to 12 students Moira Bryan, Lia Lancaster, Matthew Dawson, Lily Margison, Nik Schuster, Emma Austin, Jordyn Youson, Mauri Momose, Sam Aryavong, Stella Zarei, Kathleen Sargeant, Rosie Said, Timilu Fast, Charlie Gill, Tayah McKinnon, Samantha Kenyon and Samuel Herbert.

With them are their teachers. Brad Cunningham is, of course, from the humanities. He’s the humanities teacher. He’s the department head for the flexible studies program. His colleague Heather Coey is here. The school’s principal, Tom Aerts, is able to join us here today. With them are museum staff: Chris O’Connor, who’s the learning program developer, and Steve Lewis, the exhibit designer.

It’s wonderful to have all of these students and their partners here today in the House. I would ask both sides of the House to make this group of students, teachers, museum staff and community members most welcome and to congratulate them on a great project.

C. Trevena: Yesterday my colleague from the Comox Valley and I recognized the management of the fish-farming industry in B.C., which is based in my constituency. I’m sure, over the two days, both sides of the House will have very productive talks with them.

I’d like to acknowledge those who literally make the industry work — the people out on the farms in all weathers and those in the processing facilities. People like Shelley Siemens, a single mom in Port Hardy who has worked for a number of years at the Marine Harvest plant there. She’s an active member of the United Steelworkers. Indeed, she is a true woman of steel.

I would hope the House would extend recognition to her, her fellow steelworkers in the aquaculture industry and all those whose work helps keep our economy afloat.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m delighted to be joined today in the gallery by Jim Humphrey, who is the president and owner of Beaver Lake Resort in Lake Cowichan and also a member of TIABC, and J.J. Belanger, who is the vice-president of lodging and manager at Crystal Cove Resort in Tofino. They are here on behalf of the B.C. Lodging and Campgrounds Association. They’re celebrating a great year last year and an even better one coming up this summer, as they’re full to capacity already.

We want to thank them for the important work that they do. I ask all members of the House to make them both welcome here today.

J. Shin: I must join the member for New Westminster in welcoming the group from Doctors of Optometry to the House.

Honestly, it’s not every day that you look up to the gallery and find your university friend. I can’t believe that it’s been, already, 20 years or so since both of us were roller-blading around UBC Point Grey campus to make our science classes. Looks like he’s gone on to become a doctor of optometry and also to serve as the president for the association. So I think we’ve done okay.

Would the House please welcome Dr. Sherman Tung to the House.

Hon. C. Oakes: Many of you in the House will know that one of my favourite places in the entire province of British Columbia is Barkerville. I’m delighted to have the students from Wells-Barkerville joining us in the House today.

Would the House welcome Duncan, Quinn, Landon, James, Cassidy, Will, Liam, Noah, Chloe, Taylor, Harley, Fox, Brody, Ommie and Signe, joined by their teachers today, Alison Galbraith and Hayley Archer.

As well, I’m very pleased to have James Douglas and Danette Boucher here. In 2004, James and Danette started to write the script and direct our very own Parliamentary Players, which I know…. In the Legislature, it’s the group that brings everyone through.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to this wonderful group of students and their chaperones and parents and teachers today.

L. Reimer: I, too, would like welcome Mr. Brad Cunningham and the students from Reynolds Secondary School.

[1015]

A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending their opening gala on behalf of the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. It was an absolutely wonderful exhibit. The students did fabulous work, and I just want to say how much I appreciate the Royal B.C. Museum partnering with the students at that school. It was wonderful, and I know that they’ll have memories for the rest of their lives.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M224 — DISTRESSED
ANIMAL ACT, 2016

S. Robinson presented a bill intituled Distressed Animal Act, 2016.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to move that a bill intituled Distressed Animal Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Motion approved.

S. Robinson: In 2015, the B.C. SPCA received well over 1,000 calls about animals left in hot cars. In August of 2015, the Liberal government promised that additional measures would be in place by the spring of 2016 to deal with this
[ Page 12613 ]
problem. Well, it is the spring of 2016, and the government has failed to act. They’ve failed to live up to their promises.

This bill, which I first proposed last year, would fill the void left by government inaction and empower local government bylaw enforcement officers to rescue animals who are in danger from being trapped in overheated vehicles. It also requires owners to provide adequate ventilation to animals they are transporting.

This bill would protect animals at risk in B.C. from terrible deaths due to carelessness and neglect. To quote the Minister of Agriculture’s 2015 press release: “We need to do more in situations when pets are needlessly put at risk.” This is a chance for the minister and the government to do more for the animals and the people of British Columbia and to live up to a promise they made. By debating and adopting this bill in the remaining weeks of this session, we can avoid needless animal deaths through yet another summer.

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

Madame Speaker: I will remind all members that the introduction of a bill is just that, not necessarily editorial comment.

Bill M224, Distressed Animal Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HECTOR MCINTOSH
STUDENT SPEAKING COMPETITION

D. Routley: This one had better be eloquent because the title is Hector McIntosh Student Speaking Competition.

Last night I attended the Hector McIntosh Student Speaking Competition in Duncan. I attended as a step-parent of one of the competitors, Brooklyn Baird. I left as a fan of the competition, the people behind it and the positive effect it has on young people.

The Rotary Club of Duncan has hosted the annual event since 1982. The competition is named for Hector McIntosh, a teacher from Shawnigan Lake who had the vision for the competition and provided the funding, through his will, for the initial years of the competition.

The objective of the program is to develop the art of public speaking for elementary, junior and senior secondary students by promoting inter-school competitions. Schools hold internal competitions to select two representatives per age category, followed by semifinals to select three representatives for each year’s finals. This year a total of $4,375 will be awarded as bursaries for the students’ education.

Donna Dawe, Rotary Club member extraordinaire, has been organizing, hosting and emceeing the contest for 28 years. She proudly can recite speech themes and students’ names from all of those years. There is little risk of plagiarism when Donna has such an accurate memory of past speakers.

Donna still receives Christmas cards and contacts from now adult students who she worked with as early as their fourth grade year. Donna is hosting her last contest as she is passing that torch on but promises to attend, listen and encourage the event and speakers.

I suggested that withering heckling, as we endure here, be added as an additional challenge. There wasn’t much uptake on that.

The students at the event were outstanding. They all had special qualities, and I was impressed with their confidence, poise and talents. This event is just one more example of the positive contributions of volunteers and service clubs such as Rotary.

Thanks to all involved and to Duncan Rotary for maintaining this positive and entertaining tradition. Special thanks to Donna Dawe.

SALMON AQUACULTURE

D. McRae: Name an industry in British Columbia that exports the majority of its product to the world, provides jobs to coastal rural British Columbia, combines international companies with First Nations communities and, while doing this, feeds the world with a nutritious and, dare I say, tasty product. I’m talking about the B.C. salmon farmers.

[1020]

For most British Columbians who do not live on the coast, it’s important that people understand what salmon farming contributes to our province: 5,000 direct and indirect jobs. While this may seem small in comparison to places like the Lower Mainland and the Interior, 5,000 jobs is more people than live in communities the size of Port Hardy, Tofino, Port McNeill or Chemainus. And 78 percent of the salmon raised in British Columbia is done in partnership with the First Nations.

Also, what do you think of when you visualize British Columbia? Many people think of mountains. They think of sunsets, bears and, of course, seafood. Whether you buy your seafood from a local retailer or visit a restaurant, chances are that B.C. farmed salmon is on the menu, and this is enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

B.C. farmed salmon is not just enjoyed by residents and our visitors. We share our product with the world. It is our second-highest agricultural product behind dairy and our province’s number one agricultural export. It was worth $426 million last year.

While 30 percent of our product is consumed domestically, whether it’s in British Columbia or whether it’s across Canada, 70 percent is exported to the world, with
[ Page 12614 ]
the United States being the number one buyer and China being number two. In 2015, exports to the U.S. hit record numbers, and demand for B.C. salmon in Asia is growing at unsurpassed levels.

B.C. agriculture and aquaculture is something we all need to be proud of. It provides employment, feeds the world and does so while being world leaders in adopting and implementing best practices recognized by numerous environmental organizations. Thank you, B.C. salmon farmers, for being such an important part of B.C.’s economy and B.C. communities.

FLEXIBLE STUDIES PROGRAM AND
YOUTH ECHOING TRUTH EXHIBIT

R. Fleming: As young people, most of us visited museums and maybe had class trips to view exhibits and learn about our history. But what happens when young people are given the opportunity to offer their own perspectives on our history?

Students from Reynolds Secondary will tell you that is how and when meaningful learning takes place. Today our classrooms and museums are evolving, finding new ways to engage students and our communities. Reynolds Secondary School’s flexible studies program is leading the effort to push back the walls of the school and give students the opportunity to learn from and with their community.

