Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for third reading of Bill 17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call the continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[2:45 p.m.]

Because we’ll be going into committee here and the Mental Health estimates may in fact finish this afternoon, after them, I will be calling the estimates for the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is Bill 17. We had a good discussion on it already, and I think that in the interests of time, we’ll just get it going right to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

On section 1.

M. Morris: I’d just like to make a general statement here if I could, Chair.

I’ve gone through the bill. The numbering system is a little confusing. The amendments are a little…. It took me a while to read through them. But I understand where the minister is coming from and where his staff is coming from — the fact that the federal legislation, the Criminal Code amendments, are still tied up in the Senate. That’s been problematic for us.

I don’t have any issues up until section 7. In section 7, I just need some clarity here going through that. It’s got….

The Chair: Member, are we passing sections 1 to 6?

M. Morris: Yes, Chair.

The Chair: Okay, let me do that first.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

M. Morris: The effect of the driving prohibition — I just require some clarity here. I was reading through that. The prohibition starts immediately. Just let me have a look here. Under section 94.2(2)(a), it “takes effect immediately on service of the notice of driving prohibition.”

[2:50 p.m.]

Then further in the section, under subsection 3(a), it talks about “the notice acts as a temporary driver’s licence that expires 7 days after the date it is served, and (ii) the driving prohibition takes effect on the expiration of the temporary driver’s licence referred to in subparagraph (i)….” I’m a little confused as to when it takes effect immediately and when this temporary driver’s licence takes effect for seven days.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently the ADP, the administrative driving prohibition, for alcohol doesn’t take effect for 21 days. It’s been that way for a very long time. This act is now being modernized and bringing it into line with what’s already at the federal level. So it will now take place immediately upon the serving. For drug-impaired driving, though, it will not take effect for seven days.

M. Morris: If I understand this right, the alcohol part is effective immediately, and the drug impairment takes place seven days later. Is this as a result of the federal legislation? Is this the timeline that the federal legislation has, or is this unique to the prohibition section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of alcohol, it brings it in line with the IRP, which we currently have in place, so that’s the same. In the case for drugs, the reason for the seven days is because if, for example, you have to take a blood sample, it has to go get tested, and it’s going to take time to do that. It puts it in line with the…. When the penalty comes in, it’s seven days after, and you’ve got seven days to get your affairs in order. So it coincides with that, and that’s the reason for the changes and the time around the drug impairment.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Morris: Again, just a bit of clarification for myself in reading through this. Section (1)(a) talks about alcohol. It’s three hours attributable to alcohol, so anytime within three hours after operating a motor vehicle pertaining to impaired driving, right? The next sections, (a.1) and (a.2), talk about the drug concentrations within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle.

I’m wondering why we have three hours for alcohol and then two hours for drugs and then two hours for a combination of drugs and alcohol in the system.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The three-hour time for alcohol mirrors existing legislation. The two-hour time for drug and drug and alcohol mirrors what is in the proposed Bill C-46, which is currently in the Senate.

M. Morris: So section (1)(a) represents existing legislation. Is that what I heard you say? Okay.

And sections (a.1) and (a.2), the proposed legislation that is coming with that federal bill…. Will section (a) then be changed, or is the federal legislation changing with respect to that three hours? Is it going to be two hours?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is just an example of the complications that we are facing with this. Part 1 is what is. Parts 2, which you talked about, are what will be when C-46 comes into effect. But C-46 has two parts — one that will come into effect sooner, and then part 2 will come into effect later. When part 2, which is later, comes into effect, then section 14 of this bill will, in effect, override that part of section (1), and it will go to whatever is in C-46. We expect that to be two hours.

M. Morris: So this section basically talks about what the superintendent considers when he’s doing a review. I believe I’m right, there.

So in looking at section (a.3), in respect to a driving prohibition resulting from the circumstances described — evaluation of the person was conducted by an evaluating officer, who complied with the requirements that are prescribed for the purpose of the subsection, and then the analysis of the body fluid.

If we’re looking at a…. A peace officer is driving down the road, and somebody is driving erratically. He pulls him over. They do the sobriety testing — the bodily fluid testing and whatnot — and they prohibit him from driving from that point forward.

What’s the difference here versus a roadblock that’s set up, a CounterAttack program set up downtown, and people are coming through? There’s no driving evidence; they’re just caught in the line. The officer suspects that an individual is probably high on THC. Is there a sequence that needs to follow for the police officer if he suspects that there’s THC?

[3:00 p.m.]

Does a drug recognition expert need to be there, right on the spot, to identify — if I follow this — the fact that that individual is intoxicated by drugs? Then the demand for the bodily fluid — the saliva tests, or whatever — the result might come…. Is this laying out a sequence for the superintendent to look at, to make sure that sequence is followed, or does it matter which happens first?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. It is laying out a sequence. If you’re at the roadblock and the officer suspects, it would be the standard field sobriety test that takes place. If they feel that you are impaired, then it would be to the station for the drug recognition expert.

That would be the sequence that then would go on to the superintendent.

M. Morris: Just with respect to the sequence. If it’s a CounterAttack roadcheck program, the individual…. When is the saliva test administered? If we have a drug recognition expert back at the office, it would be a significant burden on resources to have to go back to the office all the time to have that individual checked.

When is the demand made? When does the prohibition take effect in a roadcheck, in a CounterAttack roadside check type of a situation, without involving going back to the office for further testing? If that makes sense.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, the member is outlining some of the challenges we face, so we know exactly how this is going to function at the federal level.

The sequence that we’ve outlined to you — the roadside standard field sobriety test, then to the station for the DRE — is what will be in place until such time as we know exactly what the saliva test, assuming that the saliva test is what we end up with…. At that point, then, the saliva test would be administered at the roadside check, and then it would go to the next step. I hope that makes sense.

M. Morris: Just so it’s clear in my mind. So pulled over. Officer suspects that the individual’s been using cannabis or some drug. The saliva test or the body fluid test is administered. Looking at this section and the superintendent’s things that he has to check off in a review here, can the officer prohibit the driver from driving at that particular point? Or does it need to go to that next level, to the drug recognition expert at the office?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under this legislation, it will be going back to the office for that DRE, regardless of what model is done at the roadside.

M. Morris: I take it from looking at this, this is going to have a very significant impact on policing resources for the CounterAttack roadchecks by adding this element to it, versus the previous legislation where there were no drug impairment provisions in the immediate roadside prohibition legislation. Just by alcohol, a blow on the roadside screening device, you’re over .05 percent or whatever it is, and it blows a fail. They can do that right at the site there as well.

This is going to add an extra element and probably a significant impact on policing resources at the local level.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process that’s in place in fact actually mirrors what would happen today if you were suspected of drug-impaired driving. The challenge, of course, is that the technology for detecting drug impairment is different from that for alcohol. Right now you can detect the alcohol level right at roadside. We, at this point, cannot do that.

Now, maybe the feds know something that we don’t know, but you still have to do that DRE, which would be done back at the station. Now, as legalization takes place and as, all of a sudden, there is a lot of attention that has been focused on the technology around this, I would fully expect the technology to improve over time.

At some point, you’re, no doubt, likely to have something that would work at the roadside in the same way it does for alcohol. But at this point in time, under this legislation and within the framework that C-46 is taking place in, it would require the DRE to take place back at the station.

Sections 13 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I report the committee rise and report the bill complete, I would like to recognize the very capable ministry staff who assisted us in answering the critic’s questions: Steve Roberts, deputy superintendent of road safety; Jeremy Wood, director of legislation, RoadSafetyBC; and Patrick Glanc, policy analyst, RoadSafetyBC. I’d like to thank them for their assistance today.

With that, I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:09 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:10 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 27.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT CONTROL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:14 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, a piece of legislation that my colleague, the critic, and I have had some discussion around, pill presses, as part of the initiatives dealing with the opioid crisis from the enforcement perspective. With that, I welcome the remarks and questions from the critic.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. Morris: I just want to make a couple of general comments at the beginning here. I, too, think that everything needs to be done to address the opiate crisis that we have in British Columbia and across Canada and, in fact, around the world.

The only criticism I suppose I have on this particular bill is the…. I truly believe, and I’ve gone through the federal legislation, the CDSA, that Bill 27 is very comprehensive. It covers a lot of ground, but I think it’s a duplication of the CDSA in many, many respects.

It’s creating another level of bureaucracy at the provincial level that legitimate pill press owners have. They need to comply with the federal legislation. They need to comply with Bill 27 once it comes into effect here….

Interjection.

M. Morris: Sorry. Very comprehensive legislation, another level of bureaucracy for the legitimate pill press individuals in British Columbia, but it covers all of the bases here. It might cause some confusion in the law enforcement field, as well, when you’re dealing with the federal legislation and a provincial piece of legislation.

Other than that, I don’t take exception with any of the sections in Bill 27.

Sections 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 28.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 28.1, by adding the following section:

Amendment to this Act

28.1 Section 5 (2) (g) (i) of this Act is repealed and the following substituted:

(i) this Act or the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, .]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This amendment modifies section 5(2)(g)(i) of the bill by adding a reference to the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. This was put in before, and now we have to do that because of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, which will need to be as part of this.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Section 29 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT CONTROL ACT

Bill 27, Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: With leave, now.

Leave not granted.

Mr. Speaker: Leave has not been granted. When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 23, Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TENURE ZONING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 23, the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, be now read a second time.

I’m pleased to be introducing this important piece of legislation. We know that we urgently, urgently need more rental homes in British Columbia. Communities across our province are experiencing low vacancy rates due in part to a shortage of rental supply and the high demand on rental due to the increasing costs of home ownership.

We also know that it’s been years since many communities have seen purpose-built rental being built in their communities. As a result, too many British Columbians are suffering because of these conditions, and we know that, collectively, we need to act.

We know that local governments are seeking innovative new tools that will help them deliver the housing that is needed throughout communities in our province. And we heard from the Union of B.C. Municipalities that one of the authorities that could assist local governments to respond to the housing crisis is the ability to zone for rental housing.

Under B.C.’s local government land use planning framework, zoning bylaws are a key tool for managing land use and density in specified areas. Currently, a zoning bylaw cannot regulate the tenure of a use, whether that person is an owner or a renter.

[3:25 p.m.]

This bill will provide local governments with a new enabling authority to zone lands such that rental is the only form of occupancy permitted. This authority will apply to multifamily residential, and it will be scalable. That is, if the local government so chooses, they will be able to apply the authority broadly, or they can limit it to a portion of housing units within a building.

It will not, however, override any existing rules regarding rental that a strata corporation may have in place. And, importantly, this authority can also protect existing rental tenure. It’s an opportunity for local governments to protect their existing rental housing stock. While we know that a new rental supply is an important component of any community’s housing stock, it is really, really important that they have the ability to protect housing stock that is currently being used as rental.

We also want to ensure that housing owners are protected. That’s why we’ve made sure that there are provisions that will allow existing housing to continue as non-conforming in any area where a local government chooses to adopt a residential renter tenure bylaw. Similarly, any development that is in process and has been issued a building or development permit will be protected as non-conforming if a residential rental bylaw would otherwise apply.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Finally, the bill also makes a number of amendments that will ensure that this new authority works within the existing land use planning framework, including ensuring that changes to a residential rental tenure bylaw cannot be made through different permitting processes.

Everyone in this chamber represents communities where housing is a real significant challenge, and I would encourage all members to support this bill in order to have yet one more tool that is available to local governments, that is available to people in our province, so that we can have the kind of diversity of housing stock that has been sorely lacking. I look forward to hearing from other members of this chamber.

T. Stone: It does give me pleasure to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 23, the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018 — a bill with a title that’s quite a mouthful.

That being said, there’s certainly no quibble on the part of the official opposition with the suggestion that there is an urgent need for additional rental supply in communities across British Columbia. No question about that. There are indeed, as the minister pointed out in her opening remarks, low — and in many communities, historically low — vacancy rates that reflect the challenge that exists for many British Columbians today. That is, an inability to access rental units in the communities within which they choose to live.

There is no question that more purpose-built rental units are needed in communities across not just the Metro region of the Lower Mainland but in communities all over British Columbia. Now, this legislation, this bill, as presented by the minister, is being positioned as yet another tool, as the minister describes it, a tool for municipalities to play their part as partners in addressing the affordability challenges across British Columbia.

This bill allows municipalities to zone specific areas exclusively for rental properties. They must undertake a hearing to make this change. So as is currently the case for any zoning change that a community or a local government wishes to make, there is a requirement to undertake a public hearing to make that change. I’m pleased to see that that requirement will also apply to these exclusive rental zones.

The rental-only zoning would not apply to or would not affect the following:

(1) stratas that have rules preventing rentals;

(2) any homes that were existing prior to the change of zoning to rental only, and that’s very, very important, I think, for homeowners to know across British Columbia;

[3:30 p.m.]

(3) any homes that were already under development when rental-only zoning is implemented, also very important;

(4) any renovations that do not add additional housing units to a property; and

(5) sales of an existing home within rental-only zoning.

Those are all items that would not be affected by a rental-only zoning area.

Rental-only zoning does apply to the following: if a strata is dissolved, the property will then be bound by the rental-only zoning that is in place. Secondly, if renovations or construction of an exempted property would add any additional or new units, those would be bound by the rental-only zoning.

Of course, there is a power within this bill that provides cabinet with the ability to prescribe regulations regarding when rental-only zoning is authorized and no longer authorized.

Those are the technical highlights, the details, of this bill, Bill 23. Certainly on the surface of it, it doesn’t appear that this would cause a tremendous amount of disruption. But I do want to say that I think it must be noted that the development community can build rental units today. They don’t need to be told.

In my own home community of Kamloops, we seem to be entering a period of pretty significant construction of purpose-built rental units by the private sector. We have a development that will go a long way to meeting the needs of students up by our university on McGill Road. At Thompson Rivers University, a private developer is putting up four buildings. It’s all been approved. The permits are all in place. They’re in in the ground, doing work now. This will provide, I believe, up to several hundred units of rental housing.

This is the same company that built two purpose-built rental projects on Summit Drive, not too far of a distance from the university. There’s another company that is about halfway through construction of a purpose-built rental property, also on Summit Drive in Kamloops. I believe it’s about 75 units of rental housing. These developers are making these decisions absent of being told, through zoning, that that’s the type of product they have to build at these locations.

My point is that I don’t actually believe that this tool, as the minister describes it, is really going to make that much of a difference. The development community has the ability to build this kind of product today and, in communities like Kamloops, is building this product.

Again, I do not want to underplay or understate the importance, from an affordability perspective, of ensuring that we see the kinds of results that are taking place voluntarily in Kamloops through the construction of significant numbers of units of purpose-built rental housing.

We certainly want to see that in communities across the province. I think we can all agree that that’s not happening in every community across this province. But I don’t believe that this piece of legislation is, in and of itself, going to do much to change the status quo.

[3:35 p.m.]

The true cynic in me would go so far as to suggest that, this being one of 30 points of a 30-point plan, the government seems to be intent on focusing more attention on a 30-point plan than the actual effectiveness of the points in that plan. I don’t believe that this tool will be that effective. I don’t believe that very many municipalities will actually utilize this tool. I believe that it’s largely window dressing in the context of a 30-point plan on housing affordability.

I also think that we have got to keep our eye on some unintended consequences. Talking with some mayors around the province and some folks at the UCBM, there is, in the back of some people’s minds, a worry that this tool, if not used appropriately, in certain communities could have the impact of actually downzoning property, reducing the value of land in different parts of different communities.

There are also others in local government that have suggested to me that when they consider the pursuit of the ideal neighbourhood, they think of a mix of people living in that neighbourhood. They think of, you know, Bob and Edith, who’ve lived in their wartime home down the street two blocks away for the last 50 years, as well as university students living in purpose-built rental housing, as well as some affordable housing, as well as residential neighbourhoods where people own their homes — modest homes.

It’s when you have that really nice mix of different types of housing product, different income levels, different types of people all living in a neighbourhood together that you really achieve that true, vibrant neighbourhood that I think we would all, in this House, suggest we live in or we have lived in. We know what that looks like. I’m not sure that this tool, if used inappropriately, lends itself well to actually creating that kind of a truly broad, mixed neighbourhood.

Or we could see in some communities huge swaths of land being zoned for purpose-built rental housing only, and those areas would be absent the other types of housing product and, therefore, the folks that would live in those other types of homes. So I think we want to keep our eye on that.

Also, I’ve heard from some that, again, if this tool, when used, has the effect of driving down the value on certain parcels of property, some developers may choose not to actually develop those pieces of property. So you may actually end up with the perverse effect of reducing supply with a measure like this. These are potential unintended consequences that I think we all would be well obliged to keep our eye on.

The last point that I think is worth noting at this juncture, second reading on this bill, is that this bill again represents another missed opportunity to actually address the lack of affordable market housing — people who want to get into the market and purchase a home. I refreshed my memory again today in looking through the government’s 30-point plan on housing, and there’s a lot in there that I think is really just window dressing. There’s certainly not a lot in there that I can find — and certainly not many announcements that this government has made — that relates to the development, incenting the development, of market housing and housing that people can afford.

There have been arguably…. I will credit where credit is due, and I think it’s largely built on a good track record of our former government. This government has built on that and is moving forward with investments on the affordable housing front.

[3:40 p.m.]

We had announced almost $900 million for affordable housing projects across British Columbia, and we built hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of affordable housing projects. That’s all worthy. That’s all important, and we need to see more built.

We also know that more needs to be done on the rental housing side, which is what this bill specifically attempts to address through this one new tool. We also know that while much progress was made, there’s more that needs to be done from an assisted-living perspective. I know in Kamloops, ten or 12 years ago, there were long wait-lists. That’s not the case today. Why? Because a lot of that product was built, and thankfully so. Do we need more? Absolutely.

If you think of your kids in their late teens or early 20s or perhaps even a little bit older, in their mid-20s, and they have got that first job. They don’t want to rent anymore. They want to actually get into the housing market. They want to purchase.

Where are the initiatives from this government that actually are about driving market supply of homes — not for rent but for purchase? This government hasn’t addressed or embraced strategies related to densification and working with local governments on densification along transit lines.

We passed legislation in this House three or 3½ years ago to assure the province’s air rights along transit lines. That was all with densification in mind so that when the Millennium Line extension was completed, you would hopefully see — in communities like Port Moody and Coquitlam — the community going up and going up near transit stations.

You look at the existing transit lines and where they intersect in the city of Vancouver, and where is the densification? We have the opportunity, if done right, on the front end of massive investments in transit… Through two lines in Surrey, which are desperately needed, and the Broadway line that is also a worthy project in Vancouver…. It’s billions of dollars of investment that if done right should also drive density and should also, as a result, ensure that there is a broader array of market housing available for people for purchase.

As well, why this government does not seem, to this point, willing to embrace the suggestions coming not just from us in the official opposition but from many other quarters with respect to working with local governments to accelerate the approvals process for the housing supply that developers want to build today…. Why this government hasn’t taken any initiative on that front is quite baffling.

Pick whatever number you want. I’ll go with the number that I understand to be accurate — roughly 120,000 units of housing in Metro Vancouver that are in some stage of approval at the local level. We’ve suggested, in the opposition, that the government could get creative working with local governments to incent accelerated approvals at the local level to get some of that product on stream faster.

I would point out that there is a component of that product which is currently, to varying degrees, languishing in local government approvals that represents purpose-built rental housing projects. Let’s get creative here too. The minister likes to talk about tools. Let’s develop a tool with local government to incent faster approvals processes to bring some of that 120,000-unit backlog on line across Metro Vancouver.

[3:45 p.m.]

Last but not least, there are other ways to incent the construction of purpose-built rental product. One only needs to look south of the border to Seattle, which is very comparable to Vancouver and the Lower Mainland in many ways. It has many of the same kinds of challenges — transportation and housing and so forth, rapid growth. But there’s a much larger piece of the product that’s been built in Seattle over the last ten years that’s represented in the form of rental product than in Vancouver. And it begs the question: why?

When you have those conversations, you determine that there were a number of targeted tax measures, incentives that had the desired effect of actually incenting, encouraging, rewarding decisions of the development community to actually build a rental product. And if people aren’t…. If the vacancy rate gets too high, they dial back the amount of product that they’re bringing on stream.

Again, I think this bill isn’t going to make much of a difference. I think it’s largely window dressing. I think it’s an opportunity for the minister to stand in the House here, for the government out in the hustings, to point to another point of a 30-point plan as if it’s this comprehensive plan that was developed with a lot of rigour and that’s got a whole bunch of detailed initiatives that are going to really bite and take hold and help.

This is not going to help. This is not going to make one iota of difference to encourage more rental product in communities across British Columbia — product that’s being built by developers in communities like Kamloops, as I mentioned earlier today — without this kind of a tool being required.

We will canvass these issues in a lot more detail in committee stage. But I would, again, take this opportunity to encourage the government, to encourage the Minister of Housing to recognize….

The affordable social housing — absolutely critically important, some good work being done there. Housing to meet the needs of the most downtrodden in our province, those who are most down on their luck — there are worthy projects there. Incenting purpose-built rental housing — absolutely important to do.

But where is the plan to drive market housing, housing that people can buy? That’s the thinnest piece of this government’s housing plan, with no measures announced on that front to date whatsoever. Unless the government begins to take some steps on that front, they will fail at addressing the affordability challenge for many, many British Columbians across British Columbia.

A. Olsen: I started with very brief notes, and they seemed to grow and grow and grow, the longer that the previous member spoke.

It’s an honour to stand and speak to Bill 23, a bill that starts to take action on developing a zone specifically for residential housing. I think one of the most important pieces of this bill and one of the first things that I want to highlight with this bill is that it adds a level of protection and preservation of rental housing stock that is currently in the market.

[3:50 p.m.]

We’ve seen a history over the past number of decades — two, three decades — where purpose-built rental housing, which we were doing very, very well in our country and in our province for a number of years, started to turn into strata units, condos. So we lost a lot of the rental housing units that we had in our cities, and they turned into condo buildings, strata buildings.

One of the things that this tool allows is for municipalities to identify important buildings that exist as rental units and to say these units are going to stay as rental. So whether they be in high-density areas, and the property goes back up for sale, developers will know that the future of that property will remain as part of the rental stock.

I think that the previous member highlighted some important reasons for why we would want to keep rental units in and around universities, for an example, and colleges. We would want to ensure that, in fact, those units stay within the rental stock. As well, there are a number of other reasons why we would want to keep rental units, and I think what we’ve seen is actually a gutting. What I hear on a regular basis is that there’s been a gutting of the rental stock in our communities and in our cities, and it’s created a serious imbalance.

In fact, I would say that in the last election, the biggest issue that I heard at the doorstep day in and day out was housing. The biggest problem that people faced in my riding and in ridings right across this province was a substantive housing challenge.

So while members in the official opposition stand and talk ad nauseam about the amazing housing plans that were put in place, I would suggest that, in this case, elections were either won or lost on a substantive housing challenge — whether it be going and leaning in too heavily to just the markets, saying: “The market’s going to fix everything for us. We’ll just let the market fix it.”

I think that there is some confusion amongst the free enterprise coalition on this really. Just leave the market. We’ll just increase supply forever and ever and endlessly increase supply — like there’s an endless supply of land out there to just keep building and building and chasing — building new schools, increasing costs everywhere in our society, in order to just continue to endlessly build supply.

We know that that doesn’t work. You can’t just continue to endlessly build supply. You create communities that people don’t want to live in. They’re not nice communities. They’re not diverse communities. As the member before me was saying, it’s important that we have diverse communities. I think that one of the things that this bill does is it ensures that there are going to be renters and that part of the demographic within our communities.

The narrative that we hear quite often is: don’t raise taxes and ignore the social problems. Those two have to come hand in hand. You can’t not raise taxes and pay for social programs and support people. So that’s another part of it. We’re going to build houses endlessly, and we’re going to ignore the social problems. As we found, that was probably the quickest way to the opposition benches, to take that approach.

We as a government have a responsibility to find balance and to legislate balance. One of the ways that we do this is we create zones such as this. We’ve created many zones in our cities. In fact, every piece of property that has anything built on it is part of a zone, whether it be a residential zone or a commercial zone or an industrial zone. Then we take those zones, and we further break them down to residential single-family or residential multifamily zones.

As those on both sides of this House that have been in local government know, the reality is that we need to have zones to ensure that our communities are balanced. I think that one of the threats that was identified in the debate here today was that, all of a sudden, there are going to be vast swaths of communities that are only going to be rental — which would be similar, I guess, to the vast swaths of lands in my communities that are residential single-family, or the vast swaths of lands in my community that are residential multifamily.

[3:55 p.m.]

I would suggest that the planners and the city forefathers that built our communities like that didn’t build enough diversity, frankly. In fact, it’s causing a lot of these same problems — increasing costs, pushing children and youth and young families out of communities, making them essentially just retirement zones, which is a substantive challenge. It’s happening in my riding. We’ve got great schools. Yet by having it just left to the market, there’s less diversity in our communities.

I think that this is the government’s role. I think it’s very difficult to just argue that real estate is a free market. I think the fact of the matter is that every piece of property, every building built, is in a zone, is in a regulated environment. The real estate industry is a highly regulated environment. Some would suggest it needs to have more regulation even. So this is a highly regulated area. I think that there are high costs to imbalance.

City planners and city decision-makers, community decision-makers, have got to weigh those costs very carefully — the social, environmental and economic costs of having too much of one type of housing or one type of zone and not enough diversity. I don’t think that municipal governments necessarily….

I mean, there is, obviously, a chance that they may zone vast swaths of rental housing. I would suggest that they should use this and that they would use this new tool at their disposal to preserve rental units within their residential neighbourhoods. And to ensure that the market, which would say, “This would be a great piece of property to go from being a rental unit, a rental building, to a strata building or a condo building….”

Of course, the developer and the development community could gain a lot more profit from doing that, from making that move. It might not be what’s in the best interest of the community. So this would be a tool for city councils, for town councils, to use.

I think it’s important for us to be giving tools, and this is an example of a bill in which the provincial government is enabling another tool for municipal councils to use. I think that that is important. As someone who comes from local government and someone who champions the local level of government and the decision-making that’s made on the ground, I think that it is important that the provincial government is providing tools.

In fact, I think that we could do this a lot better. Provide tools to local decision-makers. They’re the closest to the people and have the most direct access.

To that point, I think another interesting point that was raised is that the provincial government should get involved in accelerating the approvals process — and then long and loud complaints, in fact, that there are X number of units being held up by city councils, like that is, somehow, just a recent situation, that it’s not been a situation or a complaint that’s been going on for many years.

I would caution, though, in fact, the provincial government getting involved in local government and “accelerating approval processes.” Of course, there’s a public hearing process in which local governments have to work with the local community to ensure that the local community is aware of what is being proposed in their neighbourhoods. That process does take some time.

Where I think that municipalities might be able to accelerate the process is in some of the application timelines. Perhaps that could be the case. But again, I think that it’s important that inspections and building inspections and such play out over an appropriate level of time to ensure safety.

It’s easy, I think, to say: “Oh, the provincial government should jump into the middle of these and accelerate these approval processes.” But I think that there are also some drawbacks to that in that a very fundamental part of the job of a city or district council is to engage the community and to ensure that they’re aware of how their communities may or may not be changing.

[4:00 p.m.]

At this stage, I’m going to take my seat. I just wanted to point out that I think giving the local governments the opportunity to use this as a tool in order to direct, guide, preserve and, indeed, in the future perhaps build new rental housing stock by using this zone, I think, is a good start.

Perhaps, as we work to unpack some of the challenges that were inherited and that have been dealt with over the past year with respect to a wildly unsustainable housing market, more tools will be given to the municipalities in order to be able to make some of the decisions that they need to, in order to make both market and non-market houses, homes, available for people.