Youth Echoing Truth is one of their remarkable projects, led by students and championed by Brad Cunningham from Reynolds Secondary and Chris O’Connor from the Royal B.C. Museum. Through this initiative, 80 students explored the museum to find whose voices were underrepresented, misrepresented or missing entirely from our history.

These youth worked with museum staff and community members to bring their visions to life. They sought out underrepresented voices from our community and presented them to the public through the Youth Echoing Truth exhibits.

This year’s students explored the concept of truth and reconciliation. They heard from Sellemah, an elder with the Songhees Nation, who shared her heart-wrenching experience with residential schools. Her story motivated students to increase public awareness about the Songhees Nation’s history. They collaborated with Mark Salter from the Songhees Nation and the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria to create to create the Island of Voices exhibit, and through this work, students gained a deeper understanding of the truth and reconciliation process and shared their learning with the broader community.

Over the last seven months, Reynolds students designed engaging exhibits on many topics, including the history of struggle to expand equal voting rights in our province, the history of Victoria’s Chinatown and the development of our child welfare system.

I would encourage everyone to go see the Youth Echoing Truth exhibits for themselves. This exhibit is on display at the Royal B.C. Museum until May 31.

I want to congratulate, this morning, the students on their work and congratulate Reynolds Secondary, the Songhees Nation and the Royal B.C. Museum for creating a truly dynamic partnership.

RECREATION AT LIKELY
AND QUESNEL LAKE

D. Barnett: On behalf of myself and my colleague from Cariboo North, I am pleased to speak today about the community of Likely. As you are all aware, Likely was affected by the Mount Polley breach in August of 2014.

I have many friends in Likely, as my husband and I spent much of our younger days fishing, snowmobiling, looking for gold and learning about the history of gold mining and the beautiful Quesnel Lake, Cariboo Lake and surrounding area. We liked it so much that we had seven acres and a homemade log cabin on Cariboo Lake and an acre on Quesnel Lake near Cedar Creek park.

Then and now, the people of Likely are resilient community builders — caring, sharing people. Likely today is as beautiful as it was 30 and 40 years ago. Today Likely is bustling with tourists, fishermen and miners, living and renting facilities to work at Mount Polley. People are looking for investment, and both commercial and residential property has sold over the past year.

[1025]

Cedar Creek park, which is on Quesnel Lake, is once again filling reservations for the summer season. Excitement is in the air in Likely as the annual May Day parade and fishing derby, sponsored by the Likely fire department, is under preparation. First prize is $1,000.

Fishing is beautiful on Quesnel Lake, and in speaking with the locals, char are being caught. Some of them are 13 pounds and up. There will be a pancake breakfast, lots of good fishing stories and great fishing on clean, clear Quesnel Lake. If you have never experienced May Day in Likely, you should.

JOURNEY TO FREEDOM DAY
AND VIETNAMESE CANADIANS

A. Dix: In 2015, the Parliament of Canada recognized Journey to Freedom Day, April 30, a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon.

On Saturday, joined by the members for Surrey-Whalley and Vancouver-Fraserview, deputy mayor Raymond Louie and Sen. Thanh Hai Ngo, we commemorated the first formal celebration of this day in Vancouver.

In the years following the end of the Vietnam War, some 840,000 people fled Vietnam, mostly by boat. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees,
[ Page 12615 ]
250,000 people died en route, and we recognize their families’ loss and their sacrifice.

Canada accepted 60,000 Vietnamese refugees, the majority through churches and non-profit organizations. The Vietnamese-Canadian community numbers some 40,000 in British Columbia. We have all benefited from their remarkable contribution over the past 40 years, and it is moving to me that the Vietnamese community is one of the strongest supporters of Canada’s decision to welcome refugees from Syria over the past year. Their experience gives Vietnamese Canadians a unique appreciation of the necessity to respect and fight for democracy and human rights and an understanding of history.

April 30 is also Ancestors Day in Vietnamese culture, a civilization that has been around for 4,895 years. The 41 years since the fall of Saigon is a long time in our lifetime but merely a drop in the history of Vietnam. It is essential that all governments, here and there, understand that our time is short and that what we do with it, especially with respect to the rights of the powerless, will say much about how we are remembered.

I look forward to joining with the Vietnamese-Canadian community every year to recognize their journey to freedom each year on April 30.

VISION LOSS AND EYE EXAMS

E. Foster: It is no coincidence that the B.C. Doctors of Optometry are here in the House today. May is Vision Month. Doctors of optometry are urging British Columbians to make comprehensive eye exams part of their health care routine. Vision loss can happen to anyone at any age. One in seven Canadians will develop a serious eye disease in their lifetime.

Did you know that 75 percent of vision loss can be prevented or treated? Preventive measures and early detection of eye disease, even when no symptoms are present, significantly lowers the risk of vision loss. Many Canadians choose to skip a visit with their optometrist because they believe they have good vision — this in spite of the fact that even with good vision, eye exams can help detect underlying conditions that may show signs in the eyes, including tumours, aneurysms, autoimmune disorders, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and other neurological or brain disorders. It’s all connected.

Given the potential of an eye exam to protect not just your vision but your overall health, routine exams are recommended for people of all ages. B.C. Doctors of Optometry recommend that adults have an eye exam every two years, and annually for those over 65. Children should have their first exam between six and nine months of age.

Vision Health Month is a chance to educate Canadians about their vision health and eliminate and avoid sight loss across the country.

Oral Questions

CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked the Attorney General why it was that a Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court would declare that her ministry was interfering with administrative tribunals.

[1030]

Another day, another tribunal. Today I’d like to talk about the civil resolution tribunal — which, four years ago, the government promised to deliver by 2014. Of course, in 2014 they revisited that hard-and-fast deadline, as they so often do, and pushed it to 2015. Here we are in the second quarter of 2016; no civil resolution tribunal.

My question to the minister is: when can the strata owners of British Columbia expect the minister to meet her commitment of having the administrative tribunal up and running?

Hon. S. Anton: The civil resolution tribunal is an initiative which is really cutting edge in the world. There is no other jurisdiction which is taking on a tribunal of this nature. The role and the goal of the tribunal is — starting with strata disputes and then moving on to small claims disputes — to have an on-line service for people to have resolution of these more minor strata disputes for which, right now, there is no home unless you go to the Supreme Court, which is a very expensive process…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: …and for the minor small claims disputes.

This will give people access from their homes, from their living rooms, from their computers, from their hand-held devices, access to justice in these disputes.

It is very interesting and very, I would say, revolutionary, in that it is tied into the court system. It’s being watched from around the world. In fact, I mentioned yesterday that Lord Justice Briggs was here from the U.K. having a look at the civil resolution tribunal.

The immediate answer to the question of when will it start intaking files….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: It’s a shame that the members opposite aren’t interested in innovation, but I can assure you that this side of the House is interested in justice and innovation. The strata disputes intake will start this sum-
[ Page 12616 ]
mer, and we will be moving from there with more of them coming forward and small claims likely next year.

J. Horgan: I guess that’s on time and on budget in B.C. Liberal land.

Last spring we debated amendments when we revisited the deadline that the minister had set, and we pushed the deadline further down. Now I hear perhaps we’ll be seeing something go on this summer. We sent an email to the CRT, the civil resolutions tribunal, and we got the following response. You’ll forgive me for the length of the response, but it is about as lengthy as the minister’s response, so we’ll go from there.

It says: “The CRT has not yet opened. We have just received approval for further technology development from the provincial government. Unfortunately, this approval process was delayed, and the project will start sometime in the future. We are moving ahead with as many aspects of implementation as we can, and we expect that we will be able to begin accepting strata claims for testing sometime this year.” End of that.

I went to the website, because you know that I’m a bit of a geek. I like to play around on the interweb. I found that they’re going to do beta testing — beta testing for this tribunal that was supposed to be up and running two years ago.

So my question to the very, very patient, on-time and on-budget Attorney General is: can we really believe what she says when she says it’s going to be up and running this summer?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, confirmed by the email that the member just read out, indeed we can. The strata disputes will be brought into the system this summer.

Let me just give the context of minor strata disputes. As the members will know, there is not a convenient place for those to go, and sometimes strata disputes will drag on for years because there is not a proper place for a resolution of those disputes. The goal of the civil resolution tribunal is that those disputes can be resolved within 90 days.

Anybody who’s been in a strata dispute, who has a friend who’s been in a strata dispute, will know what a remarkable change in environment that will be from the current situation. So yes, the civil resolution tribunal is innovative, revolutionary, and it’s being watched from around the world as people from all around the world in the justice system are paying attention to what’s going on here in British Columbia.

[1035]

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: It is, regrettably, my final supplemental.

Two years late, but it’s revolutionary. Not revolutionary when you look at the IT fiascos that have been going on, on that side of the House. I guess the comfort that the public can take is that the Minister of Citizens’ Services is not responsible for this one.