I thank the minister. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, and I’ll take my seat at this time.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciated hearing, from members of this House, their comments around this bill. It’s interesting to note that the members opposite don’t seem too hopeful. That might explain why things have gotten so discouraging for so many, because we need to remember that this is about people.

I appreciate the comments from down the way, my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands. We need to remember that this is about people. There are 1½ million renters in British Columbia, and there are some people who want to continue renting. It’s their preferred style of tenure.

Making sure that we have the options, again, for local governments to deliver what their communities need is critically important. This is a tool that local governments have asked for, and I’m very proud as a minister to be able to deliver that for them.

With that, I would like to move second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 23, Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, for committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:04 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I look forward to the members’ questions about this bill.

On section 1.

J. Yap: On section 1, would the minister explain the purpose behind the proposed changes in definition to “driver’s certificate” and “owner’s certificate.”

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The issue, in part, was ensuring clarity in the act. Sometimes a certificate is not issued to the owner — for example, in the case of a garage and a garage certificate, where they may not be the actual owner of the vehicle. It was aimed at providing some clarity in the act around that.

I apologize. I failed to introduce staff who are here assisting me today — Holly Cairns, acting ED, Crown agencies; Nida Bindra, counsel, Ministry of Attorney General; and chief legal officer from ICBC, Jason McDaniel.

J. Yap: With this change, just to be clear…. I heard what the minister said. What is the ultimate rationale or goal of this change, in terms of insurance offered by ICBC?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no substantive change. It’s just meant to clarify matters.

J. Yap: With respect to “health care practitioner,” the definition, how inclusive is this definition? Doctors are referred to, nurse practitioners — and then a reference to what seems to be all others. I’m wondering how inclusive this definition is.

Hon. D. Eby: The intent here is to provide quite a comprehensive list of care providers in terms of defining who is going to be able to prescribe fees and receive payment for benefits under the act. It will include a broad variety of practitioners in the regulations as well.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the minister used the term “broad.” Potentially could this, for example, include doctors of chiropractic, traditional Chinese medicine, podiatry, optometry? Could these professions be included?

Hon. D. Eby: Examples are occupational therapist, physiotherapist, massage therapist, acupuncturist and psychologist.

M. Lee: I’d just ask about the use of the term “health care practitioner” in the act. Obviously, we have to consider when this term is being utilized in this proposed bill. For example, under section 28.1, a health care practitioner must provide what’s being proposed, a report. Given the nature of the definition of the proposed term of “minor injury,” I just wonder about the scope of this definition in terms of a health care practitioner.

[4:10 p.m.]

There’s some wording in this act that suggests that depending on the type of practitioner, they’ll provide a different form of report, depending on the nature of what’s being….

I just wanted to sort of have the Attorney General walk us through how the differentiation will work and whether a nurse practitioner, for example, is intended to comment on psychological or psychiatric or chronic pain syndrome — for example. How do they differentiate between the use of “health care practitioner” with the reports that need to be provided under this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: This requirement to provide reports has always existed in the legislation. The member is correct in noting that the reason for providing different reports for different practitioners is that you wouldn’t want to be asking an acupuncturist about a psychological injury. You want reports from people who have various specialties and expertise based on their expertise, and that’s why there would be different reports for different practitioners.

A. Weaver: On this actual theme of definition of “health care practitioner,” I have four specific professions. I’m wondering if they’re included within the present definition of health care practitioner and, in particular, the subdefinition of a medical practitioner.

The first one is registered psychologists. The second one is psychiatrists. The third one is chiropractors, and the fourth one is physiotherapists. Would those four be considered health care practitioners under the definition of “medical practitioner” here?

Hon. D. Eby: Physiotherapist, psychologist and chiropractor will all be in the regulations, so they would be under (c) in the definition, “a person in a prescribed class of persons….” And then a psychiatrist is a medical practitioner so is captured by section (a) of the definition, “a medical practitioner.”

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Yap: Can the minister walk us through why the definition for “accident” included in the bill was chosen?

Hon. D. Eby: The act previously had multiple descriptions of accident. It described accidents as vehicle accidents and also as motor vehicle accidents. This is a housekeeping amendment to ensure the consistent usage of the term in part 1 of the act.

J. Yap: I’m just wondering if there was consideration given for such a narrow definition of accident and if there were any other possible definitions of accident considered at the time of drafting.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s very specific because part 1 of the act relates to basic insurance — and this is car insurance — so “an accident arising out of the use or operation of a vehicle.” This definition applies to part 1 of the act — which is, again, the basic insurance — without restricting what optional insurance may apply to. Perhaps that addresses the member’s question.

J. Yap: Can the minister walk us through the reason for repealing the definitions of additional premiums, basic premiums and point penalties?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a cleanup of provisions. The way that it works is that your rate class and territory are related to your basic insurance cost. Then the claims-rated scale, which is a based on…. We’ve been talking about high-risk driver and lower-risk driver. The claims that you may have made — and they may affect your premium — are the additional premium.

This will all be under the rate review process that is underway. It will all be in a global amount. It won’t be broken out into additional and basic premium anymore. That’s why we don’t need these definitions anymore.

This is a bit technical. I just want to confirm that I didn’t make any errors in that. Okay, I’m getting the nod. That’s good news.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Yap: What kind of personal information would the legislation be requiring the applicant to share with the corporation?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC can already request this information. The intent of the amendment was to ensure that it was clear that ICBC could request this information about any intended driver of the vehicle. That type of information includes driving history information, accident history, perhaps where the individual lives, the type of vehicle they drive and how they intend to use the vehicle.

J. Yap: Will this information be decided through regulation, if it has not already been decided on?

Hon. D. Eby: The regulations related to how ICBC sets rates — that information goes through the BCUC application process. ICBC is limited, by law, to only being able to collect information that’s relevant to setting rates, so it can only collect information that is relevant to rates. There is the BCUC application process for regulations related to rates.

J. Yap: Will the minister confirm that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was or will be consulted in what information will be shared with the corporation?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

[4:20 p.m.]

J. Yap: Does the corporation, then, have the right, under the way this section is written, to ask for additional information from the applicant?

Hon. D. Eby: As far as this section, this is only related to information collected in relation to how ICBC sets rates, so any other information would not be permitted to be collected, under this section.

J. Yap: I hear what the minister says, but in the event that there is a disagreement on that, what powers or rights would an applicant have to either appeal or dispute the requests of the corporation should they feel the corporation has asked for too much information or information they deem sensitive?

Hon. D. Eby: It depends. There are a number of remedies available to an individual where they believe that a Crown agency is asking for inappropriate information. They can complain to the Privacy Commissioner. They could apply for a judicial review, for example, if they were refused insurance on an illegal basis, for refusing to provide information that ICBC was illegally attempting to collect.

There are safeguards in place to ensure that that happens, but it’s a bit speculative because ICBC collects a very defined set of criteria around setting rates: where you live, how you intend to operate the motor vehicle and your driving history. These are key criteria that are quite established in the car insurance world.

M. Lee: I just wanted to clarify. In terms of the way the Attorney General just referred to information required to set rates, that seems to include where you live, how you intend to operate the vehicle and driving history. Is there any other information required in that category to determine rates?

Hon. D. Eby: We will come in a later section to an area where there is a framework to expand the criteria that ICBC uses, specifically to determine risk. Specifically, distance is one example of that. The distance that you drive in your rate class may affect the risk that you’re in an accident. ICBC is looking at that. That was one of the engagement pieces that was in our consultation with British Columbians about the rating review process.

There are some categories — it’s important to be clear on the record — that are not and will not be part of ICBC’s risk rating process that are used by other insurers. Gender is not and will not be used. Marital status is not and will not be used. Age is not and will not be used. Sometimes that’s conflated with driving experience. Driving experience will be used, but it’s not based on age. And credit scores — some insurers use credit scores. ICBC does not.

There are categories, in the spirit of the member’s question — I want it to be clear on the record — ICBC is not using and will not be using.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. When I look under subsection (2.1) as proposed under Bill 20, against the current section 11(2), the amendment proposes that we strike the word “information,” and then this will operate to only deal with information.

[4:25 p.m.]

When we read this together, having deleted the word “information” from the current 11(2), then we’re left with “statements and reports,” including “the content required by the corporation”. Is there a reason why “information” was separated out this way to be qualified in this manner?

Hon. D. Eby: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of B.C. requires an explicit legislated ability to collect information. So “information” was pulled out and given a broader provision so that it’s really, really clear that ICBC has the ability to collect information, not just about the applicant for insurance but also about intended drivers for the vehicle.

Without this, you might be able to say: “Well, there’s not a clear, legislated provision to collect information about an intended driver of my vehicle. ICBC doesn’t have the lawful authority to do that.” That’s why it’s set out in more detail, just to be completely clear and avoid any concerns under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us why April 1, 2019, was the date that was settled on?

Hon. D. Eby: That was the earliest date that ICBC believed they could be prepared for all these very significant changes.

J. Yap: With regards to information shared in the reports, how can British Columbians believe that the corporation may not use a pre-existing injury or condition to minimize amounts paid and possibly keep them under the cap?

Hon. D. Eby: The basic principle of tort law is that it puts you back in the position that you were in but for the injury that was caused to you by somebody else. In that respect, pre-existing conditions are relevant in determining the damages that were actually caused by the accident, and it is information that is relied on by ICBC. It’s also relied on by the plaintiff’s counsel in arguments and will be relied on in disputes that go to the civil resolution tribunal under this system, as well, and it will be relied on in matters that go to B.C. Supreme Court for injuries that are not defined as minor injuries. That principle is not affected here.

The question about: what if ICBC misused information somehow that they had access to? There is no greater risk under this legislation than already exists currently. ICBC has robust internal controls, audit processes to ensure that information that is within the custody of the insurer is not misused. In addition, anyone that has a concern about that can file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner and, in addition, could potentially sue ICBC for that misuse.

There are, as in all Crown agencies and government agencies, safeguards in place to prevent and detect and ultimately to remove anyone that would misuse information that they obtained as a result of having access to it in their job.

J. Yap: On the regulation side, does the minister foresee any changes to this section with regards to information that can be shared?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve just done a quick review. If the member could direct us to the regulation-making power that he is concerned about, we’ll attempt to address the question.

[4:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: How does ICBC plan to use the information that is shared by health care practitioners?

Hon. D. Eby: There are three key ways in which ICBC anticipates using this information from these reports. One is to assess an individual’s needs for care. The second is to administer and pay benefits to practitioners that are providing care. And the third is to quantify the value of the individual’s claim in terms of compensation.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that. Is ICBC required to inform the injured victim on what information they have requested, what has been received and in what form or manner they requested and received that information?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of ways in which individuals could access these reports in their entirety. The first is if there is a dispute over the injury, for example, or compensation or access to benefits. Whether it’s in the civil resolution tribunal or in B.C. Supreme Court, it would be disclosed as relevant to the litigation or the dispute.

The second way an individual could access this is they could potentially file a freedom-of-information request with ICBC for their own records.

The third is they could get it directly from their practitioners. The practitioners providing these reports are the individual’s own physiotherapist or family doctor or psychiatrist or psychologist, so they could get those reports directly.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

M. Lee: Under what circumstances would a claimant need to make an FOI request, though? They wouldn’t be able to get it from their own health practitioner.

Hon. D. Eby: These are not exclusive ways to obtain these records. These are complementary ways. So they could all be happening at the same time. You could be asking your doctor at the same time as you file an FOI. It’s important to note that an individual could file a freedom-of-information request at any time in the process.

Also, these reports aren’t intended, really, to be secret. They’re the basis on which ICBC is making determinations around benefits. If they’re refusing to pay benefits, I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t be quite explicit about what that reason is — that there was a report from a health care practitioner that this will not assist you.

There are just a number of ways in which individuals could get this. If ultimately there was a dispute about, “I think that I’m entitled to this benefit; ICBC says I’m not,” individuals can go to the civil resolution tribunal to resolve the dispute, in which case they would get access to the full report and be able to use it to make their arguments in front of the CRT.

M. Lee: I know, of course, we’ve had the opportunity to go through Bill 22 and the CRT regime. In the context of that response, I’m curious for this House just to know how a claimant will be informed of their abilities to access information in terms of the ICBC file and in the context of a dispute — just the way this is coming up in terms of reports.

If there are other reports that are being done by ICBC, I’m curious as to how that claimant will have the knowledge to know that they can exercise his or her rights under the FOI regime.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of ways in which an individual could determine how they might be able to access these reports. The civil resolution tribunal process will have an on-line process for people to ask questions and to resolve issues that they have, potentially even before getting to the CRT. Once they’re in front of the CRT, they would be advised by the adjudicator about documents and assisted through that process.

If they ask the ICBC adjudicator that they were dealing with, “How do I get a copy of this record?” that individual would tell them how to get a copy of that record. If they ask their physician, I’m sure their physician or their other medical service provider would advise them about what the process is for that office, how much they charge for copies, that kind of thing.

Really, at any door, whether it’s at their physician’s office, at the CRT or at ICBC, they could ask the question, “How do I get a copy of that record?” and they would get a response. There are a number of ways in which they could get this information.

M. Lee: I suppose, as we hear that response from the Attorney General, it suggests the complexity that a claimant will be faced with to navigate the new CRT regime.

Obviously, going to something that appears to be more dispute resolution–based, of course, which is the nature of the CRT, just raises the question as to the onus that it places on the claimant to figure out what questions to ask and what information to receive. And to actually have to make an FOI request to get access to their medical reports strikes me as something that is troubling, in terms of the onus and the responsibility it places on the claimant, somebody who may not be as fully understanding of the process that is being proposed by the government.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll take that as a question. The current section 28 of the insurance act might alleviate the member’s concerns. “If any of the following persons attends to, diagnoses, treats or is consulted by a person injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, he or she must, whenever the corporation requests, provide the corporation, as soon as reasonably practicable, with a report of the injuries and their diagnosis and treatment and a prognosis, in the form the corporation prescribes” — medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, chiropractor, dentist, a person entitled to practise physiotherapy, an employee of a hospital defined under the Hospital Act.