Two years late. Set a target. Miss it. Set another target. Miss it. And now we’re revolutionary here in British Columbia.

Here’s the good news. The name of the new technology is Solutions Explorer. Let’s just hang on that for a moment, shall we? Solutions Explorer. If ever there was a government in need of solutions and is exploring the best way to find them, it would be those on that side of the House.

If I might, on behalf of the strata councils all across British Columbia — who were made promises in 2010, again in 2012, again in 2014 and again right here today — please give us something beyond beta testing that we can take back to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Anton: The strata councils of British Columbia are our partners in this. The strata association is our partner in this. They are very keen to have a tribunal where these more minor strata disputes can be resolved.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: There was an example of a case not all that long ago around a parking stall, where somebody spent over $150,000 in legal fees. We are getting away from that. We will have a place for these disputes around pools, pets, parking stalls — all of those minor strata issues — to be resolved.

As I say, it’s a system that’s being worked with. It’s being enthusiastically supported by many partners in the justice system, because people recognize what it is giving to us in British Columbia in terms of access to justice and in terms of a tribunal in which these more minor disputes can be resolved quickly and cheaply.

M. Mark: The B.C. Liberal government is more than two years behind schedule on delivering their on-line tribunal. The reason they’re so behind is because they’re running into problems developing this brand-new technology. I get it. Delays are a running theme in this House. It’s like Groundhog Day — same story, different day.

My question for the minister is: how much money has this delay cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, the tribunal will be up and running for minor strata disputes this summer and for small claims next year. It is an extremely innovative solution for minor justice issues.

To the member’s question, we will be in estimates shortly. I’ll welcome the question in estimates, and I’ll be able to give a detailed answer at that time.
[ Page 12617 ]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: According to briefing materials prepared last year for the Attorney General, more than $2.1 million in capital has been spent in designing and developing technology for this on-line tribunal. More than $2 million so far. According to the staff at the civil resolution tribunal, government still hasn’t approved the technology development.

Let’s get this straight. We’re still at the draft stage. We’re more than $2 million in the hole, and for a project that’s now two years behind.

How much more will taxpayers be on the hook for this project before we see it in action?

Hon. S. Anton: I am sorry that the members opposite are not interested in justice for all British Columbians at their convenience, in their living room. I am sorry that they’re not interested in innovation.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: I can assure you that that is the goal of this side of the House. Indeed, that is the goal of our partners in justice around British Columbia, who are welcoming this innovation. That is the interest of people around the world who are watching what is going on in British Columbia. They, too, would like to have a system like our civil resolution tribunal.

[1040]

Let me add one other attribute of our tribunal. It is a part of the justice system. It’s a part of the court system, so a decision from the tribunal itself will be registered in the court. It’s not like some stand-alone system off to one side. It is an integral part of our justice system in British Columbia. As I said, it is innovative, it’s revolutionary, and it gives all citizens of British Columbia convenient access to justice.

L. Krog: I must say it’s more like the workings of a star chamber. This is so open and transparent.

What the minister isn’t telling this House is that her government has spent more than $2.1 million on this project. In March, the government appointed an acting chair. She was paid $139,000. Six months later — nothing permanent in place — the acting chair was reappointed for a further $137,000. So the taxpayers are now on the hook for just under $2.5 million and nothing to show for it.

Six hundred thousand strata property owners in British Columbia — can the Attorney General tell them what they have actually received for 2½ million bucks?

Hon. S. Anton: The question is: what will citizens of British Columbia be receiving? They will be receiving an innovative on-line dispute resolution service that they can access at any time, day or night, from their home, from their device, from a library, even from a telephone; and a tribunal, which will assist them in resolving strata disputes, small claims disputes. As I said, it’s innovative, it’s accessible, and yes, that is what British Columbians will be receiving.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, I can tell you what’s being received here. What’s being received here are exorbitant salaries by the chairs of a tribunal that isn’t operating.

The current chair, appointed in July 2014, got paid $141,000. So we spent half a million dollars on salaries. Now, the Attorney General knows the cliché of justice delayed is justice denied, but justice hasn’t even started here yet.

It’s a very simple question. It’s been asked many times this morning. How much more does the government intend to spend before this political tortoise gets to the starting line?

Hon. S. Anton: I am quite confident that the member opposite will be present during estimates, when we will, together, be able to explore this, and I will be able to provide him detailed answers to those questions.

But in the meantime, the chair of the tribunal is doing a terrific job engaging British Columbians — engaging people in the strata sector, engaging courts, engaging citizens — as the tribunal itself is built, as the processes around it are built, as the guided pathways, indeed, are written so that when you go onto the tribunal, you’ll be able to analyze your own question before proceeding through either mediation or adjudication. This is, as I said, highly innovative. It’s highly accessible justice for all of us here in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Just a lovely reminder that the Chair will hear the question and the answer.

C. James: Only this minister and only the B.C. Liberals would say this was highly successful when it hasn’t been implemented for two years and it’s costing the taxpayers money — only the Liberals.

The B.C. Liberal government said the whole reason for this on-line tribunal was to take pressure off the court system. This would free up the courts, we heard the minister say two years ago. We would be able to deal with bigger issues. Well, the problem is, as we’ve heard so clearly, that the on-line tribunal that was supposed to fix all of these problems is not up and running. The pressure is still here on the court system. The tribunal isn’t working.

[1045]

My question is to the minister. Why did your government delay opening the on-line tribunal, and what will that delay cost taxpayers?

Hon. S. Anton: As I have observed, we actually are the first in the world doing a program of this nature and….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: I know that the members opposite…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Please continue.

Hon. S. Anton: …are not terribly enthusiastic about the innovation and the accessibility to justice that this offers, Madame Speaker, but I can assure you that our partners in development of the civil resolution tribunal are.

The strata owners, in particular, are very keen to have this program in place, because they do not currently have a convenient forum for resolution of the more minor strata disputes. That’s what the civil resolution tribunal will be starting with. That’s what it will be offering a little later this year. It will be welcomed by that sector, and later on, in the small claims matters, it will be welcomed by British Columbians.

METRO VANCOUVER WASTE MANAGEMENT
BYLAW AND BFI CANADA
DONATIONS TO B.C. LIBERAL PARTY

S. Robinson: BFI Canada Progressive Waste Solutions makes a lot of money exporting garbage. In 2014, their profit margin was at risk because Metro Vancouver was trying to do the right thing. They were trying to stop the dumping of recyclables in the trash and move closer towards their zero-waste goals. To that end, Metro Vancouver proposed a bylaw that would prevent the export of garbage outside the region.

What did BFI do? Well, first, they hired Dimitri Pantazopoulos, former principal secretary to the Premier, and then BFI wrote a $22,000 cheque to the B.C. Liberals. Within that same month, the Environment Minister vetoed that bylaw.

Does the Minister of Environment not see that British Columbians are worried? They’re worried because it looks like environmental policy is being dictated by big B.C. Liberal donors.

Hon. M. Polak: If the member has any doubt with respect to the very serious nature of the discussions around solid waste management in B.C., all the member needs to do is to take a look at the significant policy work and consultation on the intentions papers that have been out publicly for a number of months.

A review of those will very quickly prove that this is an exercise in making good public policy, and I absolutely, categorically reject any suggestion that this was in the nature of political interference based on some kind of donation.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Well, when the minister rejected Metro Vancouver’s garbage bylaw, she said: “We cannot leave this in an entirely unregulated situation.” Yet 18 months later, nothing has replaced the bylaw that she struck down.

Why does this government refuse to see that to British Columbians, it looks like this government has failed to take action on waste management because, over the years, BFI has donated more than $230,000 to the B.C. Liberals.

Hon. M. Polak: I can only assume that the member is unaware of the extensive consultation that one of our members, the member for Surrey-Panorama, undertook. I can only assume that the member is unaware of the intentions papers that have been circulating and the consultation taking place through UBCM, through local government.

But I absolutely again reject the assertion that the member makes that somehow this decision was made inappropriately.

[1050]

M. Mungall: Well, people living on disability can’t afford $20,000 to sit next to the Premier. They barely have $10,000 to live on in a year. While BFI sees bylaws vetoed by this government, people with disabilities are now going to have to pay an extra $624 more a year for their bus pass. This is how the public sees it.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: This is how the public sees it. It’s very clear to them — favours to big companies with big money and money grabs from people with disabilities who can’t afford a cent to donate. That’s not okay. It’s not okay that the public is starting to see things that way.

Will the Minister of Social Development rectify this situation, end the bus pass clawback and join us in banning big money from B.C. politics?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As I’ve said in the House before and I will clarify again today, the bus pass program
[ Page 12619 ]
is still available to people with disabilities around this province. In fact, people with disabilities now all have a transportation allowance, including 45,000 people who didn’t receive any transportation allowance prior to this change.