This is very, very close to the current provision that’s in front of the House for committee stage here. The policy of requiring these reports hasn’t changed. In fact, instead of getting more complex for minor injuries, individuals are going to the civil resolution tribunal, which is designed to assist individuals who are unrepresented. That’s the whole design of this system. B.C. Supreme Court is not designed for individuals who are unrepresented.

Rather than getting more complex in terms of dispute resolution…. The member may have concerns about a limit on pecuniary damages, or they may have concerns about the definition of “minor injury,” but one thing I hope is very clear is that the CRT is a process that is manifestly more user-friendly for self-represented litigants than B.C. Supreme Court. So actually, things are getting easier for people to understand what their rights are and what the process is for claims under $50,000 and for minor injuries.

M. Lee: This is actually my concern. When we go to court, as the Attorney General just underlined, it’s not designed for unrepresented litigants. CRT is. But that’s the concern.

I appreciate that under section 28 of the existing act, there is this provision for medical reports and that 28.1 tracks that language, which is another question to come. But in the first place, the regime that’s being presented to British Columbians has changed, or is about to change, as being proposed by the government.

Again, these medical reports that the corporation has the ability to request, to get access to, creates what is arguably an unlevel playing field in terms of the information that will be received by the corporation, put forward in front of the CRT tribunal and put in a situation where the claimant already has his or her medical history, diagnosis, condition, prognosis and treatments all laid out — so without the claimant recognizing his or her own rights, in terms of that process.

I’m concerned about this particular provision and whether this does create an unlevel playing field for the claimant himself or herself.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can alleviate the member’s concern. It doesn’t create any change from the current system. It doesn’t create any more or less of whatever your perception was of the existing playing field than is currently in place, in terms of the information that’s requested from health care providers.

In addition, individuals…. This is a report that comes from their own health care practitioner, so they can access that record from their health care practitioner. I’m not sure I’m following what the member’s concern is here. In front of the civil resolution tribunal, the bill that we debated and passed and the member voted for, people have the right to bring a lawyer with them. They have the right to consult a lawyer to get advice. All of these things still exist.

M. Lee: Then the purpose of section 28.1 is to provide and require more information than is currently provided under the act. Is there any concern there, in terms of the nature of that information being requested, given the concern I raised about an un-level playing field under the CRT?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not correct that it requires the disclosure of more information. What it does do is it includes a greater list of practitioners who are included in this list because we are increasing the categories of practitioners who can provide benefits paid for by ICBC that have not previously had those treatments covered by ICBC in this province. So the list of potential health care practitioners has expanded because the list of health care practitioners who can provide care with benefits paid for by ICBC has expanded. But the information itself has not expanded.

M. Lee: Just to clarify that point, though, in terms of the list of information that’s being required under section 28.1. When I look at that against section 28 under the existing act, I am seeing words which further, in terms of nature and extent of the injured person’s injuries, the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided…. Diagnosis certainly is covered. Treatment. I believe those are the ones that I would be focused on in terms of the additional expansion of the requirements for the report. Can the Attorney General please confirm that that is the case?

Hon. D. Eby: This is not an expansion. The previous section talked about diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, which reasonably would be expected to include both (a) and (c) — “the nature and extent of the injured person’s injuries,” which is (a), and (c), “the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided.” The intent of the drafter was just to be very explicit and clear about what is and is not included in the report.

M. Lee: I think we’re now at another specific point about this provision that bears some discussion. I would suggest that with the wording in 28.1(2)(b), “the injured person’s diagnosis,” and in (d) and (e), we have the words “treatment” and “prognosis” separate. The way I’m reading this, “nature” and “extent” in (a) and “condition at the time health care was provided” in (c) are intended for something separate and in addition to what’s currently under the act. This is relevant, of course, for the definition of “minor injury,” which we will, of course, discuss at length.

[4:45 p.m.]

But in terms of how this is being established, the baseline for which health care reports are being provided to the corporation at the outset, I’d like the Attorney General to comment on the purpose for which to require, under…. For example, if we talk about 28.1(2)(c), “the condition at the time health care was provided,” what is the intent for the corporation to gain that information at this juncture, information that was not previously required under the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The original section has been around in this version or a similar version since 1979. Information and privacy law was a very different beast in 1979 than it is today. In particular, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the legislation in B.C. require explicit legislative authority for collecting information. So the more specific you can be about the kind of information that you want and that you need in order to do the work, the firmer the legal ground upon which your requests rest.

It is really difficult to imagine a scenario where an insurance company that is facing a claim for an injury does not need to know the nature and extent of the injured person’s injuries. You have to know that information. Otherwise, you can’t deal with the three areas that I told the member ICBC intends to use this information for: to assess the needs for care, to administer and pay out benefits, and to quantify the claim by the individual.

It’s similarly impossible to imagine that the injured person’s condition at the time that health care was provided, when they came in to request the health care, wouldn’t be relevant or it wouldn’t be necessary information for assessing the needs for care and quantifying the claim of the individual. So this is necessary information. It’s not strange or unusual information. It is information that is explicitly needed for the work.

There’s no way that ICBC in 1979 didn’t collect information about the nature and the extent of the injured person’s injuries or the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided. It was just all contained in the overall, “We just need the person’s diagnosis,” which imports that you need to know where they’re at healthwise.

In this modern era, we need to be explicit about the information. I think providing more detail to people is more beneficial. But, again, I want to underline that this is not an expansion of information. This is necessary information that is collected by ICBC, has been collected since ’79 and will continue to be collected. It’s just a little bit more explicit.

M. Lee: So if it’s been collected by ICBC since 1979, is there a baseline, then, that ICBC has a data pool on, in terms of minor injury claims? As to the kind of conditions “at the time health care was provided,” I’d like to clarify what that exactly means. But just in terms of the point about 1979, does ICBC have a data pool of health care conditions which are relevant to minor injury determinations that goes back to 1979?

Hon. D. Eby: The definition of “minor injury” is new to this legislation. Because that definition did not exist previously in 1979 or at any point until, hopefully, this bill passes, there’s no categorization of injuries according to the definition that’s in this bill that hasn’t passed yet.

M. Lee: Well, let me clarify the question then. In terms of the nature of minor injury, minor injury, of course, as currently proposed under this bill, has subcategories of potential types of injury that might be included in a minor injury. Those include, of course, for the first category, abrasions, contusions, lacerations or sprains or strains.

Again, just given the response we’ve heard, I’m wondering whether, for example, in that particular category, there is a pool of data that refers to the kind of condition that would have been categorized as a minor injury, even if it’s under these terms, as opposed to using the term “minor injury” itself.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This section has no connection with the definition of minor injury. The health care practitioners who fill out these reports are providing information according to the five categories here. It doesn’t relate to ICBC’s actuarial data about injuries.

I think what the member is asking is: does ICBC have actuarial data around categories of different types of injuries? Absolutely, they do. All insurance companies do. They have been coded over different years for different categories, different types of injuries. I don’t think we’re able to provide the member with assurance that the records from ’79 exist in a form that is usable. But certainly ICBC actuaries rely on data collected by ICBC in terms of setting rates, knowing where rates have to be set in order to pay out when people make claims in relation to automobile collisions.

Perhaps it’s useful for the member to know, just to confirm, that the issue that brings the bill in front of the House, the issue that brings both this bill and the CRT bill into the House, is that ICBC’s actuaries looking at the cost of existing claims that are going forward say we would have to increase car insurance rates by $400 per driver if we wanted to get premiums collected to match the payouts that have to happen based on injuries.

That is the basis for why we’re talking about this today. It is certainly true that ICBC collects this information to be able to project how much they need to charge for car insurance so that, ideally, they’re at least breaking even, which is obviously not the case today.

M. Lee: Well, since the Attorney General referred to that, I just would like to ask a question which is related to that overall narrative that’s being created by the government. If I could just ask, then, in terms of the actuarial pool relating to types of conditions, which is what we’re speaking to: has there been a change, then, in terms of the way that ICBC reviews and sees from an actuarial basis these particular types of conditions?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a proposed change. That’s what this bill is about, in part, and I’m sure that we’ll get to that section eventually. So there is a proposed change. The proposal is to categorize certain injuries as minor injuries and to have them follow a more proportionate dispute resolution process. Claims under $50,000 would go through a more expedited tribunal process rather than to B.C. Supreme Court with multiple experts.

The message that this bill brings to British Columbians is that government will no longer tolerate having ICBC premiums, paid by British Columbians across the province, pay for an incredibly expensive B.C. Supreme Court process that takes years to resolve, involves multiple experts, for what are more minor injuries. There should be a process that is proportionate to the type of injury. This bill proposes that categorization, but that change won’t happen until the bill passes.

M. Lee: I guess I was merely trying to suggest the indication that certain minor injury claims — even though that term the Attorney General is referring to is not actually a term that’s being utilized within ICBC — are being reclassified in terms of the assessment into claims that are larger than minor injuries even though, again, that term is not being utilized. That’s what I’m referring to when we talk about dealing with costs for ICBC.

I’m asking the question: what has been reclassified from a minor injury into something that’s no longer a minor injury — even though that term is not being utilized within ICBC?

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, the member can…. I’m certainly supportive of the idea that we pass the following sections and get to the definition of “minor injury.” It provides guidance. In addition, I posted, on the Ministry of Attorney General website, a white paper that indicates our intentions in relation to regulations around what a minor injury is, how we intend to define it. But that doesn’t happen until the bill passes.

[4:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: Let me try this, this way. In terms of the minor injury definition, when we talk about sub 28.1(2)(c) in terms of an injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided, first of all, we’re talking about a condition not at the time of diagnosis. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the intentions of this act and some of the provisions are to be responsive to how someone, an individual, is healing or recovering — or not — from an injury suffered in a car collision.

In order to be able to determine how somebody’s recovering or that they’re not recovering — in fact, they’re getting worse — you need to know the injured person’s condition at the time that health care was provided, whether it’s when they go to their family physician and they say, “Listen, this neck injury I have isn’t getting better. In fact, it’s getting worse,” or when they go to their physiotherapist and they say: “You’re prescribing this exercise, and I’ve been doing it, and actually I find myself increasingly disabled.” You need to know whether their condition is improving or whether it’s getting worse.

Health care is provided when someone receives an injury over the duration of the healing process of the injury. In order to determine the quantum of an individual’s claim, to determine whether it’s a minor injury or a serious injury and assess their needs for care, you need to know their condition at the time that they receive the health care. Without that information, you’re not able to do it.

M. Lee: In the definition of “minor injury,” we talk about consideration around serious impairment and whether the condition resolves itself within 12 months. At the initial onset of this health care report, is it intended that this assessment would contemplate that? Or is that something that’s separately dealt with under prognosis?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member…. I think where we’re losing each other here is that the member is thinking about the health care report as being when the person attends the emergency room or their family physician or physiotherapist immediately after the accident for their initial visit to assess their condition immediately following the accident.

But in fact, these reports are generated throughout the lifetime of the injury that the person receives in the accident. Part of it is knowing how the person’s prognosis is going as they receive treatment over the lifetime of the injury. It’s especially relevant because — the member’s right — this act contemplates that if someone is significantly impaired in various activities, an injury that would initially present as minor might actually be no longer classified as minor.

You actually need to know the injured person’s condition at the time health care is provided, not just at day 1 but all the way through the lifetime of the injury, in order to properly assess the needs for care, to quantify the amount of the claim and to administer and pay benefits. That’s why that’s here.

M. Lee: Thank you for that clarification. I’d just like to ask then…. I understand that that might be through the course of treatment, but at some juncture, of course, this matter might be resolved in front of the CRT.

In that case, when that health care report goes in front of the CRT, presumably that’s going to be the most up-to-date health care report, which again will assess a condition at that particular point in time. Is that intended to be a forward-looking assessment? Or is it at that particular state of condition at the time that the report is dated?

Hon. D. Eby: The reports are diagnosis, condition and prognosis. What is going on with the person? How are they are doing right now? And what is the likely outcome, or what do you see going forward in terms of this person’s outcome?

Those are the three key pieces, both under the old act and, as we’ve been through, under the proposed amendments here.

M. Lee: Just under section 28.1(4), it refers to: “The form of the report and the manner of providing the report….” Again, we acknowledged earlier that it may be different for different health care practitioners. But what’s intended by the word “manner,” in terms of what manner are we referring to when we’re talking about how this report might be provided?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Some practitioners may be providing certain types of reports more frequently to ICBC than others. They may establish an on-line submission process for certain types of reports for certain categories of health care practitioner. Some practitioners might be providing paper reports. Some might be providing on-line reports.

The provision is meant to capture that they may be delivered in different ways, depending on different classes of practitioners, and they may contain different information, as we canvassed earlier. Different practitioners have different areas of expertise, and we don’t want practitioners not expert in one area talking about an area of expertise of another practitioner.

J. Yap: Following on from my colleague’s line of questioning. I understand that in order for an injury victim to qualify for a major injury, if I can express it that way, they will be required to show that they followed best practices in the treatment of their injuries.

Can the minister confirm that this is the case?

Hon. D. Eby: The act creates the regulatory authority to establish prescribed treatment, which will be designed in partnership and consultation with physicians. The issue isn’t minor or major injuries; the issue is serious impairment. So if you’re seriously impaired and you’re not healing the way that is expected, you might be asked to follow a particular treatment regime, which is best practice prescribed in consultation with physicians, delivered through your own personal physician, as well, supervised by your own personal physician, in order to, hopefully, get you back into a better place.

I see staff just…. There might be one piece to add here. There isn’t anything to add.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us who will have authority in terms of deciding what those best practices are?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is on section 29 of the bill. We’re on section 8 currently. Section 29 includes regulation-making powers, including the ability to set regulations around prescribed treatment for people who are injured.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us how the best practices will be decided upon with regards to definition?