Now there is equity in the system. Everyone is provided with a transportation allowance. Everyone is receiving an increase to their income assistance rates. It’s a $170 million investment to make life better for people with disabilities.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Thank you to the minister for showing us all that you’ve memorized your message box. But the reality is that too many people with disabilities are living in poverty in this province. That’s the reality.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait a moment. Just wait.

Members.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: People living in poverty in this province don’t get to sit next to the Premier at a private dinner party, because they can’t afford to pay the price tag. BFI can pay that price tag, and once they did, here’s what we saw. We saw a bylaw vetoed that directly ended up benefiting them. Again, scrapping democratically instituted bylaws by democratically elected local governments on one hand and hiking bus pass fees for people with disabilities on the other. That’s what’s going on.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: How on earth can this minister justify that kind of policy decision–making?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: My question is to the member opposite. How can she continue her “Create fear 2016” tour, coming to a bus stop near you, where she continues to create fear and anxiety for people with disabilities around this province? It is wrong.

Individuals with disabilities in this province all have a transportation allowance now that they will see on their income assistance cheques…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member, Nelson-Creston.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: …along with an increase to their allowance rates.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING

R. Fleming: Communities across British Columbia understand that the Liberals’ Education budget has failed to meet the rising costs of public education. The evidence is everywhere — schools gone, classroom resources gone, parents shaken down for funding shortfalls.

As communities are carved up and divided, the Minister of Education has succeeded in uniting the entire education system to speak with one voice and demand that he do this: withdraw his $54 million cut for so-called low-hanging fruit that doesn’t exist; fund the downloaded costs that his government keeps forcing onto school districts for everything — MSP, B.C. Hydro, you name it; and fund the $26 million provincial Internet service that his government won’t pay for.

This budget, as I said, is failing communities across rural and urban British Columbia. The community of Kersley, a rural area south of Quesnel, has one school. Its enrolment is growing, yet it’s targeted for closure.

When is the minister going to finally step up and help parents, kids and teachers in places like Kersley keep viable, excellent schools open for learning in the communities for which they serve?

[1055]

Hon. M. Bernier: We’ve had a $1.2 billion increase to the Education budget since 2001. We spent $481 million on students with special needs last year. We continue year over year to invest in the education of the students of British Columbia. What do we get for that? We have some of the best outcomes in the world.

What we focus on is the classrooms. What we focus on is completion rates. What we focus on is making sure students get the best education possible. We’ve seen a 112 percent increase with aboriginal students in the province of British Columbia completing school, getting diplomas.

I mentioned $481 million for students with special needs. What do we get for that? A 195 percent increase in completion rates for students with special needs.

We continue to invest in the students of British Columbia. This side of the House, our government, continues year over year to make sure that money is going into the classrooms for students, not into empty classrooms.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Here’s what the public, what parents and kids and teachers in the school system know about this government’s record. We have gone from the second-best-funded education system in Canada to the second-worst under this government’s watch.

The minister knows. He knows himself that provincial underfunding is failing our school system right now. The
[ Page 12620 ]
evidence is all around us. Even members of his own B.C. Liberal caucus have told him, for the last three years in a row, that public education funding in British Columbia is falling behind. That’s from the Legislature’s own Finance Committee.

He’s failed to make any case for his $54 million cuts onto school districts. They are the leanest in Canada. He says cuts aren’t coming from the classroom. They are. Now they slap another $26 million unfunded cost pressure onto schools for Internet service. It’s kind of a basic in a 21st century learning environment in our classrooms, isn’t it?

The question people have is: when will the minister finally step in with the resources needed to keep our schools open in our communities and save education programs designed for our kids? Will he finally do that? Or is it just millionaires who get a $230 million tax cut that get this government’s money and attention, not the 550,000 kids in our schools?

Hon. M. Bernier: On this side of the House, we like to talk about making sure that money is going into the classrooms, that money is going into education for students to make sure they continue to have the best outcomes in the world. I know the members opposite, the NDP, have a magic money fairy. They just like to throw money around with no plan of where it’s going to go. Our government makes sure that the money is going into classrooms, that the money is going to help students.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Victoria–Swan Lake.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: Since 2001, we have 70,000 fewer students in the province of British Columbia, but year over year, we continue to invest in the students we do have. We have the longest negotiated settlement in history.

We also have, when you look at the investment we have going on right now, record investment. We look at the fact that we want to make sure that money is going into classrooms.

When you look across the province…. I’ve been meeting with school districts right across this province. We have amazing programs. I want to thank the great teachers we have in this province that are making sure we have programs going for our students, that we continue to have the best outcomes in the world.

Our government, on this side of the House, will continue to make sure that those investments are there for the province of British Columbia, for our students.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: I will remind all members there’s no use of any technologies during question period.

[1100]

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR TABLING REPORTS

Madame Speaker: I would ask for your attention. I am tabling a report by the Representative for Children and Youth, but before doing so, I want to remind all statutory officers, but particularly the Representative for Children and Youth, that the reports must be tabled in this House before they are publicly released. To do otherwise is a contempt of parliament.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the report of the Representative for Children and Youth, Implementation of the Plecas Review, Part One: Decision Time, and I’ve the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, An Audit of Compliance and Enforcement of the Mining Sector.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In both sections, in Committee A, the Committee of Supply, the Estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In this chamber, Committee of Supply, Estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[1105]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,820,706,000 (continued).

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to reintroduce the members of my staff that are with me here today to support me. On my right, we have our deputy minister, Stephen Brown; and on my left, associate deputy minister for corporate services, Sabine Feulgen; and behind me, the assistant deputy minister for finance and corporate, Manjit Sidhu. We have other members of the ministry that may be cycling in and out as we move through the different topics. I want to thank all the members of our team for supporting us through the estimates process.
[ Page 12621 ]

J. Darcy: I would like to continue on the theme that we were discussing yesterday when we broke, which was IT projects. I would like to turn now to the Panorama project.

As the minister is well aware, following the SARS outbreak in early 2003, which claimed the lives of 44 people in Canada, an independent review recommended that the country invest in a “seamless public health system that will allow public health professionals to coordinate activities in a carefully planned infrastructure.”

The government of Canada mandated Canada Health Infoway to develop, together with provincial, territorial and federal governments, a national integrated public health surveillance solution known today as Panorama. It was to be led by the B.C. Ministry of Health.

Panorama was supposed to be a national system. But, at present, only five other jurisdictions are still moving forward with implementation, according to the Auditor General’s report last summer. In British Columbia, just three of five regional health authorities are using the system to enter the majority of patient information directly.

[1110]

The Auditor General concluded in the report of August 2015 that the government was sanitizing internal reports about Panorama, which include the eHealth quarterly reports, reports that were delivered to health authorities and other stakeholders like Treasury Board.

The metrics on Panorama in these quarterly reports were completely disconnected from the findings of the Auditor General. These reports consistently gave Panorama positive scores for its budget, despite the Auditor General finding that the project was reduced in scope and had not delivered the full benefits originally promised or met in these monitoring reports. Why did the ministry whitewash these reports?

Hon. T. Lake: Panorama was, as the member mentioned, instituted with the outbreak of a serious infectious disease that had impacts globally. British Columbia was asked to lead this project. Of course, whenever you lead a project that involves more than one jurisdiction — and in fact more than one language, because it is a bilingual system — it is complex. It’s the first of its kind globally, and there have been challenges. Some of those have been acknowledged.

In terms of the Auditor General’s report, there were some parts of the Auditor General’s report that we did not agree with, but others that we did. We had a very, I would say, informative discussion with the Auditor General following the report and, in fact, learned and agreed that changes to the way we develop IT projects were needed. There’s been no attempt to whitewash or pretend that this wasn’t a complex project or that there weren’t challenges associated with it.

I do want to put on the record that in fact Panorama is achieving much of what it set out to do. When you look at the provinces and territories that currently use Panorama, that public health information system — Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and British Columbia — it currently supports 82 percent of the Canadian population. So it is significant.

In fact, Ontario’s Panorama team received a 2015 Ingenious Award from the Information Technology Association of Canada in recognition of the success. This is why it was successful.

One instance of the success of Panorama: public health staff in Ontario used Panorama during a measles outbreak to quickly access immunization records of almost 1,400 students in seven schools to identify under-immunized students, and that helped the disease from spreading. While there were some challenges, these are the real benefits that have been achieved with Panorama.

B.C.’s First Nations Panorama team has also been recognized. They received a national e-Health award for Panorama’s ability to deliver quick, efficient access to health information, which is helping to close the gap in First Nations health.

In terms of the health authorities not currently on Panorama, Vancouver Coastal uses a system called PARIS, and it has been very effective. Also, it is able to be integrated and is compatible with PARIS so that information is able to be shared between PARIS and Panorama to share provincial and national data for the purpose of disease investigations and outbreak management. That means that the two systems can work side by side.

[1115]

In Northern Health, the integrated community care information system is working and soon will be compatible with Panorama as well.

As mentioned, the member will look at some of the challenges that this project has had, but there are clear benefits that she has chosen to overlook.

J. Darcy: It’s actually the Auditor General who said that the Ministry of Health’s reports were sanitized. Those are not my words. They’re not the words of the official opposition. This comes from the Auditor General’s report.

The Auditor General also reported, just speaking to the issue of on time and on budget, when it relates to Health IT projects and other IT projects, the Auditor General’s report, August 2015, said: “Implementation costs: 420 percent over budget,” “$14 million in support costs every year,” “Panorama is not fully functional,” “Panorama cost B.C. taxpayers at least $115 million,” “Ministry of Health took on financial risk from IBM,” “Thousands of system defects increased time and budget.” Yes, indeed, it is a large national project and inherently complex.

But it’s the Auditor General who set out all of those things and who said that the reports that were coming from the project and from the ministry to various stakeholders, including health authorities and Treasury Board, were, in fact, sanitized.
[ Page 12622 ]

I would like to repeat my question to the minister. Is he disagreeing with the Auditor General when he says that the reports that were sent to health authorities and Treasury Board did not accurately reflect the enormous challenges — not minor challenges, enormous challenges — the enormous failures that were occurring in the Panorama project?

Hon. T. Lake: The Ministry of Health contends that many of the issues that were outlined in the Auditor General’s report have been addressed, and the Auditor General’s report did not consider that the timelines of the national build project were made at the national steering committee. It is different when you have a project that is solely the purview of the province or the ministry, but when you have jurisdictions across Canada with a national steering committee, some of that autonomy over decision-making is removed. I don’t think that was recognized adequately in the Auditor General’s report.

Having said that, there was some very good information and good learning from the Auditor General’s report. One of the recommendations we rejected, but others we accepted, and I think it’s important for the record to outline what those were.

The first recommendation was that “the ministry commission an independent review of Panorama and other alternative systems to identify the most cost-effective, integrated approach to meet the current and future needs of public health in British Columbia.” This one we rejected, because the report did not really identify the improvements that have been made — the evolution of the adoption of this and the real positive impacts that have been made.

We are of the view that Panorama is working well — that it is, in fact, saving lives and is a powerful tool for public health, not just here in British Columbia but across Canada.

We will continue to make improvements to Panorama, including the on-boarding of innovative health information technology applications. You’re able to do that because of Panorama’s interoperability design. It is easier to add things on, to connect with other systems. As I mentioned, PARIS system in Vancouver Coastal and the Northern Health system will be able to be integrated and communicate with Panorama.

We feel that we actually have a good product. Some of the awards and reviews since the Auditor General’s report, I think, point to that.

Second and third recommendations were that the ministry review its project and contract management practices to ensure future IT projects are managed in a better way. Certainly, every time you do one of these you learn more, but we accept that we need to review.

[1120]

In fact, we were actively engaged in reviewing IT project and contract management when we got this recommendation. I think you will see that in the changes to the CST project, clinical services transformation project, in the Lower Mainland. We are developing in-house expertise to better ensure the ministry conducts appropriate oversight of vendors and that contracting is done in a way that the Auditor General outlined.

Recommendation 4 was that the ministry review its current leadership practices and develop a collaborative leadership strategy for future IT projects.

We certainly recognize that, and we have recently released an IMIT enabling strategy that recognizes the need to continue to work on governance and to collaborate on all IMIT projects that are of common and shared interest.

I think you will see that we’ve taken steps within the ministry to ensure that we have stronger oversight, stronger leadership and stronger governance of IMIT projects moving forward.

J. Darcy: Just pursuing the cost issues a little further. The Public Accounts Committee canvassed this issue with the deputy minister a few months ago, looking at an overrun on capital spend where the original capital spend was to be $27 million and the quarterly updates state that this amount became $38 million.

Does the minister not think that’s a really serious problem?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, it’s always a concern when something ends up costing more than you originally anticipated.

The original funding, or a big part of the funding, came from Canada Health Infoway, which was a federal government initiative to increase the connectivity of electronic health records. Part of the caveat to that funding was that a commercial off the shelf solution — or at least a combination of commercial off the shelf solutions — would be used to develop the Panorama system. Just under $23 million was spent in an attempt to use a combination of so-called COTS, or commercial off the shelf systems.

The national committee, once this got to a certain stage, made the decision that this was not feasible for a system of this complexity — using two different languages and using multiple jurisdictions. A decision was made in 2007 to move to a custom development approach.

[1125]

Additional funding was necessary, which was the major reason for the increased cost. The assumption at the beginning, tied to the federal funding, was based on an off-the-shelf solution. When the national steering committee came to the conclusion that this was not going to work in a project of this complexity, a decision was made nationally to go to a custom build — something not directly under the control of the Ministry of Health but a decision made at the national level with all the partners at the table.
[ Page 12623 ]

J. Darcy: Well, the minister likes to say: “Yes, it’s complex. There were some problems, but we’ve learned from them, and really, things are pretty rosy.” Let me just quote again from the Auditor General’s report, because the minister said that it was back in 2007 it was understood that a different approach was needed — a custom approach.

The Auditor General said the ministry employed a “command and control leadership style with Panorama. They dismissed health authority concerns around the safety and efficiency of the system, and ignored important system issues. This caused delays and led to higher costs. The ministry did not allow some health authorities to consider system alternatives even when it became clear to both the ministry and health authorities that the system was impacting patient care. Other health authorities were not mandated to use Panorama.”

Now the minister says that in 2007 it was understood that an off-the-shelf approach was not going to work, that a custom approach was needed. Yet as we canvassed yesterday — and as we have for three years running now, about the clinical and systems transformation approach — exactly the same approach was taken in those projects.

So why did the minister not learn — why did the government not learn — from a problem that was identified several years ago? He says in 2007, yet it was repeated time and time again both in Panorama and in the CST project, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money.

[1130]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, to compare these two projects, I guess the one thing you could say about them is that they are IT projects. But to say that they are similar IT projects, I think, would be a mistake.

Panorama was a complex system. You’ve got multiple jurisdictions across Canada, two different languages, and when you have that kind of a situation, you’ve got multiple different ways of doing things. Not only that; the attempt was to take multiple off-the-shelf systems and cobble them together. So that’s why it was determined that a custom approach would be best. That was a realization that didn’t come from the national committee until they were into the project.

With the CST, this isn’t a matter of putting together multiple off-the-shelf solutions. The Cerner system is a single system. We have one province, albeit three different health authorities working together. But it is much different than trying to knit together multiple off-the-shelf systems, multiple different jurisdictions and multiple languages. So to say that this approach works for every IT project, I think, is a mistake.

J. Darcy: A few weeks ago, the government declared the rising number of opioid overdoses in B.C. a provincial health emergency. As a result, the government announced it plans to now start collecting, tracking and analyzing more information about overdoses and overdose deaths. Will Panorama be used to collect, share and analyze the overdose information?

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to recognize Deb Shera and Dr. Perry Kendall from the ministry, who are here supporting me on some of these topics.

[1135]

The public health emergency that was declared by Dr. Kendall is a way of getting faster information about opioid overdoses. Prior to the declaration of the public health emergency, we had to rely on, essentially, the Coroners Service providing information following a death from an overdose.

This system will allow us to monitor not just unfortunate fatalities but those who suffer from an overdose and recover, therefore allowing us to understand in near real time where overdoses are occurring.

The Panorama system, as I mentioned, has an ability to be interoperable. While the ministry is still working on the system of reporting to fulfil the public health emergency declaration, it is expected that Panorama will be configured to enable that information to be included.

It is not necessary for the Panorama to be used in the first instance, as we get that information directly. In the case of B.C. emergency health services, that goes directly to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and through emergency departments, which would be the other source of information about opioid overdoses. That would reported to the medical health officer, who inputs it to B.C. Centre for Disease Control as well.

There may be some advantages to configuring Panorama to have this information inputted, but it is not necessary for us to be able to track and react to opioid overdose where we see an uptick of that happening in any community.

J. Darcy: I’m, frankly, not clear from the minister’s response whether that was a yes or a no or a maybe about whether we’re using the Panorama system. Can the minister please clarify? Is that a yes or a no, or if it’s neither, then what is it?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, I’ll speak more slowly. Currently — I think I made it quite clear — there are ways of getting information that will help us….

The Chair: Member, you have a point of order?

J. Darcy: I have a point of privilege, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Yes. What is it?

J. Darcy: I think it is quite disrespectful of the minister to imply that my questions are based on me not understanding because he was speaking too quickly.
[ Page 12624 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I answered a question. I assumed that I either did a poor job explaining or the member didn’t understand what I said. So I will attempt to relay that information so that she does. If we want to talk about being disrespectful, the tone of the questions drips with disrespect, hon. Chair.