Hon. D. Eby: In consultation with the medical community.

J. Yap: Thank you for that, to the minister. I’m hearing that the minister will be bringing in outside help in terms of helping with this definition. Possibly medical experts, other jurisdictions?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re consulting with medical experts here in British Columbia in relation to section 29 of this bill.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us if the form or manner in which ICBC can request information under this section will be standardized? Or can they ask different practitioners for different information in different forms related to that patient?

Hon. D. Eby: Within a class, ICBC could potentially ask different practitioners for different information.

[5:05 p.m.]

J. Yap: Will this be centralized to the primary care practitioner who responds to these requests? Or is ICBC free, say, to ask a chiropractor for information, then ask a GP for information and then ask an RMT for information and not tell the other practitioners what they’ve requested or received from which practitioners or what form or manner in which they’ve received that information?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC doesn’t have legal authority to share a person’s individual medical information among different practitioners. They could certainly ask multiple practitioners. If you’re seeing a massage therapist, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist and a family physician, they could easily, and do, ask all of those people for reports.

J. Yap: This relates back to what was discussed under Bill 22, the power dynamic here being quite significant — an individual going up against a Crown corporation and government, ultimately. Will the minister commit to a standardized manner or form in which ICBC can request information and ensure that there’s transparency and communications about information with the individual and medical practitioners?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m afraid the member is asking for something that’s not possible, which is transparency about personal medical information and also about a standardized form for health care practitioners when their expertise varies from field to field. I’m afraid I can’t make that commitment to him.

A. Weaver: I just have a couple of quick questions for clarification on section 8. Section 8 deals with section 28.1. In particular, it says several criteria that a health care practitioner referred to in subsection (1) must provide.

My question to you is: does this, in any way, enable ICBC to not accept the results from a single health care practitioner and insist that the patient go and see another health care practitioner or not?

Hon. D. Eby: All insurers have the ability, in relation to personal injury or disability, to compel insureds to attend a certain medical practitioner. The intent of this section is to avoid that, where possible. You are going to your own physician or your own physiotherapist or your own chiropractor, and ICBC can get that information directly from them. That’s what this section enables.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. If said patient were to not like the opinion that was received by one practitioner and went to seek an opinion from another practitioner, would both of those opinions be required to be sent along to ICBC, yes or no?

Hon. D. Eby: If an individual went to multiple practitioners to get different opinions, in theory, yes, ICBC could ask for those opinions from the different practitioners that an individual saw. Whether the individual is motivated by wanting a second opinion or simply feeling that they weren’t receiving adequate service from one service provider and switched to another service provider, ICBC could get records from both under this provision.

[5:10 p.m.]

A. Weaver: With respect to section 28.1(2), and then the (c) in there, it talks about “the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided.” This is rather broad. What are the limitations upon such a request? Are there any such limitations? Is this person’s condition relevant to the accident, or is ICBC able to get the entire medical history of a patient as part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC is legally restricted to only asking about information that’s relevant to the claim — so the person’s condition at the time health care was provided relevant to the accident, injury.

A. Weaver: My final question is: to what extent is the information that is being sought from the health care practitioner protected by the personal information and privacy act? Is there a requirement for ICBC to work within the context of that act? And is that agency or is the Privacy Commissioner being consulted as part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, ICBC is bound by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which, in part, has a complaint mechanism overseen by the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

M. Lee: Following on the question from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I’d just like to ask about sub 28.1(2)(c), again, on “condition.” When we say it’ll be information related to matters which are relevant to the claim, in the instance of a psychological or psychiatric type of minor injury under the proposed bill, what are the limits there?

Hon. D. Eby: If you’re making a claim or asking for benefits or treatment in relation to an injury that is psychological in nature that results from a car accident, then that type of injury would be treated no differently than a physical injury in terms of this subsection. The person’s condition at the time health care was provided to address the psychological condition is relevant to the claim.

M. Lee: If a person is involved in a car accident and they have some pre-existing mental impairment, a challenge with mental health, is that not something that would be relevant or related to this potential condition assessment?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC is only able to access information if it’s relevant to the claim. I think that for the member and others, related to questions about what information ICBC could collect, it’s only information relevant to the claim — so only to the extent that any pre-existing condition is relevant to the claim.

M. Lee: I think this is the challenge with this bill in terms of getting definition around what’s required under the bill, particularly when we’re talking about mental health, for example. Would the Attorney General not see the need to…?

If these words are being read into this section, should it not be made explicit that the information required under this section is relevant to the claim? If that in itself is the right way to describe the kind of information that’s needed here, should there not be a more explicit definition and limitation around the kind of information that these reports are being required by the corporation to be submitted to them?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I agree with the member. Subsection (1) says: “This section applies to a health care practitioner who provides health care to a person injured in an accident occurring in British Columbia….” So it narrows it to a health care practitioner providing health care in relation to a person who’s injured in an accident. It’s not broader than that. It’s the first subsection there, sub 28.1(1).

M. Lee: I appreciate that the type of health care practitioner that would be drawn into this section is, as the Attorney General just indicated, under subsection (1). But what I’m referring to, of course, is under subsection (2), which is the nature of the information that’s being required to be provided in the report.

[5:15 p.m.]

Clearly, it is involving someone who is a person who’s injured in an accident. That’s the reason why the person is seeking medical attention or health care attention from a health care practitioner.

What I’m suggesting and asking the Attorney General is for his assessment as to whether it would be fair and reasonable to ensure that there’s full understanding of the full extent of the information that’s going to be required, particularly when we’re talking about “condition” under sub (c).

Hon. D. Eby: The basic principle of statutory interpretation is that you have to read the section in the context in which it appears. So this whole thing is section 28.1, and subsection (1) says this applies to a “health care practitioner who provides health care to a person injured in an accident.”

Subsection (2) then says: “A health care practitioner referred to in subsection (1)” — that is, a health care practitioner who provides care to a person injured in an accident — “must provide…a report that includes the following information…(a) the nature and extent of the injured person’s injuries,” which obviously relates to the injuries from the accident; “(b) the injured person’s diagnosis,” which obviously relates to the injuries received from the accident; “(c) the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided,” the health care that was provided in relation to the person injured in an accident; “(d) the treatment provided or recommended by a health care practitioner….” Obviously, it’s not related to the person’s dietary needs, or perhaps they have a pre-existing health care condition that’s totally unrelated.

Let’s say they had osteoporosis, and they were in a car accident, and they had a bunch of broken bones as a result of the accident that maybe someone wouldn’t have had in a car accident. Then it would be relevant to say: “Listen, this person had advanced osteoporosis, and as a result, they had all these broken bones as a result of the car accident.” Then, certainly, that would be relevant.

It’s not accurate and it’s not useful to pull out the word “condition” from one subsection of another subsection of a larger section, and then say: “Well, this provides a wide licence to collect all kinds of information.” It’s simply not the case. It’s embedded in two different subsections, and the whole subsection is titled, “Health care reports for accidents,” so that’s what the information is related to.

M. Lee: I think we’re understanding each other in terms of what we’re referring to. The concern, again, around “condition” is a person’s condition at the time that health care was provided would suggest, as the Attorney General has indicated, that it’s only the condition information that’s relevant to the accident or the claim.

I’m still unclear, for the benefit of this discussion, what that relates to. Does it relate to the condition as a result of the accident? Or does it relate to something else? That was really the point of the question, I believe, from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Hon. D. Eby: It may ease the member’s concern to know that, for example, in the previous section, where it said that you have to provide a report about the injured person’s diagnosis, it has never been an issue. It’s never come up that someone was confused about what the information and collection authority was for ICBC or what the information provision obligation was for a health care provider. It was straightforward. It’s in relation to the accident.

You could add the words “the nature and extent of the injured person’s injuries in relation to the car accident for which they are receiving health care” to each of these subsections, but it’s not necessary, because the heading of the section is: “Health care reports for accidents.” Subsection (1) talks about a person injured in an accident, and the health care practitioner provides health care to that person. Then subsection (2) refers back to subsection (1) for additional certainty. So it’s the injured person’s condition relevant to the car accident at the time health care was provided.

[5:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: The reason why I am prolonging the discussion on this particular provision is that I believe it is relevant in terms of what baseline is being established, even though, as the Attorney General indicated earlier, it is an evolving set of reports as a claimant’s health, hopefully, progresses in a better way post-accident.

It does set a baseline in terms of how…. When I read the new definition…. It hasn’t been there in the past, right? ICBC has not been requiring reports of this nature dealing with a “minor injury” definition of the kind of scope that is being proposed by this government. That minor injury definition, of course, includes terms around serious impairment and the length in which a condition prolongs itself. Again, the word around condition has been given more import under this definition of minor injury; hence the concern around the scale and scope and the extent for which this condition term can be utilized.

That’s the concern. I think it’s more just being a definition around relevant to the accident, meaning…. I understand that that is potentially the way that this section could be interpreted and the way the Attorney General is suggesting, but that only takes us so far.

Again, I’m asking the question whether a condition would be interpreted as including any pre-existing condition or any other condition which may have some relevance to the accident at hand.

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC currently, before this bill is passed, in doing its work, needs to know how the person’s injury is progressing or not. This is why there are six experts attending B.C. Supreme Court on each side. They’re all providing opinions about how the person’s injury is progressing or is not progressing — what is the person’s condition at the time that they were assessed by the medical experts? — in the battle of experts that is now costing British Columbians a loss of $1.3 billion for minor injuries.

This is critical information to assess a person’s claim. It is not new information. It is information that ICBC needed, it is information the plaintiffs needed, and it will continue to be so. It was always understood to be included in the definition of subsection (b), the injured person’s diagnosis.

To say that ICBC didn’t need to collect this information before is not accurate. And it didn’t change simply because a subset of injuries now will have a limit on the maximum pain and suffering award and will also be directed to the civil resolution tribunal instead of B.C. Supreme Court. This didn’t change. It’s not relevant to the…. It would exist anyway.

If we were cleaning up the act today and we weren’t doing civil resolution tribunal and we weren’t doing a definition of minor injury, ICBC would still need to clarify that they have the authority to collect this information for the purposes of doing their work. In 1979, when this was originally done, they didn’t need to be quite so explicit. Now, under current freedom-of-information rules, you need really clear legislative authority.

I’m not sure I can address the member’s concern. I don’t even really understand the scenario that the member is talking about, where this information wouldn’t be relevant and where the individual wouldn’t want that information to be available to the civil resolution tribunal or B.C. Supreme Court. I can’t imagine a scenario where you’re not going there and saying: “Look, I’m not getting any better. Look at my doctor’s report. My condition at the time the doctor saw me has not improved. I’m getting worse.” This is exactly the information you want in front of the court or the tribunal. So I don’t even understand what the concern is.

As I said earlier, pre-existing conditions are only included in this to the extent that they’re relevant to the claim. If they’re not relevant to the claim, it doesn’t matter that the person has diabetes — to their whiplash. I’m just using those as examples. I’m not a doctor. Maybe something about diabetes may cause someone to be more vulnerable to whiplash. I don’t actually know that. I’m using it as an example.

An irrelevant pre-existing condition is not contemplated here. These are pre-existing conditions that might have some relevance to the claim and that the person may themselves want to bring forward.

M. Lee: Well, thank you to the Attorney General for that further explanation and clarification around pre-existing conditions as being relevant to the claim.

The Attorney General made a statement there that I just wanted to clarify. Is the Attorney General suggesting that the figure the government has provided, the $1.3 billion, is related to minor injuries itself? Or is there something else?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The cost of administering claims that are minor injuries was up more than 260 percent in the last ten years. In addition, these claims going to B.C. Supreme Court take years to resolve. They involve expert reports that now cost in excess of $10,000 each to obtain. The system is broken.

ICBC, as a result, and the government have two options. One is to increase driver premiums by $400 per driver to close the gap. The other is to find a more expeditious way to resolve less serious claims. It’s not to say that someone’s suffering is not serious to them and to their family. This is serious stuff for a lot of people. But there are people who are rendered quadriplegic in accidents who have had their benefits frozen in time for 25 years because ICBC hasn’t had enough money to increase those benefits.

I don’t think anyone benefits by having a system where it takes two years to resolve an accident claim in B.C. Supreme Court and where the system spends tens of thousands of dollars on expert reports when the claim could be resolved in a matter of months in the civil resolution tribunal, an independent tribunal. So yes, these were policy choices by government around the difference between increasing premiums for drivers or finding better ways to resolve disputes for more minor injury claims that individuals might be facing so that it’s a proportionate system and it’s one that’s sustainable.

We are the last province in Canada to make these changes, and it shows. That’s why ICBC’s losses are so significant. All insurers across North America are facing pressure around distracted driving, increasing accidents, and so on, but there are insurers in Canada, including the public insurer in Saskatchewan, that are doing okay. They have been successful in part because they have gotten the costs of minor injury administration under control, and that is what our intention is here.

M. Lee: Again, just to clarify, given the Attorney General has laid out the government’s view on this, what is the expected saving to the government, then, based on this change in terms of the minor injury cap?

Hon. D. Eby: Between the changes in administration of minor injury disputes, putting them in front of the civil resolution tribunal and a limit on pain and suffering awards of $5,500 for minor injuries, there is projected to be a $1 billion savings for ICBC. That is after increasing benefits for people who are catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents, who are rendered quadriplegic, and, in addition, increasing benefits for people who need to access benefits — whether physiotherapy, chiropractic, counselling, acupuncture — to actually cover the out-of-pocket expense, the market expense, of these treatments rather than some fraction of it that was set in 1993.

I don’t know if the member recalls, in 1993 a movie ticket was $5. Good luck going to a physiotherapist and telling them you’re able to pay them what they got in 1993 for physiotherapy and have them not ask you for an additional charge out of pocket. We’re increasing those benefits as well. That’s how significant the costs are of administering these types of injuries and how significant the anticipated savings are if this is successful, which we hope it to be.

M. Lee: I think we’ll have an opportunity to review the breakdown around how that $1 billion projected by the government would break out in savings.

To get back to the matter at hand, on condition, there is the serious impairment language in the 12-month condition going forward. With this inclusion in the report, even though the suggestion is that it ought to have been in there before…. What’s the implication in terms of this information and this condition being described at this juncture before going to CRT and then having that condition continue and persist over the 12-month period, in terms of how the condition gets settled and determined at this juncture versus a later juncture? What are the implications there in terms of the change in the nature of that condition?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This section relates to reports filled out by health care practitioners. The sections that the member is interested in come later in the bill.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s answers. Just to clarify, moments ago he mentioned this projected savings of $1 billion, which would result from these changes, including the minor injury caps and a few other references. What period of time is the minster referring to on that $1 billion savings?

Hon. D. Eby: That is an annual savings.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Yap: To the minister: we note the removal of a number of references to the point system, for example, in section 34. Is it the government’s intention to do away with the points penalty system?

Hon. D. Eby: No, there’s no change intended. It will always be relevant to premiums. It’s about whether it’s contained in the old concepts of “basic premium” and “additional premium” or where we intend to go, under planned rate design changes: to a consistent premium. The point system will still exist, in terms of its relevance to setting premiums.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the point system will not be replaced, even though, from what I read, it’s being deleted from the legislation. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Eby: The factors that go into the point system will always be relevant to setting a premium. I can refer the member to subsection 34(2)(g)(vi), for example, where “the number, nature and kind of violations or offences referred to in subsection (3) (b) committed by the person, if any” are “within a period established by the corporation.” The member can see there that the same considerations around the points continue even though that section is repealed.

J. Yap: Yes, I see that. I appreciate the minister referencing those sections. However, the point system is one that has been understood and accepted by British Columbians for many years. I have the impression that there’s going to be a change to a new system of assessing risk.

If we’re moving away from the point system — although the elements of what goes in the points, the minister confirmed, will continue to be considered — what will this new system look like? How would British Columbians learn more about it, to have confidence in it?

Hon. D. Eby: Division 28 of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations sets out the points for various offences. That is not changed by this act, and it will continue into the future.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The member is correct in that if the point system changes in the future, the act creates the flexibility for ICBC, without opening up the act, to be able to respond to that and to refine it, following consultation to ensure that it’s responsive.

[5:35 p.m.]

I will challenge, a little bit, the member’s suggestion that British Columbians are accepting of the current system around how rates are set. We had an engagement with British Columbians about how rates are set for higher-risk and lower-risk drivers, and we should have those results out shortly.

The reason for the consultation was, in part, regular correspondence — certainly received by my office and by ICBC — from people who believe that they are good drivers, not having had at-fault accidents or tickets, believing that they’re paying too much and subsidizing people who are high-risk drivers. So there’s not a lot of satisfaction around the current rating system in terms of that.

We’ll have some feedback for members through the consultation that we did and provide more detail about that engagement shortly, I hope.

J. Yap: Thanks to the minister for his response.

What I did say was that British Columbians understand the point system. It sounds like the minister is announcing — maybe he didn’t intend to — that the point system, as we have lived with it and understood it over these years, will be phased out, although the elements that go into the point system will continue, based on section 34, which the minister referred to.

With this new approach, using those elements, what will that look like? How will British Columbians have confidence that they’ll be treated fairly?

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the member’s clarification, and I’m sure the member will appreciate this clarification. It certainly wasn’t my intention to announce something that’s not happening: the end of the point system.

Division 28 of the Motor Vehicle Act has the regulations with the points in it. We don’t have any understanding that that is going to change at all. These are points that are used by ICBC in setting rates and determining it. It may be, in the future, that a future government changes the point system.

This act provides the flexibility around how ICBC looks at…. If there are no points…. You don’t want to put points in here if you don’t have to. What ICBC is looking at is not the points, specifically. They’re looking at the number, nature and kinds of violations or offences. Currently that’s governed by the point system. In the future, some future government might change that. It provides flexibility to talk about what, actually, the concern is — the number, nature and kinds of violations or offences — and incorporates the current point system as well as being flexible into the future if the point system changes. ICBC is still able to set premiums appropriately under the act.

J. Yap: For consideration around a fleet of vehicles…. If, say, a registered employee is in an accident and found at fault, will the owner of the company be charged a higher premium, or will responsibility for paying the higher premium be on the employee’s insurance, or both?

Hon. D. Eby: This act doesn’t change anything in relation to fleet vehicles.

J. Yap: How will the minister’s references to charging bad drivers more factor into this section?

Hon. D. Eby: This is the enabling legislation that sets out the clear authority for ICBC in how they set premiums. This isn’t the rate design itself. Rate design is how you use these different factors to set rates. That was what our engagement was about. This would provide ICBC with the legislated authority to use these different considerations in setting rates, but it’s not….

Think about it as like this is the grocery store. This isn’t necessarily what the recipe is. You’d take these different components and determine risk, based on consultations with British Columbians: which should be weighted, how they should be weighted, over what scan period and what period of time, the number of at-fault accidents, and so on. That is the rate design process. This is just the enabling section.

J. Yap: A “municipal bylaw relating to the regulation of…traffic” is mentioned as a reason that someone may be charged a higher premium. Can the minister explain what this pertains to?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Municipalities can set speed limits on non-arterial roads. That’s an example of a municipal bylaw. If you’re not following the rules of the road, whether they’re set by a city or by the Criminal Code or by the Motor Vehicle Act or Commercial Transport Act, it could be a consideration for ICBC if you’re not following the municipal speed limits.

J. Yap: So for example, hypothetically — I’m sure this would never happen — if the minister were maybe running late for a cabinet meeting and forgot to pay his parking fees and parked outside on Menzies, received the ticket, say, one or more times, would the minister be subject to a higher premium from ICBC as a result of the parking violation?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. That would never happen — he said, laughing. Seriously, though: everyone, pay your parking tickets.

The municipal bylaw provision and the other provisions are related to actuarial risk. There is no actuarial risk — although, there is certainly political risk — associated with unpaid parking tickets or parking and failing to feed the meter. This is around things that you do when you’re driving that increase the risk of an accident — moving violations, and so on.

J. Yap: I’m hearing the minister stating that with regard to including municipal bylaws, a simple mistake such as forgetting to pay for parking would not result in higher premiums.

Hon. D. Eby: This is a pre-existing provision, because municipalities do set things like speed limits. Speeding through a school zone, for example, is certainly an example of a high-risk activity that we would definitely want to capture in setting rates — if someone’s driving 60 through a 30, in a school zone, or 70 through a 30.

These are the kinds of things that we asked British Columbians about, actually: what nature of moving offences should contribute to rates? What we want to do is capture British Columbians’ understandings of what higher-risk driving is. That’s why we did the engagement, and that’s why this enabling statute allows ICBC to consider things like municipal speed limits — as it always has.

To confirm for the member: no, parking your car and failing to feed the meter is not associated with actuarial risk so would not be considered as something related to rate setting.

J. Yap: Some traffic bylaws have broad powers. Say, for example, a person was ticketed with a jaywalking infraction, as per section 10 of Victoria’s traffic bylaws. Would they then be subject to higher premiums despite being ticketed while not operating a motor vehicle?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This isn’t a new provision; this is an existing provision. The municipal bylaws relating to the regulation of vehicular traffic are intended to capture things that you might do in a vehicle that increase your risk of having a collision. Because we don’t provide pedestrian insurance, the proclivity of someone to take a risk, like jaywalking, is not relevant to setting their rates as a driver.

J. Yap: Another example: would an individual operating a motor vehicle who drove on a newly painted line and received a ticket under Victoria’s bylaws be subjected to a higher premium as a result of driving over the new paint and getting that ticket?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important again to draw the distinction between what this is and what rate design is. This is enabling legislation that allows ICBC to consider various factors, putting them together, weighting them and determining how to set premiums for lower- or higher-risk drivers. So of course municipal bylaws relating to the regulation of vehicular traffic are an area where ICBC needs authority to consider a driver’s behaviour in relation to things like municipal speed limits.

The actuarial risk associated with driving over a painted line or jaywalking or parking at an expired meter is nil. What ICBC is trying to do is not assign actuarial risk where none exists. They’re trying to ensure that people who engage in higher-risk activities pay higher premiums. Those high-risk activities are not drawn out of a hat. They are based on actuarial tables that show that people who engage in these activities more frequently involve themselves in more accident-related claims.

It’s a fun exercise to go through different municipal bylaws that can only tangentially be described as relating to the regulation of vehicular traffic. It’s not useful from the perspective of ICBC’s rate design. They put out some discussion pieces, and there was an engagement with British Columbians that shows the clear direction and consideration of the corporation around rate design.

J. Yap: One more example. If someone receives a parking ticket when they move to a neighbourhood, park in the wrong residential spot and then receive a ticket due to an innocent mistake, will they be subjected to a higher premium?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer around parking has not changed since the member last asked it. It’s not relevant.

J. Yap: I ask these questions because there’s such a range of bylaws in effect across our province — even provincial laws that are open to interpretation and could result in an assessment of risk and therefore higher premiums for people who did not really commit a serious offence.

For example, there was a woman in Nanaimo in 2012 who was given an $87 fine for parking and leaving her windows open on a hot day. She was told by the police she was in contravention of subsection 191(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Can the minister let us know what work has been done around these type of violations to ensure these people are not caught up in higher premiums for seemingly innocent mistakes or innocuous offences?

Hon. D. Eby: This feels a little bit like those newspaper columns about: “Did you know that it’s illegal in Vancouver to have a crocodile in your backyard swimming pool?” You know, these kinds of fun, antiquated or sort of strange municipal laws about which people don’t understand what the original intent or original problem was.

I’m not familiar with the case the member describes. It sounds very strange to me. In any event, the challenge is that there are lots of municipal bylaws that relate quite directly to vehicle risk.

[5:50 p.m.]

Speed limits are the most direct example. If you are repeatedly speeding in excess of speed limits in a significant way — we’re not talking here about five kilometres over; we’re talking about repeated moving violations that are significant — then ICBC absolutely…. Actually, we would consider ICBC negligent — I would consider them negligent — in not considering that someone has a whole bunch of multiple-demerit-point speeding tickets in setting insurance rates, or even whether the person is qualified to drive. That kind of driving increases risk for everybody else who is on the road.

This provision existed. It’s not new. It has not been used in the past to assign higher premiums to people who get parking tickets. It won’t be used in the future to do that. I hope that addresses the member’s concern.

J. Yap: Has there been work done to understand and help municipalities with some of these bylaws that should be repealed so that individuals are not stuck paying higher premiums for seemingly archaic or trivial fines, or the risk of it?

Hon. D. Eby: I guess that would be something worth doing if these were set by a computer or some sort of an algorithm that was unable to distinguish between a moving violation that had actuarial risk and a violation that had no actuarial risk. But it’s not.

The rate design process is done by ICBC actuaries, by people. They look at the engagement that engaged tens of thousands of British Columbians from across the province about what they felt comfortable with in terms of how much additional premium someone should pay if they’re a high-risk driver, how many different types of issues, whether it’s at-fault accidents, penalty point offences, roadside suspensions for impaired driving.

There’s no need to comb through municipal bylaw books looking for obscure bylaws, because these are big ones. These are big violations that everyone goes: “Yeah, you know, maybe you shouldn’t drink and drive.” If you do, not only do you face significant fines, penalties and suspensions, but your insurance can and should go up because you’re a higher-risk driver.

These are the big ones. These are not “leaving your window open on a hot day” bylaws.

J. Yap: I know the minister has stated that good drivers should pay less, but there is seemingly no further information about how this can be achieved. I would like to ask how.

Hon. D. Eby: The engagement posted by ICBC with British Columbians went through some proposals, but the working theory is quite straightforward. If you imagine all the premiums collected from across the province as a pie, each person who is driving is responsible for a slice of that pie of premiums. So higher-risk drivers get a bigger slice of the premium pie, and lower-risk drivers get a smaller slice. It’s a bit contrary, because most people would want a bigger slice of pie.

But anyway, the way that this works is the more of the pie that’s taken by high-risk drivers, the less pie that’s left over for good drivers, which is actually a good thing — maybe I should be using golf scores — because that means that there’s less premium that has to be paid by good drivers.

One of the questions, for example, was: how much additional premium do you think a higher-risk driver should pay in a given period of time? The reason that question is significant is that if a higher-risk driver is paying more, if they’re taking up more of the pie, that means there’s less premium that has to be paid by the good drivers and the greater the discount is that you can give to the good drivers.

This is not a revenue generation piece. This is: how do you divide, in a revenue-neutral way, the premium pie so that…? Maybe it’s a really disgusting pie. You don’t want a big piece, right? You just want a small piece. The high-risk drivers have a bigger piece of the premium pie, and the low-risk drivers have the smaller piece, which is what they actually want.

So the more premium that’s paid by high-risk drivers, the greater discount you can give to good drivers, the people who write to my office every day and say: “I’ve been driving for 25 years. I’ve never had an accident. I’ve never had a speeding ticket. Why am I paying the same insurance as my neighbour that’s had two at-fault accidents and an impaired?” These are important questions, and we’re talking about how to apportion the premiums between high-risk and low-risk drivers. But that’s how it works in theory.

[5:55 p.m.]

J. Yap: I’d like to follow on what the minister shared with us. I have heard surveys that have shown consistently that 99 percent of drivers feel they’re safe drivers, good drivers. The challenge, then, would be to slice up that pie in a way that reflects the reality as opposed to the perception. Has the minister given some thought to how that should happen based on his analogy about sharing the pie?

Hon. D. Eby: I agree with the member. I’ve heard, as well, that the majority of people believe they are better-than-average looking and of above-average intelligence, which, of course, we can’t all be, right? The same thing applies to drivers. Most people believe they are above-average drivers in terms of their ability.