Let me try again. The Panorama system is able to be configured to receive different kinds of information. What I said was it is not necessary to use Panorama to obtain the information necessary to respond to increased overdose outbreaks, if you like, because the system used currently is the emergency department to medical health officers through to the Centre for Disease Control or B.C. emergency health services directly to the Centre for Disease Control.

J. Darcy: I still don’t have any clarity, and the minister did speak more slowly. I appreciate that. If the plan is to use Panorama — and we don’t know that from the minister’s response — the minister certainly understands very clearly that there have been significant problems found with this application, well reported through the Auditor General.

This system, which was significantly over budget and delayed, has cost health authorities close to $5 million annually due to the inefficiencies it causes. Vancouver Coastal Health, as of last year, was still not using it because of all the problems that it creates. Northern Health uses an internally developed system to initially record many public health visits. The data is then manually transcribed into Panorama. Other health authorities have requested to use alternatives, although this government refuses these requests, despite major system issues.

[1140]

If the answer was yes, how confident is the minister that this application will not hamper the speed and efficiency with which public health officers can monitor, analyze and respond to overdoses and the underlying factors that are influencing their frequency and severity? If the answer was yes, how confident is the minister that this application will not hamper the speed and efficiency with which public health officers can monitor, analyze and respond to overdoses and the underlying factors that are influencing their frequency and severity?

Hon. T. Lake: Panorama supports a range of public health functions, including vaccine and inventory management, immunization management — as I mentioned, in Ontario, this resulted in management of a measles outbreak that probably saved young children from severe illness — and communicable disease case management, outbreak management, work management, notifications management and family health management.

As I also mentioned in my last answer, Panorama is not needed to get the information necessary to meet the needs of the public, the declaration of the public health emergency. The emergency departments speak directly to the medical health officers, who communicate to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. B.C. emergency health services and the Ambulance Service report these outbreaks, these overdoses, directly to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

As we move through this process, we can look at Panorama and look at its ability to be configured, to see if it would be advantageous to use Panorama. But in the first instance, it is not necessary. This is an emergency, so we are not going to wait on getting the information, acting on the information, while configuration is contemplated for Panorama.

J. Darcy: My understanding from the public statements of the minister and the public health officer is that this public health emergency involves an outbreak of overdoses, overdose fatalities in different parts of the province, and that one of the purposes of declaring this to be a public health emergency was to increase the amount of information collected to improve detection and targeting of hot spots for overdoses.

We have an IT platform that has cost $113 million, 420 percent over what was originally budgeted and $14 million annually. The minister is not sure whether or not it can be used to assist or to track the information that needs to be tracked as a result of having declared opioid overdoses to be a public health emergency.

What application, if not Panorama, will be used to collect and share the information regarding overdoses?

Hon. T. Lake: The Panorama system is primarily designed for public health nurses, medical health officers, and is not designed for acute care environments.

[1145]

As I mentioned, the interoperability, the ability to configure it, may allow it to be used for the opioid outbreaks that are occurring. But it is not necessary.

What does happen now, and I’ll explain it again, is that the B.C. emergency health services…. That information comes already sorted in terms of the gender of the person involved, GPS information. That goes into the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and they have people at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control that receive that information and can analyze it quickly.

In terms of emergency departments, of course, there are emergency departments in the province that have electronic health records and some that do not. So when opioid overdose cases appear in the emergency department, if it is a paper-based system, then there would be communication through to the medical health officer through the paper-based system, with faxing information. Again, that would be input into the team at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

For those that have EMRs, that information is able to be sorted, collated much quicker. In fact, when we had
[ Page 12625 ]
seven overdoses in Kamloops two weeks ago, it occurred about ten days after the implementation of the EMR at the Royal Inland Hospital emergency department, which did, in fact, seem to speed up the transfer of information.

But there are different systems depending on the environment that is dealing with the overdose situation. Most would be tracked by B.C. emergency health services. As said, that information has GPS coordinates and other identifiers associated with it that are quickly passed to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

J. Darcy: I hear the minister saying that the Panorama system can be used for specific purposes, like infectious and communicable disease outbreaks, but not for the current public health emergency with the opioid crisis. Is that the case?

Hon. T. Lake: I’ll try once again. The interoperability of Panorama may lend itself to the tracking of opioid overdoses. Because this an imminent emergent public health concern, we have not waited for that to happen before we implement the tracking of information.

While we are doing this, there will be an analysis as to whether Panorama would be suitable for this. It’s not the typical type of public health event that Panorama was designed to handle, but we will be looking at it to see, in the future, if it can be configured in such a way that would better enable us to track opioid overdoses.

The question is: can it be used? The answer is: we are unsure at this time. We are not waiting for that answer. We are acting now with the information that we do know is available through the two systems that I mentioned earlier.

J. Darcy: I referred earlier to the concerns that the Auditor General had raised about the command-and-control approach of not listening to health authorities and that several health authorities had said this was not the direction in which they wanted to go. Is the minister finally considering alternatives to Panorama as was recommended by the Auditor General this past year? Will that decision be made before the end of this year, when the nearly $2 million maintenance fee that IBM receives for Panorama can be renegotiated? Or, presumably in the alternative, end the project.

[1150]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the recommendation was to have an independent assessment as to whether there was an alternative to Panorama, and we rejected that recommendation. What we are doing, to address the recommendation and the concern of the Auditor General, is developing a three- to five-year business plan to address functionality and design issues with Panorama. That’s expected to be completed in June.

We have a consultant hired to lead the business plan development. That work is underway. We are undertaking an annual survey of Panorama end-users to assess satisfaction, clinical benefit and adoption. That has begun, and the design of the assessment methodology has started. We’re going to leverage Island Health’s annual user survey, and we hope to have results early in the summer of this year.

Also, we have committed to undertaking an annual environmental scan to evaluate other compatible public health products. There are other systems. We understand that in Ontario, for instance, they’ve developed a system that is compatible and that can be plugged into Panorama, which helps in terms of mass immunization in the wake of an outbreak.

While we’re not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we want to make the baby better by developing user feedback to look at compatible products that can be added to augment and to improve the operation of Panorama.

J. Darcy: Just to be clear, cancelling the contract is not on the table.

Hon. T. Lake: The contract, I believe, comes up for renewal in December of 2016. There’s a national steering committee, so it is not up to the province of British Columbia, but there will certainly will be negotiations around that contract. I can’t predict what the outcome of those will be.

J. Darcy: I began my questions today referring to the Auditor General having been very clear that he believed that the reports on the Panorama project were “sanitized” — his words, not mine.

One of the questions that was raised in the Auditor General’s report was why the full B.C. project implementation costs were not monitored in these reports. As a result, these quarterly updates were incomplete and, even more, misleading, according to the Auditor General, far from on time and on budget.

How is the minister changing how IT projects are tracked and reported, to provide full transparency and accountability?

Hon. T. Lake: As I think I outlined yesterday quite extensively with the CST project, we have taken a different approach to governance, to oversight, to bringing the Auditor General into the process earlier. A lot of that came from the review of Panorama.

When we sat down with the Auditor General, one of the things we decided to do together was to have the Auditor General involved earlier in the process. I mentioned that we met with the Auditor General in the fall of 2015 regarding the CST project, meeting again next week to update the Auditor General. I think that a lot of the governance structure, contract management and use of the Auditor General is much stronger going forward as a result of the review of Panorama.
[ Page 12626 ]

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $843,349,000 (continued).

A. Dix: Yesterday I asked the minister about a case and its disposition. There won’t be any huddle necessary today, because they have had 18 hours to prepare for this answer. I just wanted to see if the minister had an answer to the question that I asked him yesterday.

[1110]

Hon. T. Stone: The details that staff have been able to glean are as follows. As was mentioned yesterday, the claim was settled, and it was settled within the maximum available policy limit, so within that $2 million.

In addition to that, there was $109,000 on top of the policy limits. That’s to cover a number of things. First off, as per the act, all costs and disbursements, including both pre-court costs and post-court costs, court-ordered interest — these are all included, added on top of the maximum that the policy provides for.

In addition to that, the plaintiff also was able to access part 7 coverages that they had. Those are the details that we’ve been able to glean to this point.

A. Dix: Ordinarily, when you ask a question the previous day…. I know that more private sector–oriented ministers come right back with a response. The specific question was: was the issue raised with the board of directors, did they receive correspondence, and did they investigate the disposition of this claim — yes or no?

Hon. T. Stone: No.

A. Dix: Well, thank you, that’s an extremely interesting and delightful response.

I want to ask the minister about a survey describing morale in the claims department. It’s been covered publicly. He will know that it’s a 247-page report. I’d be curious to know, when the minister answers this question, whether he’s read it.