The member is right. It is a political challenge. And that is why this work hasn’t been done, in my opinion. It is risky to go out and say: “Listen, you’ve had multiple at-fault accidents. You have been driving while impaired. You have multiple penalty point tickets. You have to pay a lot more insurance.” There are, surprisingly, a lot of people in this situation in British Columbia that are high-risk drivers.

That’s why I think it hasn’t been done, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. When people come to this province from other provinces, they say: “Well, why am I paying so much in B.C., and in Ontario, I only paid this amount?” Actually, Ontario’s rates for comparable coverage are higher that British Columbia’s rates. But Ontario has a more refined rating structure, done by private insurers, where they compete for good drivers because good drivers are higher-profitability drivers for insurers, and good drivers are better rewarded in those provinces. And high-risk drivers pay a heck of a lot more in those provinces.

So there is a way to achieve the policy goal, I believe, of providing some reward for people who are driving within the rules and who are not getting in at-fault collisions, and so on, with lower premiums and to say to people who are not driving well, who are driving in a high-risk manner: “This is not cost-free. In fact, your driving behaviour, your multiple distracted-driving tickets, put you in a high-risk category. You are driving up costs at ICBC in an unsustainable way, so you have to pay more for your insurance.”

Most people will, I believe, agree with that. But I agree with the member that there is some political risk in it, which is why I believe it hasn’t been done in a meaningful way for a long, long time.

J. Yap: Thank you to the minister for that. Are there some preliminary criteria for good drivers and bad drivers that ICBC or the minister has established?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, section 34.

J. Yap: How do we determine a bad driver other than by tickets and accidents?

Hon. D. Eby: Section 34 discusses a number of different categories of considerations that ICBC can make in terms of determining appropriate rates. Subsection (3) talks about: “A premium for a driver’s certificate may be based on one or more of the following: (a) the details of any accidents involving the driver…(b) the number, nature and kind of violations or offences committed by the driver…(c) the number, nature and kind of suspensions or prohibitions imposed on the driver…under the Motor Vehicle Act…(d) prescribed criteria.” That, as an example for the member, might include distance. That is something that we discussed in the engagement. It gives the member some idea about the criteria.

M. Lee: Just before we leave the pie analogy and the other analogies that the Attorney General was sharing with us, I appreciate the explanation of where the government is. In terms of the framework that’s being established here in section 34, I appreciate that on the rate design, there’s some further work that the government is doing. But at this juncture, when we’re bringing in a framework under Bill 20 which is balancing, in the government’s view, how to best deal with ICBC in areas of product reform, can the Attorney General share with this House what the expected saving will be in the rebalancing between bad drivers and good drivers in terms of savings to British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, it’s an easy answer. It’s zero. It would be a revenue-neutral shift between higher-risk and lower-risk drivers.

[6:00 p.m.]

Just to clarify my last answer, for subsection 34(3), I was talking about premiums for drivers’ certificates. Subsection (2) talks about premiums for certificates other than a driver’s certificate, which has a more comprehensive list. I don’t think I clarified that at the beginning.

M. Lee: When we say zero, then, there will be no increased cost to good drivers as a result of this. There would be savings. On the bad drivers, there will be more additional costs but no overall savings to government in terms of how this is being dealt with.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, the member has it exactly right.

J. Yap: Just to get back to where we left off in terms of how we determine a bad driver, would the converse be true? We determine a good driver by lack of tickets, accidents, etc.?

Hon. D. Eby: When you’re talking about driver behaviour, yes, that’s absolutely correct. There are other variables in setting premiums: for example, the region where the vehicle is being used and the use of the vehicle. But when you’re talking about drivers, that’s exactly right. It’s length of experience driving and the absence of violations, moving violations or at-fault accidents, these kinds of things.

J. Yap: I’ll run through an example. Someone is involved in a small fender-bender, going at a very slow speed, say five kilometres, trying to get out of a tight space, and there is no one in the other car. Damage is around, say, $500, and the at-fault driver pays that out of pocket but has no other infractions. Does the minister believe that this driver would be a bad driver and should pay higher premiums?

Hon. D. Eby: This isn’t the rate design itself. This is enabling legislation that allows ICBC to set rates and to consider these different criteria. It’s important for the member to know that this is exactly the subject of consultation we engaged with British Columbians about.

How much you should be able to pay out of pocket and avoid an increase in your premium, for example, was one of the specific questions, actually, on the engagement — and how many at-fault accidents over what period of time should affect your premiums. This is something we engaged with British Columbians about, around the rate design. But this is not the rate design itself. This is just the enabling piece.

J. Yap: I know the minister has mused about electronic devices, using technology to help gauge this. Can he update us on where he and ICBC have landed and what work is taking place in this area?

Hon. D. Eby: There have been some changes already around distracted driving. For your second distracted driving violation, there is now an additional financial penalty on your insurance. When all of the penalties are added up together for your second distracted driving ticket, I believe it’s about $2,000 additional that someone has to pay.

We have also provided police with new equipment in terms of being able to detect and issue tickets in relation to distracted driving. There’s also a pilot program in relation to technology in a car that prevents an individual from using their phone while they’re driving. That pilot is ongoing and is not concluded yet.

J. Yap: Putting on his former hat as head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, can the minister tell us what privacy concerns he would have with ICBC equipment in a car, tracking a person’s movements and access to personal data such as GPS locations, time of day, etc., and whatnot?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I agree with…. Certainly, putting on the hat that I wear now, the concern would be if that was somehow mandatory. If the government of British Columbia decided that all British Columbians needed to put GPS tracking devices in their cars, that would obviously be a concern for privacy advocates, not just at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association but, I imagine, within government itself and with the members in this place. Nobody is suggesting that.

What, instead, is being looked at is if someone decided to take a device into their vehicle that restricted their ability to use a cell phone, that measured things like sharp cornering and sudden acceleration, would they then qualify for an insurance discount of some kind? Or would that be an appropriate response in a situation where there is a new driver or a situation where someone has had multiple distracted driving tickets?

Those are the very early discussions. But the first questions are: does the technology work? What information does it collect? Is it useful? That’s why volunteers, and there were many volunteers, who signed up to ICBC to test these for us…. It’s based on successful pilots and successful projects in the United States that have done exactly this.

We’re pretty excited to see what the results are. But I would join the member in being concerned about any suggestion that these would somehow be mandatory or that government track where vehicles go, through provincial legislation or otherwise.

J. Yap: Does the minister believe that the technology, as great as it is, could possibly glitch and give a bad reading, thus putting a person into a class of driver they may not truly belong in?

Hon. D. Eby: That is exactly why we’re doing the pilot.

J. Yap: On the regional rate-making formulas. Does the minister intend any changes under legislation to be made to this formula?

Hon. D. Eby: This is enabling legislation that enables ICBC to consider region, which they do currently, in setting insurance rates in British Columbia. Regions like the Lower Mainland, where there’s lots of traffic and there’s a higher risk of collision, are higher-risk regions, and there’s an increased premium that’s associated with that. For more rural regions where you’re on a big, empty, flat road and you’re at less risk of a collision, there are lower premiums associated with that.

ICBC already considers it, and they will continue to consider it, going into the future and setting rates. I was going to say that we asked about it in the rate design, but we didn’t ask about it in the rate design. But it is something that ICBC currently considers, and they will into the future in setting rates.

J. Yap: The minister talked about the Lower Mainland, where there’s a relatively larger population. Will people in Vancouver and Surrey be paying more or less under this new formula?

Hon. D. Eby: They already do pay more for insurance.

J. Yap: Will people in Quesnel and Williams Lake pay more under this new formula?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s not a new formula. For a long time, people in the Lower Mainland have paid more and people in Quesnel and Williams Lake area have paid less because of the reasons that I outlined: that collisions are more frequent in the Lower Mainland due to traffic and the number of vehicles on the road.

J. Yap: Would there be a differentiation between regions of the province, other than urban-rural? For example, drivers in the Kootenays versus drivers in the Stikine and Skeena?

Hon. D. Eby: There are multiple regions, and the regional variation is based on risk for driving in those areas. One can imagine a region of the province that’s more mountainous with a longer snow season and ice season might be a riskier region than a region that thaws more quickly and that’s flatter with better visibility, although both might be rural.

[6:10 p.m.]

The actuarial calculations are not based on urban-rural. They’re based on the number of collisions and the risk of collision.

J. Yap: Based on the minister’s response, I take it that somewhere in ICBC or perhaps within the minister’s office there is an actuarial risk assessment of regions of the province.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, ICBC actuaries would know the risk of having an accident in various regions of the province and where accident risk is elevated. In fact, one of the pieces of work that ICBC and the Ministry of Transportation are working on is identifying high-risk intersections, roads, provincial roads, in order to identify remedial repair work or measures that could be put in place — rumble strips, additional guardrails or so on — to reduce claim frequency in those areas.

J. Yap: With the risk assessment by different regions, would there be shifts over time? Is that information private, or is it available so that there can be some learning between regions?

Hon. D. Eby: Over time, as density changes and traffic changes in a certain area or region of the province, then accident risk changes. I’m not sure I can provide more clarification.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

J. Yap: Let’s start with the indirect collection of information, noting that there were concerns about how government is collecting information, such as IP addresses and other personal identifying information. What is the minister’s intent with the authorization of indirect information in this section?

Hon. D. Eby: Our intention is to shift insurance away from the vehicle and towards the driver so that it is the drivers who are using the vehicle that set the risk rather than the owner of the vehicle. This allows for ICBC to collect information, in relation to listed drivers who will be using a particular vehicle, about their driving history and the risk that they present, in order to set a premium.

J. Yap: How does the minister see these regulatory powers evolving, and what does he see them extending to, to further encompass over time?

Hon. D. Eby: The piece that’s significant and new here is (d.2), which talks about “authorizing the indirect collection of personal information about a person named in an application for a certificate” — for an insurance certificate — “as a driver of a vehicle specified in the certificate.”

The idea here is that when you go to your broker and you say, “I’d like to insure my vehicle,” and they say, “Well, who will be using the vehicle?” you say: “I’ll be using it, and my partner will be using it, and our 17-year-old child will be using it.”

[6:15 p.m.]

Then they look at the risk profile of the drivers, and they set the premium according to the drivers who are using the vehicles. That allows for them to look at the risk profile of the other two drivers, other than the owner of the vehicle, and authorizes the indirect collection of personal information — namely, that person’s risk profile: the driving history, moving violations, at-fault accidents, and so on.

It has to be set out explicitly that ICBC has the authority to do that because if not, then collecting any information about the person’s risk profile in order to set the premium would be illegal. That’s the piece here that is different. Everything else should be and is intended to operate the same way as it did previously.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask, as a follow-up to the previous question from the member for Richmond-Steveston, about the “indirect” nature of the collection of personal information. What does the indirect refer to?

Hon. D. Eby: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act says that you’re not allowed to collect information about a third party from somebody else, except in certain circumstances. One of those exceptions is where the specific provision authorizes the indirect collection of information.

That’s why you see this language “authorizing the indirect collection of personal information….” The person who shows up at the broker will be providing personal information about third parties, and there needs to be explicit legislative authority for the broker and, by extension, ICBC to collect that information in determining premiums for the vehicle.

M. Lee: Just as a point of clarification, then: is some of that information already being collected by virtue of what is under new subsections 34(2)(d) and (e) — in respect of other drivers of the vehicle?

Hon. D. Eby: I was just clarifying my last answer, and I’m afraid I missed the first part of the member’s question. I’m wondering if he could repeat it.

M. Lee: Sure. Let me just say that in respect of the information required — whether that is already covered under subsections 34(2)(d) and (e), in terms of the information relating to other drivers of the vehicle.

Hon. D. Eby: Section 34 is about setting rates and the information that ICBC can collect to set rates. Section 45 is about regulation-making power. So the member is right that it is repetitive, but in terms of the regulations — setting out what information is allowed to be collected — that’s what this section is about.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

J. Yap: I’m wondering if the minister can tell us why he settled on five years to review the fees under this section.

Hon. D. Eby: Under the current act, it was a real mistake, in my opinion, that there weren’t a couple of things established. The first was that the rates paid for accident benefits weren’t tied to CPI, to inflation. The second was that there wasn’t a regular review scheduled to ensure that the rates paid for benefits stayed up to date with what practitioners were charging. The effect of that was that rates didn’t change for 25 years.

[6:20 p.m.]

The rates that were paid for physiotherapy or for other health care practitioners or other benefits, like wages lost as a result of an accident, didn’t change for 25 years. This drove a lot of people to litigation, and it meant that ICBC was paying just a fraction of the actual cost of benefits.

When we re-establish market rates for benefits for various service providers — health care practitioners, and so on — we want it to be really clear that we didn’t want the same situation to repeat. So we put two safeguards in. One is they’re tied to inflation, to the CPI. Given that CPI doesn’t relate directly to what physiotherapists are charging or what a certain practitioner might be charging, we didn’t feel that that was enough. We also said there should also be a review, on a regular basis, to ensure that inflation is actually capturing what various practitioners are actually charging.

Part of it was about ensuring that the review needed to be tabled so that it was public. If the gap started to grow between what ICBC paid for benefits and what people were actually being charged, that would be a public discussion in the Legislative Assembly, and people would know that. I’m afraid that, over the extended period of time that benefits weren’t changed, it wasn’t as much of a public discussion as it should’ve been.

There are two safeguards. If it was just the review, I’d agree with the member. It’s probably not sufficient. But tying it in with CPI and then doing the review every five years to ensure that CPI is keeping up, and then having that review tabled in the Legislature, I hope will be a sufficient safeguard to ensure that we don’t find ourselves in the situation where we are currently, where ICBC’s paying out 1993 benefit levels to people in 2018.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us what input, influence and level of involvement he expects a minister would have in this review process?

Hon. D. Eby: The section sets out the involvement of the minister. The minister is responsible for initiating the review. It has to be done in consultation with ICBC and any other person or organization the minister considers appropriate. Disability advocates are a good example of the type of other person or organization that would be appropriate in this situation.

The minister must ensure that the report on the results is submitted to the minister within a year after the start, and it may — it doesn’t have to — include recommendations to amend regulations that are reviewed.

There is some prescription here about how that should happen, but there is also some flexibility here — and I hope that everybody who engages in this does so in good faith — in terms of the review, the terms of reference, who’s appointed to do the review and the process by which it’s done to ensure that the Legislature gets the full picture of the correspondence between the actual charges for benefits that people are paying and the actual benefits that are paid by ICBC.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us why health care practitioners and professional medical groups are not explicitly named in the legislation as it pertains to these consultations under the five-year review by the minister and the corporation?

Hon. D. Eby: The member can see under subsection 45.1(5) that a review must be conducted in consultation with ICBC and any other person or organization the minister considers appropriate. It is left up to the discretion of the minister. I think it would be totally appropriate to be engaging with the various professional colleges and associations of various service providers, and it’s exactly the intention of the section — that they, the government and the public, should know what the current rates are.

I think that if this review took place and it was tabled in the Legislature without talking with those organizations, certainly that would be a very public issue, and it might undermine the intention of not talking to them in the first place.

[6:25 p.m.]

Regardless of who is consulted with, this thing has to be tabled in the Legislature. I’m sure a vigorous opposition, no matter which party, would be quick to take that report and consult with the groups the member describes. Any minister that is asked to take on this review would wisely consider a broad consultation in establishing this review. That’s why we set out a one-year period for the review to take place.

J. Yap: I appreciate that. However, the minister would have the discretion on selecting who would be consulted. Certainly, those stakeholders that I mentioned, and that the minister agrees with, would be obvious ones to engage with. Why not explicitly state within the legislation so it’s understood that they will be part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: The intent here was to not limit. It’s hard to predict in five years who will have interests in this and which organizations will be active and which less so.

A great example is nurse colleges and associations and the transformational changes that have been taking place in nursing, in the LPNs and RNs and so on. The reason I’m thinking about them is they were just in the Legislature the other day. These colleges and associations are regularly changing. They’re changing their names. They’re changing their composition. Their professions are evolving.

The idea is you leave it open. You can prescribe a list of names in the legislation here. You must consult with this group and that group. But it doesn’t mean, necessarily, that that group will be a relevant group in five, ten or 15 years. Keep in mind that many of these provisions that we’re updating haven’t been changed since 1979.

Theoretically, by regulation, you could define the term of an organization or define them, but it’s not going to happen. The intent here is that the minister exercise some good judgment and go out and consult. If the minister doesn’t exercise good judgment, the safeguard is that it has to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, where the minister will be, almost certainly, questioned about why they didn’t talk to obvious stakeholders that have an interest in this.

J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s answer. But with respect, way back in section 1, we defined certain professions. We defined, in legislation, medical doctor. Nurse practitioner was spelled out and not left to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the minister.

Why would the minister not include it in this instance? While it may go without saying that doctors and medical professionals and the health care profession would be consulted, why not explicitly state that they would be, rather than leave it to a broad definition of “any other person or organization the minister considers appropriate”?

Hon. D. Eby: There were a couple of categories that were explicitly defined earlier on, but there were a bunch that weren’t and that were left to regulation for the same reason. Organizations change, and the government needs flexibility. There may be a new service provider that provides an appropriate service to assist people in recovering from accidents. You might want to add them. There might be a service provider that changes how they describe themselves. Then you might want to update that. So it’s done by regulation.

I do appreciate the concern that the member has. Maybe the review of the regulation might be a one-line review by a deputy minister saying: “I looked at the regs, and everything looks fine.” But it still has to be tabled in the Legislature.

I think that the intent of this section is clear. The neglect of a minister who put forward a review that was insufficient and didn’t consult with groups interested…. It would be at the minister’s own risk.

[6:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: I appreciate that. I am sure it’s not the minister’s intent, nor would I want him to believe I’m heading down this road. Does the minister not think that leaving such an important review process solely to the minister’s discretion, whoever he or she is, may lead to a future review being subject to politicization?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important to go back to: this is one of two safeguards. There’s the regular increase with inflation on the CPI, and then there’s a review of that every five years by the minister responsible.

The issue, the mischief that we’re trying to address here, is the fact that these benefits didn’t get increased for 25 years, and there was insufficient public discussion about it. So there are two pieces here — the CPI, to link it to inflation; but recognizing that there might be a gap between CPI and certain service provider fees, a review every five years, just to make sure that we’re still on track, to be tabled in the Legislature as a matter of public discussion.

I can accept that the member is concerned that it might be an inadequate review, in which case there would be an appropriate political discussion about the minister’s capacity and performance in the job and leaving people injured in accidents with inadequate benefits. That would be an appropriate discussion, and I would hope that that would take place.

But these are two pretty extraordinary safeguards around ensuring that premiums keep up to date, especially given the fact that they haven’t increased for 25 years.

J. Yap: Did the minister seek a legal opinion on this provision, and how did it come to be settled with this definition?

Hon. D. Eby: This was drafted by legislative counsel with solicitor input and advice. I can advise the member that the intent here and the reason why it’s here is to avoid us being in the same situation as we are right now, which is that these benefits haven’t been increased for 25 years, and to put as many safeguards as were possible into ensuring that we didn’t end up in that situation again.

J. Yap: Was there consideration given to maybe handing this power to decide on the review to a deputy minister in the ministry responsible, to take it out of the hands of politicians, to give the discretion to the non-partisan public service?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not discretionary language. At least once every five years, the minister must initiate a review of a regulation. If the minister failed to do that, they could be subject to judicial review for failing to initiate the review of the regulation, because it’s mandatory. They must do this.

In practice, with reports, where ministers must complete reports or must table a report in front of the Legislature, that work is done by the public service, but ultimately, the minister is responsible for it politically. And the intent is not that this would be some sort of unique report where the minister is out there personally dialing people up and writing the report. That’s just not how it’s going to work, not how it’s intended to work. Maybe that’s why it uses the language that the minister must “initiate” the review. It’ll be done by public servants.

J. Yap: I’m focused on this because if certain groups happen to be unhappy with who was brought in for consultation, who was left out, would it not open the Crown to a lawsuit? I’m wondering if the minister would be concerned about that.

Hon. D. Eby: No, I am not concerned about that.

[6:35 p.m.]

J. Yap: One more time. Would the minister consider handing this off to a non-partisan member of the public service to keep it non-partisan?

Hon. D. Eby: The CPI indexing is administered by the Crown corporation and government, and the review is initiated by the minister. That is the policy direction here. It will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly to ensure accountability. In the event that the Legislative Assembly is not in session, it must be promptly filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and would be a public document which would be tabled at the first occurrence of the House sitting again.

J. Yap: I appreciate that and understand the minister’s confidence in the process. Before moving to my next questions on this section, I just want to go on record in cautioning the minister. By giving the minister such broad powers and consideration…. He really should consider moving this aspect, this process, out of the partisan political process.

Moving on. Reviewing the amendments — it must be presented within one year. Can the minister tell us how this timeline was arrived at?

Hon. D. Eby: This is meant to be a significant review, and the idea was, given the level of consultation research that would be involved, that a year was appropriate to do the work properly.

J. Yap: What happens if there is, say, a sense of urgency, say, with an election coinciding with the report? Would the minister then be put in the position to use his powers on the regulation to compel the report sooner or to possibly make a regulation change to postpone the report?

Hon. D. Eby: The power exists under the regulation-making powers and under the act for the rates to be changed at any time. An urgent situation might be suddenly a doubling in physiotherapy rates and nobody can access physiotherapy. Government could, without any report, change those rates to reflect the actual market conditions for that particular service provider to ensure that people have access.

These are just safeguards in the event that government doesn’t, as they didn’t for the last 25 years, see a need to increase the rates, or it makes the decision that we could increase benefit rates, but then we’d have to increase premiums too, and we’d rather not increase premiums so we’ll just let these benefit rates ride, because we’d rather not have the discussion about premiums or ways for ICBC to reduce costs.

These are safeguards to make sure that the discussion takes place if government is reluctant to do it.

J. Yap: Is there any consideration given to recommendations provided through this consultation being binding with respect to changing the regulations?

Hon. D. Eby: The actual ability to pass the regulation is cabinet’s, so it would be a recommendation to cabinet and a public one at that, because it’s tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

J. Yap: Given that this report will be delivered to the Legislature, as is proposed, has the minister given any consideration in respect to moving it directly out of the legislative political process and to an independent officer of the Legislature — for example, the Ombudsperson — to receive the report?

Hon. D. Eby: This section contemplates that the minister would initiate the review and that it would be done within the ministry responsible for ICBC at that time.

[6:40 p.m.]

J. Yap: What provisions does the minister foresee in a circumstance, say, where costs do not keep up with inflationary pressures? What would the minister do?

Hon. D. Eby: There are three scenarios. One is the event that government is made aware of the gap between benefits that are paid and the actual cost of the service, and government acts independently. In the event that government fails to act, there’s the CPI provision, which is intended to, at least, keep benefits paid within striking distance of the inflation and service-provider costs.

In the event that these two diverge and government fails to act proactively, the review is meant, functionally, to shame government. If government refuses to act, there will be a report created — that points out that unavoidably, by description of what it should look at, which is the amount paid for benefits and the actual cost of those benefits or the actual need for those benefits — to shame government into action.

If a government is shameless — it could happen, you know — these are the provisions that I believe were needed, are needed, to encourage governments to do the right thing and keep benefits up to date, so we avoid the situation we’re in currently where they haven’t changed for 25 years.

J. Yap: I appreciate that. However, it cannot be stressed enough the power dynamic that needs to be front and centre: the minister having final say over who is consulted and what is implemented. This could present itself, at least, as a conflict.

I appreciate that the minister feels this can work. But the minister is a shareholder for ICBC, which has a material impact on the budget of the province, which, unless it’s balanced, could affect the minister’s — whoever he or she is — total pay. So how does the minister ensure the best interests of the injured would be represented in these reviews — and those with what would be a vested interest — to keep the payments fair?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no way to legislate common sense. We’re doing the best we can here to provide not one but two different safeguards to avoid the situation that we’re in, which defied common sense — that benefits for ICBC didn’t change for 25 years, that wage-loss benefits were set in 1993, that physiotherapy benefits were set in 1993 and didn’t change until…. We are going to change them now in 2018.

That someone who is rendered quadriplegic had a lifetime benefit of $150,000, which was wiped out shortly after buying a van and a chair so that they could just get around and then had no additional entitlement to benefits — these were shameful things. What we’re doing here is trying to put some safeguards in as best we can.

I agree with the member; it is not foolproof. Someone who wished to get around paying benefits to people who were injured in accidents at a level that’s appropriate for the market could do so.

But there is no way to legislate and make it mandatory, because even if you put that provision in here — and I’m not quite sure how you would define it and set it — they could just repeal it. Someone committed to the cause of denying people benefits could do that. I accept the member’s argument.

A. Weaver: I just had a couple of questions on this section to seek clarification. The questions are with respect to fees charged by health care providers or practitioners under three potential scenarios.

My question to the minister is this. Let’s suppose there are three people. One person goes to a health care practitioner, and that health care practitioner agrees to charge a certain amount that’s well within the fees, as prescribed under this act here.

A second one goes there and is willing to charge a little bit more. But the person actually has a benefit plan of some form that is allowed to step in or works with WCB or works with ICBC in some manner.

[6:45 p.m.]

And the third goes to a physiotherapist, who decides that they’re going to get the service, but ICBC is only willing to pay a certain amount. They’re going to have to bill and charge the additional amount.

Is this covered in some way so there can be no additional billing, no additional attempts to tap into third-party insurances? What does this section do with respect to those health care practitioners who don’t agree to pay the price as set by this regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: In the first scenario, where the person goes in and the benefit level paid by ICBC either exceeds or is equal to the service charge, then obviously, there’s no issue there.

The second scenario. Where someone’s got a long-term disability arrangement of some kind or insurance of some kind that might top up benefits — so they go into the service provider and then there’s an additional charge — that would be dependent on the person’s insurance terms and whether they covered that kind of thing. It’s certainly possible that that could happen. There is no rule against that happening here.

In the third scenario, where someone goes in and the service provider is charging what could be called a user-fee or an additional charge on top of what ICBC will pay in benefits, we looked at saying, “No, you are not allowed to do that” — just to ban it outright in the act. The risk of doing that is that you may limit people from accessing the health care provider of their choice. We decided to leave it as, okay, ICBC will pay market rates, and then people can choose their provider. If they want to pay extra to go to practitioner X when practitioners Y and Z are charging at the ICBC rate, then they can choose to do that.

There are a couple of ways in which ICBC can encourage providers to charge at the market rate. One is direct pay, where ICBC pays the provider directly. It’s invisible to the individual who comes in for the appointment, and it’s much easier for the provider to administer. ICBC could easily say to someone who’s charging in excess of their rates: “Look, we’re not going to do direct pay with you, because you’re charging beyond what we’re willing to pay.”

The other is that ICBC can provide a list of providers that are offering services at the set rate in the area of the person who is injured in the accident, and in order for the practitioner to be on that list, they need to be at the rate set by ICBC. That’s a fairly significant stream of customers.

So there are a couple of ways for ICBC to motivate that through carrots. We looked at the stick, and we decided not to do it out of a risk that someone may be denied access to the health care practitioner of their choice because the health practitioner says: “No. We don’t do ICBC at all. We refuse to do that.”

A. Weaver: I just wanted to quickly follow up. I do note the hour. I would like to thank the minister for taking this approach of focusing on the patient as opposed to focusing on litigation. I do notice that that is a theme that we’re seeing through here, and we’ll be exploring this further at committee stage. The focus is on recovery and the patient now as opposed to litigation and getting funds after the fact, which is historical. There’s no comment here.

I do want to stand and note the hour and suggest that perhaps we would like to adjourn for the day and continue at some other time.

Hon. D. Eby: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[6:50 p.m.]

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.