The report details concerns about cuts in staffing in the claims department. With respect to the transformation initiative, one of the people who responded said: “Everyone pays lip service about this ‘fabulous new system,’ because it’s detrimental for them not to…. It has at least doubled the amount of work I have to do on any given task.” The responses are routinely negative in terms of what’s happened at ICBC.

Interestingly, when the ICBC spokesperson answered on this question…. “Mr. Adam Grossman, ICBC’s senior media relations adviser, said by email that given structural changes and staffing cutbacks” — the ones the minister denied yesterday — “since 2012, it is not unexpected that some staff feel unsettled.”

I’m wondering, given the people in charge of this branch and the very negative employee engagement in the claims department, according to other surveys, whether the minister has reviewed this report and what response ICBC has to a report that reflects extremely badly on their initiative, extremely badly on their management of the claims department, keeping in mind the increase in pay that people in charge of that department have received.

[1115]

Hon. T. Stone: First, of course I review reports provided by ICBC to us, including this one. I have a keen interest, and always have, in understanding not just employee morale but customer satisfaction as well. These numbers are presented to me. These reports are provided to me, and I do review them very carefully. Frankly, the survey that the member is referring to actually demonstrates some improvement in the claims division.
[ Page 12627 ]

I should point out that ICBC does a really in-depth employee opinion survey every two years. The last in-depth survey was done in 2014. The alternating years — so 2015 — is what ICBC refers to as a pulse check. It’s a slimmed-down version of the much broader employee opinion survey.

[1120]

Every division across ICBC, by the way, is…. The employees complete these surveys and are asked to rank their departments and the corporation as a whole in terms of four key indicators, four key categories. The first is how aligned they feel their jobs and their department are with the goals of the corporation, second is how enabled they feel as employees, third is how motivated they are, and fourth is accountability.

We actually have seen, from 2014 to 2015, that the index scores on three of these four categories are actually up, and that was during the time when the new claims system was implemented. Change always presents a challenge in an organization. There also have been, as we canvassed yesterday, workforce reductions.

The combination of new technology and workforce reductions does often pose some challenges with morale. But notwithstanding those two realities — significant transformation of systems and some workforce reductions — the morale of staff in the claims division actually increased from 2014 to 2015, including in three of these four categories. That is something that ICBC is pleased with.

Of course, their work is never done on this front, and they’re always endeavouring to do what they can to ensure that their employees feel aligned and enabled and motivated and, certainly, feel a part of the accountabilities which are built in within ICBC.

V. Huntington: Thank you to the critic for letting me interfere in his long….

A. Dix: No worries.

V. Huntington: Thank you.

I’ve recently had two constituents come to me, one with a letter outlining his, what I think are, serious concerns. ICBC, this year, started asking people who were renewing their car insurance what the trim level was on their vehicle — “trim level” turning out to mean: what is the model?

This gentleman told them he had a 12-year-old truck and what the trim level was, as they requested at the time. He got his insurance, and it was $243 more than the increase normally would be. Why? Because, gosh, the model of his vehicle had also changed. So he was not only being dinged the increase that ICBC had advertised; they were also on a campaign to — what’s the word? — redefine everybody’s car and model.

The minister thinks this is funny, but I can assure you that people out there are not happy.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: I’m sorry, sir. You were laughing.

I’m asking the minister: what direction was given, either within ICBC or to ICBC, that this should be undertaken? Why this nickel-and-diming of the public in this underhanded manner? I think it is underhanded. People are going in there, wanting to get their annual insurance, and all of a sudden they’re being whacked with huge increases.

How many drivers has this affected, and how much money has ICBC made on this new policy?

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly do not think that this is a laughing matter at all. I appreciate the member’s apology for saying that.

A. Dix: She didn’t apologize.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, she did, Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

[1125]

The issue at hand could relate to a number of factors, so I want to be really careful not to assume what has happened. I will certainly commit to having the ICBC folks sit down with you and look at the specifics of this particular situation. We don’t, obviously, know if the individual opted for any changes on the insurance. I mean, it sounds like he didn’t. It sounds like the individual just went in with the exact same truck and with the same purpose or the same insurance coverages that were selected, and so forth. If he had made any changes to any of that, that obviously impacts the rate that’s paid.

What it sounds like is that this might have been one of the individuals that was caught up in what was known as the VIN VIC issue. It was canvassed a little bit yesterday in estimates. This happened a couple of years ago, where a technical error was discovered within ICBC whereby the wrong vehicle identifiers were indicated in the system for, frankly, tens of thousands of British Columbians. What it meant, based on the wrong identifier being in the system, was a lot of people were overpaying for their insurance. We refunded amounts to those individuals.

But it also meant that there were some folks, possibly your constituent might have been one of the individuals — I’m not sure; that’s why we’ll dig into the details, and there were quite a few — it was determined, again because the wrong vehicle identifier was in the system up to that point, that had actually been underpaying for the insurance up to that point.

We didn’t retroactively go back and charge those individuals. We, obviously, forgave them on that, because it was ICBC’s error. Though, all of those individuals would have been sent a letter advising them that on their insurance renewal coming up, because we had discovered this error and they were one of the individuals underpaying,
[ Page 12628 ]
they should expect that there would be a rate increase coming forward.

It sounds like that may be the issue that your constituent was unfortunately caught in. But again, we’ll very much be willing to sit down with you and look at the specifics of this constituent’s case to determine exactly what accounts for that year-over-year increase in his insurance.

V. Huntington: I would appreciate that. I’m sorry. It could very well be the VIN VIC issue catching up to him. I’ve had two constituents approach me. When I was renewing my insurance, I asked my agent: “Is this something that was happening routinely?” I was told yes.

Again, he said that some people got less, were charged less, and others charged more. So it could very well be that issue. He did not tell me that he had received any notice that this might be happening, and on a 12-year-old truck, it just seems a little much.

Thank you to the minister, and I do look forward to talking with your officials.

A. Dix: I just want to return the minister to this issue of people working for ICBC and the response they’ve had to surveys. The minister says that the situation is getting better. Well, when people write, “We’re all suffering from workplace burnout, and we’re all feeling the effects emotionally, mentally and physically. We feel every day that we’re letting down policyholders….” I assume that in the 2013 annual report, where the best that ICBC could say was that there was a 34 percent engagement rate across all employee categories, one that was dramatically lower in the claims department, where people are providing direct service to the public….

What that’s a reflection of are the things we know: cuts to front-line staff; the increase in the representation rate, which has an impact and which is affected by the cuts to front-line staff, of course, and on everyone in ICBC; and so on. We understand that the situation is worse, but also, people systematically are saying that the reforms at ICBC have made things worse, not better, in that period.

I want to ask the minister, because we talked about part 7 claims yesterday…. Often, people with disabilities have seen their benefits frozen now for in the neighbourhood of 25 years. And I know that we talked about other categories where we’ve seen increases across the board, including in executive compensation. Twenty-five years waiting for an increase there.

[1130]

People who are in the part 7 system are served by coordinators, rehabilitation coordinators. As I understand it, they were providing direct front-line, expert help to people who had claims with ICBC, and that position, as I understand it, has been eliminated at ICBC. It’s a direct front-line position for those very people we’ve been talking about who are struggling, often with disabilities, in the wake of automobile accidents.

I want to ask the minister why those positions have been eliminated at ICBC.

Hon. T. Stone: I will continue to do my best to refute the misstatements that the member continues to make. He made many, many yesterday. He continues this morning.

There have been no eliminations of front-line claims staff in the corporation. There have not been any. There have been some adjustments in terms of non-front-line staff in the claims division, administrative positions, and so forth, but not individuals who focus on the customer and work with the customer on their claims. That is the fact.

The member can try and position this to suit his agenda, but the facts are the facts. I’ve said it about 12 times today. I’m happy…. If he wants to burn through his time to keep asking me the same question, I’m going to give him the same answer. I’m going to take exception, as well….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Hon. T. Stone: I think it’s time to take exception to the member’s continual efforts here to disparage the tremendous work that not just management but a lot of the staff at ICBC have been engaged in to improve customer service, including through the transformation program, including through the implementation of the Guidewire ClaimCenter system. This is a system that has been successfully installed and is in use in 300 locations worldwide. It was successfully installed here in British Columbia a couple of years ago, and it is working and working very well.

He cherry-picked a few comments from a few employees who expressed some dissatisfaction with the ClaimCenter system and some adjustments to how they do their jobs. I’m going to do the same. Here are some comments, amongst many, from staff in the claims division, across the corporation, who are very happy with the changes that have been made and feel that the changes have actually gone a long ways to enabling them to better serve customers.

“The corporation has made improvements with the new system to make it easier to do our jobs and how processes are done.” That’s pretty good. “I definitely think bringing in ClaimCenter was probably the best decision in a long time. It brings ICBC into the 21st century. It’s about trying to become more efficient and organized in order to work smarter, not harder.”

How about this one? “It has opened up a dialogue across levels of employees and management that I haven’t seen before. I think that employees can now directly relate what they do each day to our corporate strategy and understand how they contribute to all of our success.”

[1135]

Or how about this one? “ICBC has updated many procedures within the ClaimCenter and has implemented many updates to the system where it was desperately needed in order for staff to do their jobs to best serve customers.” I could go on and on and on.

I think it’s a good question. Perhaps the member could take a moment to regale us, in his view, as to why he and his colleagues consistently attack the different facets of the transformation program, including ClaimCenter, which is about improving service to customers. What has the member got against improved customer service?

The Guidewire system will provide, amongst many benefits, on-line claims reporting. Customers can now file their injury-related claims through ICBC.com. Again, this is a service that is far more convenient for customers than it ever was before. Or how about electronic claims handling — the fact that ICBC customers no longer need to come into a claim centre? They can now do their business with ICBC over the phone and on line.

The member knows well that before this system was in place, customer records would need to be shipped to the adjustor’s location before they could even begin to help the customer. That’s a significant improvement.

There’s now a round-robin claims system in place which is providing significant improvements to customer service. Customers immediately have their claims assigned to the next available adjustor, regardless of where that adjustor is across the province. By the way, part of that is ensuring that the more complex a particular claim is, the more experienced an adjustor will be assigned to that individual’s file.

I could go on and on. I would be only too happy to do so, but I think it’s time that the member…. If he feels that the changes ICBC has made and will continue to make, both from a systems perspective and a policy perspective, to improve customer service, if he does not support those changes, then he should go on the record and he should say so.

A. Dix: The question, of course, was…. ICBC has cut rehabilitation coordinators, who provide service to people who are injured in accidents. They’ve played a critical role for a long time in helping those people. I asked that question directly, and the minister failed to answer, which is the course…. I don’t know why we need advisers around the minister if he’s not even going to bother to answer questions.

The fact is that since the transformation program began, the number of unpaid claims has increased fivefold from the 2010 level to the 2015 level. That’s the record of service. The fact is that the percentage of long-term disability claims at ICBC for mental health is 40 percent now, which reflects all of the results and all of the surveys we have seen.

But since the minister doesn’t want to answer basic questions — laid off 20 staff people: why? — let me ask him a question about ICBC’s role in an issue that he used to have responsibility for but that ICBC continues to: the Uber issue. He’ll recall, on Uber, that he was first against it, then he was in favour of it, then he was against it, then he was going to think about it, and then he was removed from the file. He will recall that maybe as the TransLink path for him.

I wanted to know if ICBC has or is having meetings with representatives of Uber and the taxi industry on issues around Uber.

[1140]

Hon. T. Stone: I’d be thrilled to talk about Uber and ride-sharing generally. But again, just as the member prefaced his question with some comments, I’m going to preface mine with some comments and reiterate again that the member conveniently chooses to gloss over a lot of the facts at ICBC. Whether it’s his assertions — yes, his irresponsible assertions — yesterday with respect to executive levels and executive compensation and management levels….

He was out there whipping up fear and concern in people’s minds that ICBC is loaded with all these executives, conveniently cherry-picking his data, suggesting that from 2008 to 2014, there had been a significant increase. For reasons only known to the member, he opted yesterday to leave the 2015 numbers out.

He has a responsibility to make sure that when he puts information out…

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Hon. T. Stone: …in the public domain, when he calls press conferences every other day, he has an obligation to make sure that he’s not misrepresenting the facts, that he’s not misleading the people of British Columbia.

I said yesterday, and I will say it again: if the member is to continue his line of criticism on this, then he has a responsibility to include the 2015 numbers. The $150K-earner level went from 145 individuals in 2014 down to 74 in 2015. How convenient to leave that number out — a 48.9 percent decrease.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, the Chair will hear the question and the answer.

Hon. T. Stone: Then we hear him glossing over, trying to create this perception that within the corporation, the hard-working men and women who work at ICBC — not just the management but everybody, the thousands of people who work there — aren’t attuned to the fact that there are significant cost pressures facing the corporation,
[ Page 12630 ]
that we’ve seen 7,000 more claims this year over last year, that we’ve seen the increase in bodily injury claims go up 64 percent in just a matter of years.

He doesn’t mention any of that. He doesn’t mention that fraud is ticking up. He doesn’t mention that the severity and the frequency of collisions are ticking up and that this is posing significant challenges. No, it’s easy to create a narrative, create a story around executive compensation being out of control, when it’s not, or to create this narrative, this story, that government has its hands all over dividends, that it shouldn’t be, bringing into general revenues to invest in health care and education.

Now, with respect to Uber, I want to say this. Both the Minister of Community and Responsible for TransLink and I have been doing a lot of hard work engaging with the taxi industry as well as the ride-sharing industry and other stakeholders as well.

We have said very clearly that before there are any changes on the ride-sharing side of the equation, we are going to, first, make sure that we understand what government should be considering as potential changes — opportunities to strengthen the existing taxi industry, recognizing there are tremendous amounts that have been invested in the taxi industry, that there are a tremendous number of jobs that are at stake in the taxi industry.

We want to make sure that we understand what more can be done on the taxi side of the equation before any changes are made on the ride-sharing. Ultimately, there likely will come a day when the ride-sharing industry can and will co-exist side by side with a thriving taxi industry in this province.

Our job at the moment is to do everything we can to be engaged with mayors and councillors, to be engaged with small business, to be engaged with the taxi folks and to be engaged with the ride-sharing folks. That is what we’re doing each and every day, each and every week, moving forward.

A. Dix: Still waiting for the rehab coordinator answer, but I guess that’s not going to come. You ask a very specific question. You have all the staff here. They haven’t eliminated the rehabilitation coordinator positions at all: that’s their position, I guess.

It’s been an interesting time. We’ve got a little bit of time to go. As always, I like to use our time efficiently. My colleague from Port Coquitlam has one additional question. We’re moving on to the many other interesting things facing government. I think this afternoon, here in the Douglas Fir Room, it will be the Ministry of Jobs and WorkSafe B.C. that will be before us.

[1145]

With that, I’d like to thank the staff from ICBC who have come. I’ll leave it to my colleague from Port Coquitlam to ask one final question of the minister. And if he gets an answer, actually, his answer metrics will be 1 to nothing over me, so it’s all good.

M. Farnworth: My question to the Transportation Minister is quite straightforward. It was brought to me by one of my constituents who was in an accident, and when first responders came, there were issues around blood type.

The question my constituent has is: why is it not possible to put an individual’s blood type on their driver’s licence so that when a first responder attends the scene, they can very easily and quickly determine what an individual’s blood type is?

I know when I have my Red Cross blood card in my wallet…. It has my blood type on it, so why can’t we do that with drivers’ licences in B.C.?

Hon. T. Stone: I really appreciate the question. Talking with the folks at ICBC here and with the Ministry of Transportation staff, the suggestion of adding blood type to the service card driver’s licence is not something that we have been asked to look at. That’s not to say that it might not be something that’s under consideration. There are a number of stakeholders in this discussion — the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, to name a few.

I would say, on the surface of it, though, that it seems like a very good idea and something that would be worthy of consideration. I will pledge to the member that I will certainly take that back to my colleagues in Health and Citizens’ Services and determine whether or not they actually have considered that. And if not, I will ask them to give that some thought. Either way, I’ll report back to the member on this particular suggestion.

I understand we’re coming to the conclusion of the Ministry of Transportation estimates. I just want to say that it’s been a tremendous privilege of mine for the past three years to serve as the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I’ve been through this estimates process now four times. You know, one never knows….

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: Oh, it’s been…. I’m living the dream.

[1150]

One never knows where one will be one year from now, so I just wanted to take one second to really sincerely thank the hard-working men and women in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in every corner of the province.

I have arguably the best deputy minister in government: Grant Main, who really does not like it when I mention his name in any venue. He goes quite red. He’s an exceptional individual who has supported me so very well. I’ve been very lucky to have him by my side for the entire time as minister.

I’ve also have been well served by Nancy Bain, who’s the ADM of finance and management services; Deb Bowman, the ADM for transportation programs and
[ Page 12631 ]
policy; Kevin Richter, the ADM for highways; Patrick Livolsi, the ADM for infrastructure; and Lindsay Kislock, the ADM for partnerships.

I want to shout out to Jacquie Dawes, as well, who formerly was an ADM in our ministry, and to all of the regional directors for highways, as well, in all of the offices around the province. I can sincerely say that I have not had a single negative comment come back to me as the minister about how committed to customer service the people are in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I extend that to the hard-working folks in ICBC as well. And I should mention Doug Foster, from the Ministry of Finance, who’s been a tremendous support and resource to us, not just during this estimates process but on an ongoing basis.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $843,349,000 — approved.

Vote 44: Emergency Program Act, $14,475,000 — approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 43 and 44 of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada