Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 133
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Tributes
MONTY BINGHAM
Hon. C. Trevena: I would like to beg indulgence of the House to mark the sad passing of Monty Bingham, who died earlier this month at the age of 98. Monty was known and loved by many on Quadra Island and around everywhere he worked.
He went to World War II and then stayed in the Royal Canadian Air Force as a padre, leaving in 1966, when he went to work in the Downtown Eastside. He spearheaded the Central City Mission. He helped form the Dugout, which was a supportive, safe place for people living in the Downtown Eastside. As chaplain to the Downtown Eastside from the ’60s into the ’90s, Monty was a saving grace for thousands. Bishop James Cruikshank said that his pastoral presence there was phenomenal.
He was loved by many, respected by many, continued to play an active part in the legion, presenting wreaths on behalf of the province for many years, up to and including this last year. He will be missed by his community, by people in the legion and by his very large family — his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, his nieces and nephews.
There will be a ceremony to mark his life at the Quadra Island legion this Sunday. I would like to pass on the respects of this House to that event.
Introductions by Members
Hon. D. Eby: We’re joined today in the House by some guests from the Ministry of Attorney General, hard-working articled students, lawyers, legislative drafters and editors: Brianna Meyer, Kristina McKinnon, Shawn Courtney, Adele Lay, Philip McLaughlin, Jillian Thibadeau, David Brownell, Lara Ulrich, Jacqueline McMorran, Craig Rosario, Shayna Horne, Jillian Shoichet, Tiffany Percival, Joanna Vander Vlugt and Stephanie Weinhold, as well as Rebecca Whitmore. I’d like the House to please join me in making them feel very welcome here today.
C. Oakes: Workplace safety should be every company’s highest priority, and every employee desires to work in a safe environment. For companies, this is just good business.
Celebrating its tenth anniversary, the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of British Columbia is the health and safety association for manufacturers and food processors in British Columbia. The Manufacturing Safety Alliance is home to the occupational safety standard of excellence. This certification is British Columbia’s solution for manufacturers seeking a comprehensive health and safety management system using a best practices approach and in cooperation with WorkSafe B.C. Today in the audience, we have Lisa McGuire, who’s the CEO; Daneen Skilling, who is the chair; and 11 board members.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in thanking the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of British Columbia for the work they do for our workplaces to keep them safer for all our British Columbia families.
Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a real great pleasure to introduce a blast from the past. I’d like to introduce Pratik Modha, who is in the chamber with us today. Those of you from the ’90s will remember Pratik. He was an MA working in our government at the time.
Just a brief story. For those MAs that are watching, I want to tell you how lucky you are. Pratik was actually my husband’s ministerial assistant. My husband always said he was a lousy politician because he didn’t like to call attention to himself.
Pratik showed up one day when we were heading out to Abbotsford, I think, for an agricultural fair. Pratik showed up in a brand-new rented PT Cruiser, and my husband said: “I’m not getting in that thing.” Poor Pratik was beside himself. He said: “Well, you have to, Minister. We’re late.” We got out to the fair, and who should be there to meet us but John van Dongen, who was the critic at the time. He looked at Ed, and he said: “What are you doing driving in a vehicle like that?” Ed never let Pratik forget it. Poor Pratik. I know it scarred him for years. So all you MAs are very lucky that you don’t have someone like Ed as your minister.
Pratik has been living in Winnipeg since 2001. He worked for the Gary Doer government for eight years and continues to work for the Manitoba government.
Please join me in welcoming Pratik to the chamber.
Hon. R. Fleming: We have a couple of guests that I’d like to introduce in the chamber today as well. One of them is an indispensable and dear person to me. She is my constituency association president. Trish Richards is in the gallery, and it’s wonderful to see her.
She’s joined by Nanami Usi, who is a student from Japan. She lives in the Yamanashi Prefecture, north of Tokyo. She’s a second-year student at Oberlin University and is currently studying in the intensive English language program at continuing studies at the University of Victoria, here, and will be in our city for the next three months.
I would like the House to make both of these individuals most welcome here today.
S. Furstenau: I’m honoured and delighted to welcome Cedar George-Parker to the House today. I met Cedar about a week and a half ago on the Tsleil-Waututh territory. Cedar and his sister Kaiya are extraordinary young people. I was incredibly inspired by their wisdom, their compassion, their connection to their nation and to the land that the Tsleil-Waututh people have lived on and stewarded for thousands of years. Please, will the House make Cedar feel welcome.
B. Ma: It’s my pleasure today to be able to introduce a dear friend of mine, Tyler Smith, who is a structural engineer with Tetra Tech now, but I originally met him when I was in university as an engineering student. He’s been an absolute treasure to have as a friend. He’s been there with me through very happy times in my life and through very difficult times of my life as well. I’m not certain that he’s in the chamber right now, but he will be joining us for question period. In advance of his arrival, I would invite the House to please join me in making him feel very welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CITY DREAM CENTRE AND
SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES
S. Cadieux: Former First Lady Michelle Obama said: “All children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and pursue their dreams, because in the end, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children.” I couldn’t agree more, and I’m not alone.
Loretta Hibbs is founder of City Dream Centre. Since 2009, they’ve provided support to more than 6,000 kids and their families, many below the poverty line, each and every year. They distribute more than 900 food and produce hampers three times a year, in June, August and December, to families in need.
They also offer a weekly program for families that don’t have food through the weekend. Working closely with the schools to support those in need, they deliver a hamper of food for each identified family every Friday.
They have noon-hour clubs for boys and girls, a back-to-school backpack program and other supports for vulnerable families in our community. For the past seven Christmases, thousands of gifts have been packaged, wrapped and given to every child within seven adopted schools in the Surrey area. They currently distribute more than 3,000 gifts, and they hope to give more. This year they also launched their mobile dental unit with partners Dr. Ron and Wendy Gaudet and hope to be able to make twice-yearly trips to their partner schools.
City Dream Centre is a registered charity. Last year they opened a thrift store in my riding called For the Love of Thrifting, which will help support their endeavours. I certainly encourage our community to show their support of these great programs by visiting the shop. They have big dreams and big plans. Let’s help them and their caring army of volunteers achieve those dreams for the good of our whole community.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK
R. Glumac: When I was a city councillor in Port Moody, we didn’t have our own offices. It’s a small town. I had to work somewhere, and I chose to work in my local café. I got to know a lot of the people there.
A lot of the regulars that came in, working behind their laptops every day…. Many of them were small business owners. Above the café, in a tiny little office, was a little tech start-up. Today that tech start-up is employing over 100 people and working all over the province.
This week, May 7 to 12, has been proclaimed British Columbia Economic Development Week. British Columbia Economic Development Week serves to recognize the contributions of men and women across this province that are helping to build this economy, making it strong and innovative and resilient — an economy that takes advantage of emerging opportunities, promptly addresses challenges, recognizes strengths across many traditional sectors and opportunities in the technology sector. We recognize that economic development, climate action and reconciliation are mutually dependent.
There are people across this province, just like the people in that café, that are helping to grow the economy. Our government is working side by side with them to help create good-paying jobs in every corner of the province and ensure that people from every background have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
We thank all those contributing to economic development, strengthening their communities and ensuring prosperity for future generations.
FAMILY PHYSICIANS IN CHILLIWACK
AND ACTION ON
RECRUITMENT
L. Throness: Across B.C., almost one in four people lack a family doctor. Walk-in clinics are swamped. They have to close when they reach their daily quota of patients. Chilliwack is the most needy area in the Fraser Health Authority, where over 23,000 people don’t have a regular doctor. The situation will soon get much worse, as 40 percent of doctors near retirement age.
I wrote to the health authority to ask them to recruit more physicians in my riding. They responded that it wasn’t their job. It was the job of the local administrative division of family practice.
So I went to see doctors of the division, and they told me that the health authority makes no funds available for recruitment. When the Fraser Health board met publicly in Chilliwack a few weeks ago, I presented our city’s problem to them, and they were non-committal.
It’s amazing to me that we spend $20 billion every year on health care, but we have a dire shortage of, perhaps, the most basic element in any health care system — a doctor to see you when you’re sick. Nor is it fair that some communities have a surplus of doctors while other towns and cities like Chilliwack are underserved.
Allow me to suggest two simple solutions. First, the Ministry of Health needs to fund recruitment efforts in underserved communities. Second, the ministry should exercise discretion in the allocation of physician resources. Officials should urge doctors to stay in or move to underserviced areas, encourage more full-time instead of part-time doctors….
Mr. Speaker: Member, may I remind you that these should be non-partisan.
L. Throness: Mr. Speaker, this is a non-partisan statement. It applies all over B.C. Where else can I speak about the needs of my community?
On the Line BOOK
ON B.C. LABOUR
HISTORY
R. Chouhan: Over the years, the unions in British Columbia had to wage a consistent struggle to achieve the modern workplace. Many times these struggles are forgotten.
Ten days ago, on May 1, Rod Mickleburgh’s book, On the Line: A History of the British Columbia Labour Movement, was launched. This beautiful, masterfully written book documents the history of struggles and victories of B.C.’s workers. The comments on the inside of the book’s cover capture the essence of this history.
“The B.C. tradition of fighting back against unfair pay and unsafe working conditions has been around since before the colony joined Confederation. In 1849, Scottish labourers at B.C.’s first coal mine, at Fort Rupert, went on strike to protest wretched working conditions, and it’s been a wild ride ever since. For years, the B.C. labour movement was the most militant in the land, led by colourful characters like Ginger Goodwin.
“Through years of battles with B.C.’s powerful elite and small victories followed by bitter defeats, B.C. unions established the five-day work week, the eight-hour day, paid holidays, the right to a safe, non-discriminatory workplace and many more taken-for-granted features of the modern work landscape.”
Rod Mickleburgh has done an excellent job of describing the history of Indigenous people, immigrant workers and women. Starting on page 211, Rod has also briefly recorded the struggles of B.C. farmworkers’ fight for justice. Thank you, Rod, for quoting me in this wonderful history book.
This book is both entertaining and inspirational. It is a must-read book for anyone interested in the real history of B.C.’s labour movement. Thanks to Harbour Publishing and the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre for publishing this book.
CEDAR GEORGE-PARKER
AND TSLEIL-WAUTUTH FIRST
NATION
S. Furstenau: Today I’m going to share the words of Cedar George-Parker, a Tsleil-Waututh youth who is in the gallery today.
“Thank you to all the elected officials who take time to listen to the voices of Indigenous people and youth, who are too often ignored. Please understand that my generation sees it as our sacred responsibility to defend our ancestral land and water. It fills me with sadness to imagine what could become of Burrard Inlet if Kinder Morgan is allowed to proceed. After years of research and hard work, we are on a path towards restoring the ecosystems my people have relied on and been the stewards of for many generations.
“Please understand that my people are not anti-development. In fact, we are entrepreneurial. My people, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, are developers and own various businesses. We carry forward the work of my uncle, Leonard George, who sadly passed away last year, and he carried forward the work of his father, my grandfather, Chief Dan George. They lifted my people up by embracing our culture, our spirituality and by incorporating that world view into the economic opportunities that we pursue.
“My request to you today is if we can find a way to move forward together. If a government in British Columbia can’t work with Indigenous people to make green jobs a reality, then who can? Let’s find that low-hanging fruit of opportunities we all can feel good about, and then put it in the next budget. Let’s make the fight over Kinder Morgan a turning point for healing, growth and better opportunities for all of us lucky enough to live here in this paradise.
“HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. I raise my hands to you and pray for your wisdom and strength to guide us all forward.”
Thank you to Cedar for these words.
NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES
M. Elmore: Last week was proclaimed Neighbourhood House Week, and many of us celebrated with our local neighbourhood houses in our communities.
I joined the Premier at South Vancouver Neighbourhood House in a round-table discussion with 15 neighbourhood houses across Metro Vancouver, from the North Shore to Kitsilano to Marpole to East Vancouver to Burnaby and Surrey. The common message we heard was about the need for people to feel like they belong in their community. As quoted by the executive director of the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, Joel Bronstein…. He characterized neighbourhood houses as being “the living room of the community.”
That’s what neighbourhood houses do. As multigenerational and multi-ethnic places, they create spaces that bring people together, people who don’t normally have the opportunity to meet in their daily lives.
There are newcomers at an English conversation circle who laugh with people who have lived in the neighbourhoods their whole lives. There are millennials competing against Generation X’ers at local games night. Chef volunteers meet garden volunteers, creating a farm-to-table dinner. Lively seniors meet shy kids in choir practice. Community members eat meals with neighbours who are experiencing homelessness. Exhausted parents seek supportive conversation when picking their kids up from child care at the end of the day. Kids from different schools and different grades paint murals together in after-school care.
These unlikely friendships, these bridges between people, these genuine connections are what build healthy and resilient communities. Thank you, neighbourhood houses, for encouraging and empowering people to build and strengthen all our communities.
Oral Questions
REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM
J. Martin: I have right here an email sent on May 8 from Brenton Walters, digital manager of the B.C. NDP. It reads: “I’m writing to provide an update. Within the next few weeks, the Attorney General is expected to make an announcement about what the question will be, when it will happen and what the rules will be for the campaign.”
Let’s get this straight. British Columbians are being kept in the dark on a very important issue, but card-carrying members of the B.C. NDP get an update from the Attorney General.
Can the not so impartial Attorney General explain why he or his staff shared information with the B.C. NDP before it was provided to the public?
Hon. D. Eby: The member can look back in Hansard. I was very clear in this House: I expected to have results very shortly to this House. I can advise the member I will in fact, hopefully, have a full report to the House by the end of the session that will include recommendations around the question and the rules, and so on. I advised the member in his previous questions: very shortly. It is still the case, and I hope to have it before the end of the session.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.
J. Martin: Well, I thank the Attorney for that, but it doesn’t change the focus here that the information is being provided to members of the B.C. NDP before it’s being shared in this House or before it’s being shared with the general public. The Attorney General has previously admitted that his political staff are managing this dubious process behind the scenes, and we now know that they are colluding with the B.C. NDP.
When did the very partial Attorney General or his political staff provide the NDP with the update that they shared with their supporters ahead of all British Columbians?
Hon. D. Eby: I think the member was up just a few weeks ago saying that, clearly, the Premier was indicating that the report would be coming out in October. I mean, obviously, my office has been working independently. I can advise the member that, to my knowledge, not a single member in this House, not a single member of the NDP political party, has any knowledge of what’s in the report. It’s being worked on by Ministry of Attorney General staff, it’s based on consultation with British Columbians, and the full report, with all recommendations, will be released before the end of the session. That is our goal, and that is what we’re working towards.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a second supplemental.
J. Martin: The information that was shared and used by the B.C. NDP was to issue a call to action to members. I quote from the email. “When he makes this announcement, we’ll need your help to hit the ground running.”
Will the Attorney General table any and all communication he or his staff have had on this topic with the rank and file of the B.C. NDP?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any communication with the B.C. NDP party between me or my staff or any member of the Ministry of Attorney General staff that is working on this report. If the member has any information about that, I’d like to know about it. I’m not aware of any. I can’t table any because, to my knowledge, it doesn’t exist. But if the member is aware of something, I would immediately table it. I’d make the House aware because I’d be very concerned about that.
M. Morris: On April 24, I asked the Attorney General to immediately release all of the raw data received through the public engagement on proportional representation. His response: “The member is going to have to accept yes for an answer.”
Why has the very partial Attorney shared information with the B.C. NDP but not released the information he promised?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any information-sharing with the B.C. NDP or any other political party in terms of any of the data, of the report, recommendations or anything like that. In fact, it was the members who raised the issue that the Premier said the information would be released in October, which is not correct. I expect to have it out before the end of the session. And to the member, I expect to have all the information to him before the end of the session.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Mackenzie on a supplemental.
M. Morris: My office followed up with the Attorney’s office immediately, and we were told: “We’ll get back to you.” But even after a subsequent follow-up, there’s been no reply and no data provided, despite the Attorney General’s promise. It’s outrageous that the B.C. NDP has had no trouble getting information to update their members and he withholds information from the public.
Why doesn’t the very partial Attorney make the information available that he promised me?
Hon. D. Eby: Not only am I going to make the information available to the member; I’ll also make the information available to all members of this House — the recommendations based on the data, the breakdown of the data, the recommendation around rules for the referendum, including the questions that’ll be asked of voters. The member will receive all of that information before the end of the session. I will ensure that that happens.
REAL ESTATE SPECULATION
AND PRESALES OF
CONDOS
A. Weaver: Kathy Tomlinson from the Globe and Mail recently uncovered a system of speculation and insider trading that is fuelling the red-hot condo market in Vancouver and crowding out ordinary buyers. A few select realtors and industry insiders are getting preferential access to new condos under construction, and some individuals are flipping the right to purchase these condos multiple times prior to anyone actually moving in, a process that artificially drives up the prices for the eventual homeowner.
Industry insiders and speculators shouldn’t be granted preferential bidding rights on new condo units. Ordinary British Columbians and young families trying to get their foot in the door should have the same access.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. What is your ministry doing to end this egregious practice and to stop the preferential treatment of industry insiders over regular British Columbians, and will you end preferential treatment and require that developers market their condo developments at the same time and at the same price to everyone?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question, and thank you for pointing out one more area that has to be addressed in the housing crisis that we are facing in British Columbia. I’m sure the member, as we all do in this House, hears the stories, the heartbreaking stories, every single day of people trying to get into the market. Then to hear about this kind of action, the insider flipping of presale condos, is very troubling. It’s very troubling, I’m sure, to everyone. It’s certainly troubling that that legacy has been left, and it is something we are taking action on.
We have regulatory authorities right now investigating those reports. The member can be assured that this is a top priority for our government. We’re also taking action to actually clean up this mess. I think one of the things, and I’ve mentioned this before…. One of the real challenges is that the old government collected no information, so there is very little information to be able to take a look and get to the investigation piece.
We are doing that. We are taking action to actually require information on presale condos, on flipping of condos, to be gathered by developers. It’ll shine a light on this sector. It’ll ensure that we can share that information, then, with the tax authorities so that people are paying their fair share of taxes.
Then the one other piece I just want to mention to the member is that we’ve also initiated a review of the real estate regulatory system to also ensure a level playing field. It was a system left to us by the old government. They put a structure in place that clearly needs some work. There are questions raised about who has what authority, where that authority sits. So we’re going to be looking at the roles, the responsibilities, clarifying the issue of education to ensure consumer protection, which is the primary issue in this example and so many other examples in the housing crisis.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY REGULATION
AND DUAL AGENCY BY
RURAL REALTORS
A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that very constructive response.
As the minister knows, much of the dubious behaviour in the real estate sector has taken place in the overheated Vancouver real estate market. I think we can all agree that it’s essential to put in place new rules to end these abuses and to protect consumers, and I’m thankful that the minister is taking steps in this regard.
It’s also crucial that any new rules don’t impact businesses and communities in smaller communities across British Columbia. Scores of realtors and brokers from smaller communities across rural B.C. have contacted me with very serious concerns about the government’s plan to ban limited dual-agency transactions. In many small towns in rural regions, the new rule may be unworkable for small businesses. It will have a profound negative impact on consumers as well.
I’m worried, frankly, that this government inherited a sledgehammer response to reform from the B.C. Liberals that could have serious unintended consequences for realtors and consumers in rural B.C.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the minister consider delaying the implementation of the ban on limited dual agency to enable a task force to review the effects of the proposed changes on small communities and to provide a way forward that protects consumers and doesn’t harm people in rural B.C.?
Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question, and thank you for raising the issue. I’ve certainly heard the concerns directly, but I know members on all sides of this House have heard those concerns in their communities, as well, and have heard the concerns from realtors.
Just to be clear, the office of the superintendent is an independent regulator. As the member said, they’ve introduced new rules banning dual agency designed to protect the public that are effective June 1. As I’ve said, I’ve certainly heard those concerns. I’ve met with the superintendent. I’ve met with the real estate board to raise those concerns, to make sure that they are well aware of them.
We want to make sure that the regulators are working as effectively as possible. As I mentioned, we’re also doing a review of the regulators themselves. But my expectations are clear. Consumers have to be protected. All consumers should have the right to representation whether they live in rural B.C. or whether they live in urban B.C., whether they live in a small community or whether they live in a large community. I made that very clear to the superintendent and to the real estate board.
D. Barnett: It is nice to see that someone from government finally recognizes there is more to British Columbia than the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. The Minister of Finance is well aware of the concerns of realtors in my riding and all over rural B.C. regarding the proposed ban on limited dual agency. This change was intended to help address the housing crisis in the Lower Mainland, but the situation in Vancouver is much different than the situation that exists in northern and rural B.C.
My question to the Minister of Finance: when will the minister listen to the people of northern and rural B.C. and respect the realities of those of us that live in rural and small communities outside the Lower Mainland?
Hon. C. James: As I’ve said already, the office of the superintendent is an independent regulator. Certainly, the concerns that have come forward are concerns that I have brought to the superintendent. As the member may know, there was an exception created for remote and underserved communities that has to satisfy all three of the following conditions: be remote, be underserved and have it be impractical to get separate representation. This was an issue, again, to try and address some of the concerns that have come forward.
I recognize that there are a number of real estate agents in individual communities who feel that more needs to be done. Their own Real Estate Council of B.C. determines the proper application of this exception, and I know they’re continuing to raise the issues, as I am, with the Real Estate Council and with the superintendent.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplemental.
D. Barnett: This minister says she likes to listen. Well, please listen to this. I speak to this issue as someone from rural B.C. with almost 26 years in the industry, and I speak on behalf of all my rural colleagues. But if the minister will not listen to me, she should pay attention to the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board, who say: “The practice of real estate in the north and north central areas and rural areas of the province is unique, and imposing rules without considering that uniqueness will lead to unintended and negative consequences.”
My question to the Minister of Finance…. I ask the question again: when will she listen and act to those of us that live in rural communities in this province?
Hon. C. James: I certainly hope the member, as I have done, has taken those concerns forward to the Real Estate Council and to the superintendent. I certainly hope the member would encourage…. I know some of the groups that she mentioned have done that, but I would encourage the member herself to raise those issues.
They have an independent structure that is their authority. It is important that they hear these issues. I’ve been doing that as minister, and I would hope that other members have done that as well.
USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT
BY CITIZENS’ SERVICES
MINISTER
J. Johal: Two weeks ago the Minister of Citizens’ Services said: “Our expectation is that government and elected officials would use…government email when they’re doing government business.” However, I have here 60 pages of records with the minister’s own private email that she used to conduct government business with her political staff and even the Premier’s own chief of staff.
To the minister, will she confirm that her outrageous use of private emails violates the rules?
Hon. J. Sims: As we are aware, our members use government emails, but there are times when personal email can be used. In this case, my emails that were sent were also transferred into my government email so that there was a permanent record made. They were emails of where I read articles or was needing to reach someone when I didn’t have access to my government email.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: I have the list in front of me here. I’m just looking at some of the names here. Jill Kot, deputy minister of Citizens’ Services was emailed. Geoff Meggs, the chief of staff of the Office of the Premier. Even Trish Rorison, the communications director.
There is no question as to whether or not the minister understands the rules. She is the minister responsible for them. The rules read: “Personal email accounts should never be used to carry out government business.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
J. Johal: Let me repeat that again. The rules read: “Personal email accounts should never be used to carry out government business.”
I have here 60 pages of emails, from as recently as the end of February, sent by the minister through her own personal email account and in this building during this session. The minister responsible for the rules broke the rules — and in using personal emails to correspond with the Premier’s office.
Again to the minister, will she confirm that she and her political staff have and perhaps still are blatantly flaunting the rules?
Hon. J. Sims: Those emails were transferred into government records, and I followed the rules in that way. When I was on my iPad, I found some newspaper articles I forwarded on to people, but once again, all of those were transferred into the government record.
J. Tegart: The minister and her staff have acted as if the rules do not apply to them. You cannot get more blatant than this. What I find particularly outrageous is that this is the minister in charge of the rules that apply to all ministers and political staff, including senior officials in the Premier’s office, who participated in her breaking the rules.
This minister is responsible for corporate information and records management, as well as B.C.’s chief records officer. Can the minister tell British Columbians how they can have any confidence in her to fulfil the statutory responsibilities for records management given her poor judgment?
Hon. J. Sims: It’s very hard for me to listen to some of this stuff from people who brought us triple delete and were not transparent.
Let me say again: those emails, once I became aware, were transferred into my government account, and there is a record of them there.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: Truly it’s hard to believe that this minister will be able to act with any credibility in her role as the minister responsible for B.C.’s chief records officer and for corporate information and records management. She is the minister responsible for the rules, and she and the Premier’s office have broken them.
To the minister, how can British Columbians trust her with these ministerial responsibilities given her history and disregard for the rules?
Hon. J. Sims: The fact that my colleagues have those emails shows that there was a record. They were not deleted. As a matter of fact, they were transferred into that account and into my government account so a record exists.
C. Oakes: The minister and her staff prefer to conduct government business through personal emails instead of using secure government email accounts. That much is clear. It also appears that political staff in the Office of the Premier are also not using their government email.
Freedom-of-information requests for all sent emails have come back with nothing. No records of response for the Premier’s director of operations. No records of response for the Premier’s director of liaison and coordination. No records of response for the Premier’s assistant deputy minister. No records of response for the director in the deputy minister’s office. No records of response.
To the minister, how many other ministers and political staff are following her example and using private email accounts?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to assure the members in the House that other members of government, and staff, are following the rules. There are times….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.
Hon. J. Sims: Right in the rules it is written that there are times when other emails may be used. Let me assure you that we are not a government of triple delete. We are not a government that is trying to hide things.
What happens is that when we have found out…. In my case, the emails were transferred into the government account. Records were created, and we are following the rules for deleting transitory records. We are following the rules of keeping government decisions, but as good practice would have it and as the commissioner told us, it is perfectly logical and good practice to delete transitory records.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.
C. Oakes: Well, again, I am at a loss for words. Again, freedom-of-information requests for all sent emails have come back with nothing. No records of response. So either no one is working, or there are no records of response.
Again, the minister’s conduct is in contravention of policies that she is responsible for overseeing. She broke the rules by using her private email to correspond with the Premier’s office. Officials in the Premier’s office had no records of this on government email.
How many rules, to the minister, have been broken?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me say again: those emails, communications, were transferred into government record, as is the requirement. And let me tell you that people on this side of the House are practising good management for records. That is that any transitory emails we expect to be deleted.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: Never mind the irony; I remember the sanctimony from the other side of the House.
Look, let’s be a little more specific about this. On February 14, the day after the throne speech, we were sitting in this chamber. I can’t remember for certain whether the minister was in the chamber but would certainly have been in the precincts. About five o’clock that day, she decides to send, from her private email, a message to the chief of staff of the Premier about a pending multi-billion-dollar project.
Will the minister confirm that is entirely inappropriate, entirely out of step with the guidelines that she is responsible, as minister, for enforcing? And while she’s at it, will she table, at some point, for the House and release the message she must surely have received from the Premier’s office telling her that that was inappropriate conduct on her behalf?
Hon. J. Sims: As I have said previously, when I did use my personal email, those records were transferred into my government email once I became aware of it, and they are part of the record. Then any transitory emails were deleted, as is common practice.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: The reason we have the emails, of course, is because they were sent to addresses within the government entity and were therefore caught by the FOI. What we know is that the….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it will be good to hear the question.
M. de Jong: The results of that search, of course, confirm that the minister responsible for preserving the integrity of government records was actually attempting to operate a parallel communications network that was separate from that system.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: What we don’t yet know is the extent to which the minister was using her private email address to conduct government business with other governments or other third-party agencies.
My question to her today is: will she voluntarily release that correspondence, those emails, that she was sending or receiving through her private email address with agencies outside of the government that weren’t captured by the FOI request?
Hon. J. Sims: Any emails that were sent from my personal email, inadvertently done while I was on social media or not able to access my other phone, were transferred into my government email to make a record. Then, following good practice, transitory emails were deleted.
M. Polak: Those who have been around this chamber for a number of years will be aware that this has been a topic of concern for members of this House and for a previous government. Before you get too excited about your own position with respect to these emails, I want to highlight a change in practice that occurred as a result of that controversy. It was one that we stuck to in a previous government, where ministers were ordered to retain all sent emails. That was strictly adhered to. All sent emails were kept, whether they were transitory or not.
It is surprising to me that the current government, after all their bluster about this, did not continue with that practice. But I think we have seen today that it is absolutely necessary that that practice be re-engaged.
I want to know: will this minister reform not only her behaviour but, as the minister responsible, ensure that the practice of ministers retaining all sent emails will now be reinstituted with this government?
Hon. J. Sims: It’s surprising that the opposition has the nerve to ask about the proper keeping of records. When the FOIPPA request came in to their government on the Highway of Tears, their staff triple-deleted the records and then misled the public. The Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report at the time found: “These practices threaten the integrity of access of information in British Columbia.” They refused to change their “whatever it takes to win” culture until they got caught.
We follow the rules carefully and ensure that records of decision are retained appropriately. Our government is managing records appropriately, including — and this is part and parcel of the process — disposing of transitory records, consistent with the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That’s what we are doing on this side of the House.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
On section 18 (continued).
M. Lee: Just before we leave section 18, I recollect from our last committee session on this particular section that the Attorney General referred to the increase, of course, of accident benefits coverage from $150,000 lifetime to $300,000 lifetime. I’d just like the Attorney General to indicate how many instances there have been where a person’s lifetime level of $150,000 has been exceeded.
Hon. D. Eby: There are about 40 every year.
M. Lee: Just in terms of that figure, if it’s less than 40 every year, what potential benefits will there be, then, to individuals from increasing it from $150,000 to $300,000?
Hon. D. Eby: There are about 40 every year. These are people who are catastrophically injured in a vehicle accident, typically rendered quadriplegic or otherwise severely impaired by their injuries. Individuals like this face major expenses, including retrofitting their homes in order for their home care support to help them move around, vehicles appropriate for motorized wheelchairs, and the motorized wheelchair itself, as well as additional medical devices in order to cope as best as possible with their catastrophic accident injuries.
It’s very easy to go through $150,000 in a hurry. Once that’s exhausted, then that’s it. The issue is that many of the expenses, then, are transferred, as best as possible, into other public programs. Really, those should be captured within the car insurance program. Also, just as a matter of fairness, there should be better coverage for people. They should not have to live in poverty because they’ve suffered a catastrophic car accident and there were insufficient benefits. That’s why we’ve proposed doubling the amount.
M. Lee: I appreciate that. Obviously, in situations that the Attorney General described, certainly benefits would be necessary to assist those individuals. Would the Attorney General agree that this particular shift, then, doesn’t really mean a lot for many British Columbians because the $150,000 cap doesn’t get exceeded, other than the 40 cases a year?
Hon. D. Eby: I would not agree.
M. Lee: The reason for that…. It is only 40 instances. What part are we not agreeing on?
Hon. D. Eby: I think it is a great dishonour to our province, and to the fact that we can afford to do better for people who are catastrophically injured in car accidents, that this has been an amount that has been unchanged for 25 years. For many years, advocates for disability rights in our province have said that this is inadequate, that people are living in poverty after they have catastrophic accidents and that they are unable to access the services they require because benefits aren’t sufficient. I would say that that should be a concern to every single British Columbian.
M. Lee: Is there a linkage, then, in terms of increasing the level of benefits to imposing a minor injury cap?
Hon. D. Eby: There’s a linkage in the sense that ICBC’s finances — for many years and increasingly, dramatically, recently — have been compromised by an escalation in litigated claims, an escalation in the number of accidents, an escalation in the awards for minor injuries, in excess of 260 percent, and an escalation in the cost of automobile repairs.
This bill is part of a systematic reform of car insurance in British Columbia, to achieve two things. One is to ensure the delivery of affordable car insurance to British Columbians. The other is to ensure that when people are injured in accidents, they get good benefits and are cared for.
I agree with the member. Well, I’m not sure, actually, if I do. What I would hope to hear from the member — it’s certainly the intent here — is that there is a shift away from the administration of a very expensive B.C. Supreme Court system for minor injuries.
That shift, and the savings that come from that, is going into two sources. One is to get ICBC back on a firm financial footing. The other is to increase benefits that haven’t been increased for 25 years — not just for catastrophically injured people but also for people who have lost wages as a result of an accident, people who have to visit a physiotherapist and who are currently paying out of pocket to top up insufficient benefits. These benefits needed to be addressed as well.
The deficit at ICBC wasn’t just the financial deficit year over year. The deficit was also the fact that these benefits haven’t increased. British Columbians were paying for insurance benefits that they were not receiving to the level that they should have.
M. Lee: I do acknowledge that the level of benefits increase, from $150,000 to $300,000, is certainly helpful and important, and others have made that comment. What level of savings, then, from the imposition of a minor injury cap will go towards extending those benefits — recognizing, again, that only 40 instances occur in any given year where that increase is necessary?
Hon. D. Eby: The catastrophic injury benefit, the lifetime limit. The net benefit to these 40 people each year is about $6 million. You just take $150,000, which is the increase in the benefit, multiply it by about 40 claims a year, and you get that $6 million figure. The reality, though, is that that is one of many benefits that are being increased by this proposal. There are about 60,000 British Columbians who rely on these benefits to one extent or another and that will be seeing increased benefits as a result of this proposal.
M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Of the 60,000 other British Columbians that will receive benefits under this proposal…. They currently receive those benefits, though, because, presumably, that’s part of the $150,000 envelope. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Eby: They do receive them, somewhat, at 1993 levels and only for a restricted number of providers. We’re expanding the number of providers that are covered and also increasing the amounts for those providers so that people are not paying out of pocket for these benefits, which they are currently.
M. Lee: I think I appreciate that with the overall level, of course, increasing that is not affecting these 60,000 British Columbians. But as the Attorney General just indicated, the actual fee rates would affect…. What is the intended cost, then, of what the government is proposing, in this area of benefits, for those 60,000 individuals? Recognizing that that is a historical indicator, it’s just so this House can get a sense of what the actual costs of this benefit change will be.
Hon. D. Eby: It’s about $200 million a year. Just to be really clear about it — because the member keeps making statements that I don’t agree with — this is an increase. Currently people get 1993 levels: “Here’s your amount of money to go see a physiotherapist.” It’s based on what physiotherapists were charging in 1993. That was when movie tickets were $5, if that gives you some perspective about inflation since then. They’re given this 1993 stipend, and then they have to top it up with whatever the physiotherapist is actually charging.
The increase in benefits will top up what ICBC pays, up to market rates currently, and then it’s tagged to inflation. So it will increase year over year to ensure that it keeps up with inflation. In addition, currently ICBC has a closed list of practitioners that are funded through these benefits. We are expanding that list to add basic things like counselling, which would be available to people as a benefit after an accident. There’s an expansion of the number of service providers. There’s an expansion in the size of the benefit that people receive under part 7. So this group is going to see a significant improvement.
J. Yap: Just in terms of the significant improvement that the Attorney General commented on. That, then, is the level of benefits. Currently in our system, though, is it not also the case that those who are not at fault would still be able to recover all of that benefit cost?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. Part 7 sets out benefits. The benefits are increasing, and the group of providers is increasing.
J. Yap: Just to clarify, I heard the minister refer to a figure of $200 million. If he could confirm what that amount is regarding.
Hon. D. Eby: That is for the increase in part 7 benefits.
J. Yap: So using…. Just by simple math…. I believe 60,000 was the number of British Columbians who would benefit from this. That works out to, roughly, an average of about $3,000 per British Columbian, using that math. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s correct that that is how you calculate an average, but actually, this is disbursed in a very different way. There are people who are more seriously injured that will see far more significant benefit from this increase than others who have more minor injuries that don’t require as much treatment. They’ll see a smaller benefit because they’re paying the market rate for their physiotherapy, but they won’t see as large of a financial benefit as someone who is rendered quadriplegic.
J. Yap: I thank the minister for that.
Averages being what they are, I understand there’d be a range. For some of the 60,000 British Columbian drivers who are injured, who have fallen in this category, they may receive a much smaller amount and then others a larger amount. But the average is roughly, by my simple math, about $3,300. Would the minister confirm that?
Hon. D. Eby: These are incremental amounts. There is an amount that ICBC pays currently for benefits, and then this $200 million is incremental and additional to that level — just for clarification. I would encourage the member to canvass this thoroughly in estimates. There’ll be very detailed information available with ICBC financial staff present.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
J. Yap: What is the purpose of this section?
Hon. D. Eby: We canvassed yesterday the elimination of the basic premium and additional premium classes. This is housekeeping consistent with that.
J. Yap: Why the deletions of references to classes of vehicles, subclasses of vehicles and drivers?
Hon. D. Eby: These are consequential to the changes we made in section 34. Everything is laid out in that section now, so it’s not necessary here.
J. Yap: Can the minister detail the changes made to this section with regards to how the commission can operate under the act, with regards to premiums?
Hon. D. Eby: There’s no substantive change.
J. Yap: Just to be very clear, to confirm the powers that the B.C. Utilities Commission has today. Once this legislation passes, it will remain unchanged in spite of this section?
Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct.
Section 19 approved.
On section 20.
J. Yap: Can the minister confirm that changes under paragraph (n.1) are to enable the ability of the tribunal to handle disputes from the Insurance (Vehicle) Act side of things?
Hon. D. Eby: The existing section says “may,” and the drafter noticed that the regulation said “may or must.” So this is just housekeeping to ensure that the law and the regulations are in sync.
Hon. Chair, I notice that we were joined by a school group. Just so they understand what’s happening, we’re here with staff from the Ministry of Attorney General and from ICBC who are helping me answer questions from the opposition about a bill that’s in front of the House dealing with car insurance. They’re going to ask me questions about the bill, and I’m going to do my best to answer so that all of the members of the House understand the bill before they have to vote on it at the end of this process.
Sections 20 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
J. Yap: Can the minister tell the House if patients will be subjected to caps on medical care related to pain and suffering?
Hon. D. Eby: This section talks about health care fees, and it ensures that health care fees that are sued for are limited to the market rates as set out in section 45.1.
J. Yap: How will the agreed-upon reasonable rate be determined? Who will the minister be consulting with?
Hon. D. Eby: Government, ICBC and the medical associations are currently in negotiations on exactly that issue. It’s the same way, for example, that Doctors of B.C. reach agreements with the government of British Columbia around fee-for-service under our public health care system. Those negotiations are taking place right now.
J. Yap: It’s good to hear those discussions are taking place. So the goal, I understand, is to ensure full coverage with no caps. We need to ensure British Columbians do have certainty that they will not be dinged with an amount that they cannot recover because they were the victim of a reckless driver. Can the minister commit to that?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that this is a…. I may have inadvertently used the word “negotiation.” This is a consultation. There’s an important distinction there because ICBC cannot negotiate with physicians due to a legal restriction, but they are consulting with physicians. I want to clarify that.
The member and British Columbians can have confidence that there will be market rates set, that there will be practitioners providing those services at market rates in the communities. That’s how the rates will be set to ensure that British Columbians have access to health care services if they’re injured in an accident.
J. Yap: Has the minister reached out to groups — he’s named a few of them — and can he tell us the nature of those conversations? And if he’s not able to, can the minister indicate the time frame for conclusion of those consultations?
Hon. D. Eby: For any group that has a prescribed rate, the organizations that represent those groups are being consulted and will be consulted. ICBC hopes that these consultations will conclude within the next couple of months. Certainly these rates need to be set by April 1, 2019, when these changes come into effect.
J. Yap: When can we expect an announcement with further details on this?
Hon. D. Eby: We’re targeting early fall to have the regulations in place. It’s difficult to say, just based on the consultations and the discussions, exactly when the member can expect an announcement. But just in terms of timelines, we’re targeting early fall for regulations in place, and then these systems all have to be in place for April 1, 2019.
J. Yap: I appreciate the minister’s answer.
We canvassed this issue somewhat yesterday. Again, I ask to the minister, would he consider moving this power outside of his purview, from the political realm to a less political or partisan process?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s ICBC that’s engaging in the negotiations with these different groups. The negotiations will result in a determination of market fees by ICBC for the area. The government will look at that, and the final amounts will be passed by regulation, by cabinet. That is the process that is pictured here.
J. Yap: Why not put a number in the legislation? Why give sweeping powers to arbitrarily determine what the costs will be with regards to health care?
Hon. D. Eby: The member will recall our conversation from yesterday. These numbers are going to change over time. In fact, we’ve put safeguards in the bill to ensure that they change. They are linked to CPI, to account for inflation, and then a review every five years. Our intent is that government is held accountable to ensure these numbers are reflective of actual market rates, where people can actually access service at those levels.
J. Yap: Will the minister be consulting with practitioners, and can he outline who and with which groups he’s consulting with?
Hon. D. Eby: I can underline for the member that any care provider with the prescribed rate will be consulted. To provide some specifics, the Doctors of B.C., the physios, the chiropractors and the massage therapists have already been engaged in these consultation processes.
J. Yap: I understand the aim of this is to help people and to cut down on lawsuits to ICBC. But in the event someone is on the lower cap and then are brought outside of the definition of “minor injuries” after treatment, how will costs be addressed by ICBC for British Columbians?
Hon. D. Eby: The minor injury cap has nothing to do with health care costs. It’s only with respect to what are called pain and suffering awards. So there’s no relationship between the minor injury definition and the health care benefits.
J. Yap: So to appreciate the minister’s answer, to be clear — and I think he said it previously in answer to a previous question: there are no caps on the health care costs.
Hon. D. Eby: In terms of the minor injury definition and injuries that fall inside or outside of that definition, there is no implication for the health care benefits that you would be entitled to receive as a result of the injury, whether you fall inside or outside of that definition.
M. Lee: I just wanted to ask: in terms of the proposed new subsection 82.2(2)(b), when we talk about the value of the particular health care loss, how is that value determined?
Hon. D. Eby: If there’s no prescribed fee, then it’s whatever it costs the individual.
A. Weaver: Just for the record, I’m wondering if the minister might provide some context as to why this section, to limit health care costs, is being included so that an independent person looking at this clarification here would be able to get a sense of what the minister is thinking of in terms of the purpose for introducing the definition of “health care loss” so that that can be limited.
Hon. D. Eby: What it does is it assures British Columbians that they’ll be able to get the health care costs covered, as they need them, going forward. And it restricts expenses associated with time, administration and expert opinions on future cost of care awards, where the judge gets out the crystal ball and tries to determine how much health care is going to cost in the future and tries to figure out how much a person’s going to need and how much it’s going to cost and provides an award based on that projection.
This provides some level of certainty to the individual and to the court about the fact that future cost of care will be covered and that the rates will be reviewed. And there are the safeguards with inflation, which we talked about previously, on a go-forward basis.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
J. Yap: Can the minister tell us what the purpose of this section is?
Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of individuals that may have some sort of insurance coverage — disability coverage, some other type of benefit — if they’re injured that covers them. The current system has it that those coverages that they may have are reimbursed by ICBC in the event of a car accident. ICBC pays anything that they may be paying out to cover someone’s disability caused by a car accident.
This says that that recovery by the disability or other benefit provider cannot be recovered from basic insurance — that basic insurance won’t be paying insurance companies back anymore.
I just want to clarify, because it is a bit of a technical section, that I didn’t misspeak on any of that. Yes, that is the intent of this section, and that is how we hope it will work.
J. Yap: Perhaps this is a technical issue, but what is referred to in this section as “…things or services provided or to be provided in kind, directly or indirectly….” Could the minister explain what’s meant by that description?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s meant to capture if an insurance provider, for example, pays directly to a service provider to provide a service — or provides a thing, like maybe a wheelchair or crutches or something else. That is meant to be captured in this section as well. It wouldn’t be for ICBC to pay back that insurer for those expenses, whether they were a physical thing or whether it was a service provided that was paid for by the insurer or whether it was money paid by the insurer to the individual.
M. Lee: Just on section 26(d), this proposed bill suggests that if a claim goes to trial and the court awards an amount for future costs of care, any potential benefits must be deducted without regard to the likelihood that ICBC will actually pay those benefits.
To the Attorney General, is it not likely to result in a full deduction from the tort award? Is this not likely to result in a full deduction from the tort award, yet leave the claimant at the complete mercy of ICBC?
Hon. D. Eby: This section doesn’t eliminate the rights of any individual against ICBC or against their own insurer, and the bill that we passed previously ensures that ICBC can be held accountable through the civil resolution tribunal. If someone has a dispute with another insurer, then they have actions that lie against that insurer, as they do today. This bill doesn’t change that.
M. Lee: I appreciate what the Attorney General just said and responded to. But if there is a situation where ICBC does cut a claimant off from ongoing treatment, what recourse would the claimant have?
Hon. D. Eby: The bill that we previously passed, in relation to the civil resolution tribunal, establishes the jurisdiction of the civil resolution tribunal in situations with claims under $50,000 in relation to disputes over accident benefits or the definition of “minor injury.” So the recourse lies through the civil resolution tribunal.
M. Lee: If I’m reading this section correctly, though, it may be a situation where ICBC is effectively being set up to handle these claimants’ future care needs indefinitely. Does the minister have any estimates on how many adjustors would be required to administer these benefits?
Hon. D. Eby: We expect there’ll be a fairly dramatic shift in what people are doing at ICBC but maybe not in the number of people doing it.
If I can illustrate a little bit, there are a lot of people that are currently working on litigation in relation to B.C. Supreme Court actions. There will be a shift away from that because many B.C. Supreme Court actions will now be going to the civil resolution tribunal or will be otherwise resolved. Because ICBC’s benefit regime is so much better, the shift will be increasingly to people dealing with administering benefits and claims outside of the litigation system.
In terms of specific financial implications, I’d encourage the member to attend estimates. We’ll have ICBC’s financial people there. They can discuss projections around how they expect this to play out. It’s part of the costing around the system changes. The folks who are here today are the legal…. We have the chief legal officer for ICBC to answer members’ questions about this bill and the effects. Then, during estimates, I’ll welcome questions from members about detailed financial projections related to ICBC’s internal operations.
M. Lee: Under the current system, many people are currently offered treatment that is helpful to them but not within the scope of the medical benefits provided by ICBC.
Under this proposed bill, would ICBC retain the right to decide what treatments are to be compensated and what are not?
Hon. D. Eby: Two responses. One is that ICBC — and the government, through this initiative — will be increasing the number of service providers. There are a number of people that fairly say: “Look, I would have really benefited from having access to a counsellor, but that wasn’t a covered benefit” — or a massage therapist or a kinesiologist or an acupuncturist. All of those will now be covered, under these changes, for accident benefits.
If you have a tort claim against an at-fault driver, you can still claim benefits for the cost of service provision for other care providers. This bill doesn’t change that. You can still make that claim for areas that are not covered, if there is an at-fault driver that you are suing in tort.
M. Lee: I understand the comment around increasing the number of types of service providers and the rights under a tort claim. But the question I was asking was whether ICBC has the right to determine what treatment is to be compensated and what is not.
Hon. D. Eby: This bill doesn’t change the authority, but it’s actually set by regulation, by government.
M. Lee: If I’m hearing that correctly, then, ICBC does have the authority, and that will be spelled out by regulation. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Eby: No, the member didn’t hear it correctly. A list of approved service providers is set out by regulation by government, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
M. Lee: There is no ability, then, for ICBC to override that list?
Hon. D. Eby: ICBC could potentially pay things that aren’t in the list, but they can’t refuse to pay something that is on the list.
M. Lee: If a person opts for treatment that is not covered on the list, will these individuals still be able to recover these costs as part of their settlement against an at-fault driver?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s not payable as a benefit. It’s still recoverable against an at-fault driver.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
J. Yap: I appreciate that the minister is trying to cut down on costs being billed back to ICBC, but with respect to ICBC not paying out third-party providers, has the minister considered that this could result in the rise of third-party health coverage premiums?
Hon. D. Eby: We don’t believe that ICBC should be reimbursing other insurance companies for benefits contracts that they’ve entered into with other individuals. It’s up to those companies to determine what the insurance contracts are that they enter into with various individuals — what their costs are. ICBC has no knowledge of those things.
What I can say is that we don’t believe that basic insurance from British Columbians should be compensating major insurance companies for private contracts they’ve entered into with individuals.
Section 27 approved.
On section 28.
J. Yap: Can the minister provide an example or two of how he envisions making regulations with regards to the priorities of claims? While I appreciate there’s nothing nefarious, understanding the intent here, I think, should be the key for customers, right? Can the minister give us an example as to how he sees this being used?
Hon. D. Eby: This is about where there are multiple insurance policies governing a certain accident. For example, the driver may have insurance. The vehicle itself may have insurance in the situation of a rental car. It might be a family member’s vehicle, and it might be their insurance. So this is about which insurance policy pays first, second, third, and so on. After the first policy is exhausted, then the limits of the first policy kick in and the second, and so on.
That’s the intent of this section: to be able to say, so that people know and so insurance companies can price it accordingly so that ICBC can project accordingly with their actuarial data and so the insured can know which coverage would pay out first and second, and so on.
J. Yap: How does the minister see the process for prescribing the amount that will be set? Will that be provided by third parties, or is that wholly decided by the minister in regulations?
Hon. D. Eby: Section 94 incorporates existing measures within the existing act for subsection (1)(a)(b) and (c). These are all existing powers of regulation which are used by government in consultation with ICBC. Subsection (d) is new, and it relates to the benefits that we’ve been talking about.
The member will note that in the old act there’s a longer list, and the remaining powers have been transferred over to section 105, which relates more broadly to the act as a whole, as opposed to just this part.
J. Yap: Does the minister not see how it would concern a third party that there is such a sweeping power to determine what a payout should be for indemnity and such?
Hon. D. Eby: I just wonder if the member could point us to, specifically, the section that he’s concerned about, and then I’ll do my best to advise.
J. Yap: Does the minister not see how it could be concerning that determining circumstance and classes for costs falls to him and could be changed at any time?
Hon. D. Eby: I think I have the member’s question. I’m just not sure which section or subsection he’s referring to, which power of regulation-making.
J. Yap: This power to make regulations in regards to health care costs.
Hon. D. Eby: If it puts the member’s mind at ease, I can tell him that as far as section 94, we can’t see how this section relates to any power in relation to health care costs.
Section 28 approved.
On section 29.
J. Yap: Can the minister tell us why he chose to go this route rather than placing more punishment on the person who is at fault in the accident?
Hon. D. Eby: I agree with the spirit of the member’s question. We have a very serious issue in our province of a rising numbers of accidents. We have people who are driving while distracted, using their cell phones. We have the federal government legalizing recreational cannabis and implications around driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol. In the context of a public insurer, these are all matters of concern.
It would be incorrect for anyone to suggest that the government is going easy on people who are driving in a manner that increases risk for a cost to ICBC and the health and safety of other British Columbians. We’ve increased fines for those who are distracted driving by $2,000 for the second occurrence. We have new technology for police to be able to detect and ticket people who are distracted driving.
We have a pilot in place around technology that may be able to provide assurance that a person is not using their cell phone while they’re driving and the possibility to link that either to a repeat offender, a new driver or someone who takes it on voluntarily in their car.
In addition, we are engaged in a rate-design process where we consulted with thousands of British Columbians who provided feedback on ensuring that people who are high-risk drivers pay more, and good drivers get a better discount. We are not going easy on people who are high-risk drivers, driving up costs for everybody.
What this section does is it provides a defining line for injuries that are more minor — although I acknowledge, certainly, that for many people, these will be serious injuries in their lives — to put a process in place that is proportional; to not send it to B.C. Supreme Court with multiple experts and massive costs and years of delays; to send it to the civil resolution tribunal, which is independent of both ICBC and the government, to resolve any disputes that people might have.
It’s also to put a limit on pain and suffering awards, which is not health care benefits, not out-of-pocket expenses, but an award given by the court to recognize that the person has been injured, to cap that at $5,500 and to recognize that the amount of these awards has been increasing exponentially over the last ten years, at over 260 percent, in dealing with these minor injury claims. It’s not sustainable.
We had two options. One was to increase premiums paid by British Columbians for car insurance. The other was to fix the system. So we are fixing the system, ensuring that minor injuries go to a more proportional dispute resolution process that is faster, more efficient and more cost-effective but still independent and able to resolve disputes and that recognizes that while we definitely, through pain and suffering awards, want to recognize that people have been injured, the balance should go to care to help them to get better and to covering their out out-of-pocket expenses.
That is why we put a limit on that pain and suffering award of $5,500, to still recognize that someone has been injured and they are hurt and they are suffering, but to place the emphasis back on helping them to get better and also helping them recover their out-of-pocket expenses related to an accident.
J. Yap: The minister, in his response, referred to increasing premiums. I know the minister has stated bad drivers should pay more, and we canvassed this, somewhat, yesterday. But without anything more than a vague statement to this effect that bad drivers should pay more, how can drivers, generally, who are injured, have any faith that the government will not punish them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Hon. D. Eby: We’ve had far more than vague statements. I don’t agree with the member on that.
We did a consultation with thousands of British Columbians. We’ve passed sections now in this bill that enable ICBC to do a full rate redesign to ensure that bad drivers pay more, giving them the legislative tools to ensure that they can provide good drivers with better discounts and charge more for bad drivers. We have new enforcement initiatives. I think British Columbians can be assured that we are taking this very seriously.
J. Yap: I share the concerns of many that it appears that the minister and the government are reviving parts of the previous NDP government’s, in the 1990s, commitment to bring in no-fault insurance and have done nothing to actually deal with the problem, which is the increased crashes due to, as we know, distracted driving. What is the minister actually doing with regard to this file?
Hon. D. Eby: My colleagues the Solicitor General and the Minister of Transportation have been very busy on a number of initiatives improving road safety, including expanding the use of red-light cameras to 24 hours and adding a speed function in as well. There’s going to be a big sign at the intersection saying: “If you speed through this intersection, you will get a ticket. If you go through a red light, you will get a ticket. Don’t do it.” We want the revenue from those cameras to be zero, because we don’t want people to go through red lights or to speed through red lights.
If you use your cell phone when you’re driving, the second time you’re caught, it’s going to cost you $2,000. Put down your cell phone. Police have new technologies that allow them to detect, with more accuracy and with greater ease than ever before, the fact that you’re using your cell phone. So, please, don’t do it.
The Minister of Transportation is identifying dangerous roads and intersections and identifying remedial work to make roads safer through physical changes to the roads and intersections where the majority of accidents are happening. We’re also engaging in conversations with municipalities around potential increased revenue from red-light cameras and hoping that they will direct that to improving roads and intersections in their own communities to make them safer. There are a number of major initiatives underway to make our roads safer.
I would encourage the members on the other side not to fearmonger about these red-light cameras, calling them photo radar, and to recognize that this is going to actually save lives. There are many families that have been devastated by people who’ve sped through red lights, colliding with people who are going through a green light, driving along and minding their own business, and the consequences have been quite devastating. So I would encourage the member to support these road safety initiatives rather than attempting to use them as a wedge issue.
I would also note for the member that this is not no-fault insurance, although he has suggested it is. One of the reasons why we’re doing this minor injury definition is to ensure that for the most serious injuries, people still have access to the full tort system. That’s the only reason why we do this.
When I arrived in the office, I had a report on my desk prepared by the previous government that recommended a full no-fault system as the greatest cost saver for the government of British Columbia. We deliberately decided not to do that, because for serious and catastrophic claims, the tort system is a proportionate response and can be quite useful in resolving it.
For minor injuries, it doesn’t make sense to have multiple experts, paid for by car insurance, to have years of resolution, when we could instead be using that money to help people to get better, to get them the equipment they need to recover from their injuries, to cover their out-of-pocket wage loss expenses and to keep insurance affordable for British Columbians. That’s the strategy behind this. That’s why we’re having this discussion about what a minor injury is. It’s not to devalue anyone’s suffering. It’s to recognize that we need proportional responses to people’s injuries.
I hope that clarifies the member’s misunderstandings.
J. Yap: The minister, from all outward appearances, is moving towards no-fault light — it’s not no-fault; it’s no-fault light — and making vague statements about punishing bad drivers. Instead, with this change, you will punish the victims. How can you say you have solved the problem when you’ve done nothing to address the roots?
Hon. D. Eby: I’ll do my best not to really get too far outside of the bill here. ICBC is in financial crisis. They are losing a huge amount of money. This escalated under the previous government’s watch, in which longtime friends of the B.C. NDP, the Fraser Institute, said that the government knew they had to do something. They knew they had to act. They had to make decisions, and the decision they made was to do nothing.
When we took over government and were facing billion-dollar deficits at ICBC that carve money out of public services that are badly needed across the province, we had to act. I did not sign up for politics to work on car insurance, but I recognize that it is critically important that we get ICBC under control to do two things.
One is to deliver affordable insurance to British Columbians. The second is to deliver appropriate benefits to British Columbians. And actually there’s a third thing, which is to ensure that money intended for public services isn’t going to subsidize a car insurer, because ICBC was set up to provide affordable insurance and good benefits to British Columbians. That is the intent of this legislation.
The member can call it whatever names he likes, but there’s still a full tort system for serious injuries. There was a report on my desk prepared by the previous government, that I released to the public, that said very clearly that the direction to go for this was full no-fault insurance. That is not the bill that is in front of the House. I regret very much that the member is suggesting that, because we’re going to a lot of effort to preserve the full tort system for serious and catastrophic injuries.
J. Yap: Other than the red-light cameras, photo radar 2.0, can the minister tell us what is planned to address distracted driving?
Hon. D. Eby: It is absolutely unacceptable to describe red-light cameras with a great big sign that says, “If you speed through this intersection, if you drive through a red light, you will get a ticket,” in order to save lives as photo radar 2.0 because the intent of the member is to discourage government from pursuing this initiative that will literally save lives.
At every red-light camera intersection, 84 collisions a year — at every single one of those intersections. If we prevent even just ten of those really serious collisions at each of those intersections…. The devastation and the cost to the health care system is really significant. I don’t understand why the members opposite would think that this would be a good thing to try to stop happening in British Columbia.
We are definitely taking steps to make intersections safer for British Columbians. There will be great big signs. If someone wants to speed through, they can certainly do it. They’re putting their own lives at risk, other people’s lives at risk, and they will face a ticket because of it. I hope they don’t. I really hope that it works. I hope that we get out there as soon as we can despite the opposition of the opposition to this initiative.
The Chair: Attorney General, note the hour, please.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair. This will be better if I get some lunch into me. I’m sure of it.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On Vote 30: ministry operations, $19,606,664,000 (continued).
Hon. A. Dix: I just wanted to share in response to some of the questions the opposition critic, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, asked yesterday, and I’ll share the documentation with her as well. This is the full data for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
The total number of clients in long-term residential care in that year was 36,326. That’s obviously more than the number of beds, because clients move through, or they either pass away or other circumstances. But that’s the total number of clients.
The number of clients less than 65 years old is 2,171, or 6 percent. The number of clients less than 50 years old was 414, or 1.1 percent.
If you look at other categories…. The number of clients in long-term residential care with a developmental disability was 222. Of those, the number of clients less than 65 years old was 89. The number of clients less than 50 years old was 23.
Finally, the number of clients in long-term residential care with an acquired brain injury was 5,322. The number of those clients less than 65 years old was 845. The number of clients less than 50 years old was 208. And finally, the clients with an acquired brain injury in acquired brain injury specialized family care home facilities was 303.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his first answer to yesterday’s questions. Did he have a chance, or did staff have a chance, to look at the question regarding people with MS, for example, who are in residential care with seniors, and what the cost difference is?
There are some that believe it’s less expensive. Some research was presented to the minister last night that it’s less expensive to keep them at home and provide them the services they needed at home, rather than putting them into residential care with seniors and the complexity that comes from that. If we can get an answer to that question, please.
Hon. A. Dix: Just to talk a little bit about the circumstances in which high-needs clients arrive in residential care…. Usually it follows the exhaustion of other options, from the CSIL program to home support, etc.
The reasons why people get transferred into residential care are…. They can no longer direct their own care and don’t have a representative to do it for them or when unscheduled care needs can’t be met with a home support worker and/or the need for 24-hour on-site professional care. Really, it’s when all community options are exhausted that we move to the residential care model. That’s understandable, given that most people, as we’ve discussed, want to be in the community.
Just a couple of facts, though, that kind of lay out the circumstances of the situation. The average cost of someone in residential care, per day, is approximately $238, and the average cost in terms of home care, per hour, is about $48. So that gives you a sense that it’s a more complicated question in terms of the costs, as this is sort of the direct analysis of the system.
I think our approach should be to absolutely exhaust other options and increase other options in communities in order to ensure that people can live where they generally want to live, which is in the community.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Those are the costs, and I appreciate them being conveyed through us to the people out there that are listening.
My last question on this file, before we go back to seniors care, probably till a couple hours before we close for the day…. Then at that point, I would like to talk about a national PharmaCare program and understand British Columbia’s position or numbers on that. What steps is the government taking to support disabled British Columbians to live with dignity in an age-appropriate environment?
Hon. A. Dix: The member, of course, will be aware of the options that are available, which include things such as the CSIL program and things such as home support programs that are generally directed by health authorities but sometimes by other agencies, depending on the circumstances.
I think it’s fair to say I would agree with him and a lot of people with disabilities that we could do a better job here, especially as he discusses in age-appropriate circumstances. So you’re talking about, as we talked about earlier, a relative minority of people in long-term care. It’s 1.1 percent of people in long-term care facilities who are under the age of 50. Obviously, if you’re in those circumstances, you might want, in terms of living your life, to live with more of your contemporaries.
Part of it is listening to people, and that’s what we’re trying to do in the system. I think there are some options that can help us in that regard — different care options. Some of the ones that we’re looking at are forms of group home or congregate housing, which are useful options. Finding out ways to co-locate people and share costs of care are examples.
Some new hybrid models that can be developed to bridge some gaps, including the creation…. This would largely be, unfortunately, larger urban care centres where you could bring people together in particular care services and build care homes and build a kind of hybrid model where there would be better social circumstances. These are the kinds of things that we’re looking at, in particular with the funding we’ve assigned to seniors care.
I think that we have to also look more broadly at community resources, not just for people with disabilities but also for seniors, to create and to ensure that we’re providing adequate resources in the community so that people can live — not just live but enjoy the life of the community in a full way and play their full role as citizens in the country.
We have to work with people, though. We have to listen to them. It’s not just my view that we need to, from on high, decide what the right approach should be. We need to, in addition to that, it seems to me, listen to people and listen to what they want. I think members of the Legislature are doing that. I know I do in my own community.
In the apartment building I live in, there are a significant number of people who are living there and being supported where I live, in our apartment. They just happen to have found accommodation there, and different systems, be they health systems or other systems, are accommodating them there. They live very successful lives, and they’re great neighbours and friends.
I think we have to be imaginative about this. We have, obviously, options there. Those options, for budget reasons, can be expanded. To address the specific problem the member raises, which I think is absolutely on point to what people are telling me and telling him, we have to find more options as well, and those options we’re exploring.
J. Isaacs: Good morning, everyone. We’re just going to pick up where we left yesterday, also, on the spending for seniors care. I’m just wondering what the current cost of a publicly funded care bed is across B.C. — whether it’s the same cost across health authorities and across the province. In other words, someone in Salmon Arm would pay the same price for a publicly funded bed as one, say, in Coquitlam.
Advise if there’s any kind of a change that has occurred in the last year with some of the funding lifts — maybe you could speak to that as well.
Hon. A. Dix: For people in residential care themselves, the cost is uniform, in the sense that everyone is paying 80 percent of after-tax income to the residential portion of residential care. Whether you’re in Salmon Arm or in Coquitlam or in Victoria, that’s the same.
There is a maximum, which means that the maximum client rate is $3,278.80 per month. At that point, you hit the maximum. That’s the maximum you would pay on the 80 percent thing.
There is also a possibility — this is required in certain circumstances — to provide some waiver of fees under specific circumstances. But the general rule, in terms of costs to the client, is the same everywhere.
J. Isaacs: Thank you to the minister.
The last time we were speaking in estimates, we went over some of the wait times. It was interesting how it fluctuated from year to year. In 2014-15, it was 17 days. But in 2015-2016, it went up slightly to 23 days. I understand that the current wait time is 45 days.
I’m wondering if the minister could confirm if that is about right and whether or not he could provide a breakdown per health authority of what the average wait time is for 2017.
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just take the member through, a little bit, some of the numbers, if that’s okay. The average wait time across British Columbia for 2016-17 was 45 days. In ’15-16, it was 46 days. In ’14-15, it was 40. Then in ’13-14, it was 36. So in that period from ’13 to ’17, the average wait time increased somewhat. The median length of wait time — which is a different statistic but important, I think, for people — was 17 days in ’16-17.
I’ll share all this detailed information with the member, but I’ll put some of this on the record. The shortest average wait time was in Vancouver Coastal Health, where it was 17 days, and the median length of wait time was six days. In Fraser Health, the average length of wait time was 42 days, and the median 18. In Interior Health, the average length — this is for 2016-17, the year that ended March 31, 2017 — was 56 days, and the median was 27. In VIHA, the average length of wait time was 62 days, and the median 38 at that time. In Northern Health, it was the longest. The average length of time was 73 days, and the median wait time was 45.
This is the wait time from the day of approval to go into residential care to the day, I think, you go into residential care. It’s always important to define what we’re talking about, because some people might say: “Well, we felt like we were waiting longer than that.” That’s the specific information that the health authority keeps and has kept consistently. The useful part of continuing to use it at that thing is you have a baseline to compare to.
J. Isaacs: Does the minister know what the vacancy or occupancy rate is for both government-owned as well as privately owned and operated care homes but publicly funded care homes?
Hon. A. Dix: For the publicly funded beds, I think…. We’re discussing that there might be a statistic around 98 percent. That is of occupancy, right? But really, it’s 100 percent. If you look at those wait times for long-term care beds, there is a constant demand, and they’re constantly in use. So the publicly funded ones — whether they’re in non-profit, in private or in public health authority–owned and –operated — are all, essentially, used all the time.
The only time that there’s a vacancy, really, is in a transition period. Someone, sadly, passes away, and so on and so forth, where there might be…. Obviously, throughout the system, there’s a small amount of that. These beds are used, and they’re used constantly. There are obviously people, if you look at those wait times, waiting for the beds as well.
J. Isaacs: I understand that there were about 20 available beds in Abbotsford and 20 empty beds in Menno Place, which were in a non-profit care home. I’m just wondering if there is availability in the private sector, in the privately owned and operated homes, that could be used immediately to help increase capacity, and be publicly funded, and maybe take some of the pressure off the publicly funded beds and the wait times.
Would the minister be open to utilizing those private beds and increasing the capacity?
Hon. A. Dix: Last September, for example, we did that in some long-term care beds in Langley and in Chilliwack. As well, the health authorities will, over the course of a year, contract for short-term beds. What happens, I think, often…. If you look at private residential care homes, usually they’re funded based on the receipt of public contracts. That’s how the private care home is funded, is financed. Generally, they have a couple of beds.
I know of a case personally at Dufferin, for example, where there are one or two private beds in a care home which are usually left open and charged, obviously, a different rate by the provider. So there’s some capacity there.
I mean, we go through, both the previous government and ourselves, request-for-proposal processes to add residential care beds. So people are able to bid into those processes. That’s the general way that we’ve gone about things. For example, there’s one in the Comox-Courtenay area right now before us, and there are others.
There is some capacity to do that. Since I’ve been minister, we’ve done that. It’s one set of options to consider in building residential care. That’s not to say that people should be building care homes on spec and then saying….
That’s generally not what happens. What generally happens is that private providers win a request for proposal and build the care home. They have almost entirely publicly funded beds. Usually it’s the case that they have one, two, three, four, five private beds as well, in that care home, which they use to meet a private market they might have.
In general, we’re open to those issues, of course. Partly, the challenge is to make sure that we are building out in the areas of demand. People will know that I’ve been to Comox recently. The growth of Comox and Courtenay and those communities…. I say, without judgment or comment, a lot of people have come from Alberta. They spend their lives paying taxes and come to beautiful British Columbia to retire. We love to have them, but, obviously, those create interesting things.
That’s the great thing about Canada, which is that we have a public health care system from coast to coast to coast. Regardless of where you come from or what your circumstances are, we do our best to meet demand and meet need, but that issue is a broader issue for British Columbia.
The previous government dealt with it as well, which is that the most recent change in the Canada Health Act didn’t recognize the demographic fact of Canada, which is that people leave other provinces and come to British Columbia. That wasn’t recognized in the formula that was imposed on British Columbia by the government at that time, which my predecessor Terry Lake objected to vigorously, I think. It is a fact and a challenge in terms of seniors care into the future that we’ll be raising consistently with people in federal jurisdiction.
J. Isaacs: Thank you for those comments. It certainly makes more sense to use beds that are already in existing structures, rather than going through the capital costs and permitting and the delays to create a new building when one is sitting there.
The issue for people and families that are looking for publicly funded beds is where they’re located. While there might be 20 available beds in Abbotsford, if someone lives in Vancouver, it’s not first on the list, and that becomes the challenge for people.
The B.C. Care Providers Association did create an inventory mechanism through MyCareFinder, where anyone, including the health authorities, can go on the site and find a location of an available bed. I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of that and if he feels that that would be a good idea, where the public can actually go to see where beds could be available.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m aware of it. What I said before indicates the challenge, which is that there is a wait-list for publicly funded beds — at any given time, maybe a 1 percent vacancy rate. That led the previous government…. We’re working on that, and they were working on it as well, to deal with the first-available-bed policy, which is a very challenging policy for people, in fact, because the success of people in their lives in residential care frequently depends on the participation of their family.
It’s not just a question of the beds available in Abbotsford and here in Vancouver. It’s also where your support system is, and that’s critically important to people. If a family member, a spouse — whoever — doesn’t drive and so on, that distance can become prohibitive and problematic to the overall success of moving into long-term care.
All of that is true, but it’s basically 1 percent in the public system. The challenge of keeping that up to date in that context would be difficult. I think what the care providers do, as well, is they provide access to information about private beds, and that’s obviously useful for people who have the means to find beds in that system, whether it be assisted living or long-term care. The care providers who we work with all the time do some excellent work in that regard.
The challenge here is a relatively low vacancy rate and high turnover. If a bed becomes available, often there’s already someone in place for it. So having a system where people can see that, through the system, would be both time-consuming and may not be very useful. Where it is useful, I think, is in terms of private beds. You see that with privately funded, privately paid beds — where knowing the availability of beds is maybe quite useful to people seeking long-term care.
N. Letnick: I just want to probe a little closer on an answer that the minister gave before the last one, which is with people from across the country, including Alberta, coming here with no recognition by the federal government for the higher cost that we incur as British Columbians to fund the health care needs that they have in their senior years.
I think everyone understands — at least everyone in this room probably understands — that the biggest chunk of health care consumed is when you’re born, and then the graph clearly drops down to next to nothing, and goes on till about 65, and then boots up from there. I’m only 60, so, I hope, five more years to go, and I’ll start incurring some of those expenses. My colleagues are saying for me to be careful. I wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle.
I don’t really want to throw this into a bad light, because I believe health care transcends politics. I know some people out in the community are joking about a speculation tax with a differential rate for other Canadians being put in — to actually get some of those funds from other people from other parts of the country when they move here with their higher cost for health care.
My question is: what can we do? The minister has clearly said that the previous minister and government — it was not only Terry Lake but all the government — were quite upset. And I imagine the opposition was quite upset when the federal government decided to actually go forward with a per-capita basis for the transfer payments.
What can we do together to change that so that there is some recognition in British Columbia, and maybe in other provinces as well, that the cost of providing services to other Canadians is different? They pay in other provinces throughout their life, their income taxes, but then they come into British Columbia and, on average, incur higher costs.
I want to make it clear. I agree with the minister. We are one country, and we should welcome all Canadians to move anywhere freely. It’s something that we believe fundamentally. Actually, it’s in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — that they should have no barriers to access, to move into other provinces.
The federal government, I think, needs to understand that, with that freedom of movement that’s provided to all Canadians.... They need to step up and recognize that it costs more money in certain provinces to deal with the health care needs of seniors. And as we continue to attract more and more seniors, because we do live in wonderful British Columbia…. I, for one, am one of those people that moved here through my lifetime, and I’m not going anywhere. I love this place.
What can we do together to really encourage the federal government to change the formula so that we can get the amount of money that’s really necessary from the feds to take care of those extra costs?
I know the minister might say there are other provinces that probably will squeal loudly, because, you know, there are winners and losers. But that’s fine. Let them squeal.
The question is: what can we do, even with them, to have a cost structure, through the program the federal government has with us, that more accurately reflects what the previous government wanted and what I’m sure the current government wants as well?
Hon. A. Dix: I think the member is right. First of all, as I said, we are all Canadians, and this is an important principle. When seniors come here, I think we have to acknowledge, as well…. It’s part of the thing that the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and I, I think, spoke about in estimates last time. There is a tendency to address issues involving people as if they are problems, and of course, seniors coming here contribute to the economy. Many seniors in Kelowna, obviously, who had moved to Kelowna would contribute to the economy. They are maybe living on pension income, but they are contributing enormously, as they do in Coquitlam and in Comox and everywhere else.
This is a wonderful thing, but it presents a challenge. The federal government unilaterally changed the rules, and that benefited other jurisdictions. I could say what names they rhyme with, but I’m sure the member can guess which ones they are. I think we just have to continue to make the case collectively, as British Columbians, to the federal government that there has to be a recognition of demographic change. And the fact that British Columbia, unlike other jurisdictions….
People sometimes talk about a seniors glacier, because it goes slowly but consistently, as opposed to terms like “tsunami,” which aren’t really accurate. This is going to be an issue not just in 2018 but in 2028 and in 2038 for Health Ministers, and we need the federal government to recognize that, so we consistently make that case.
The final thing I would say, though, is we’re in an agreement now. They’ve changed the formula now. So while we consistently make that case, we also have to work with the federal government every day and work with the other provinces on issues such as the one we’ll talk about later today with respect to PharmaCare. We need to consistently make that point all the time, but we also need to work with them on other things. So we have to work with what we have, and right now what we have is a federal transfer that I think underfunds British Columbia, from the federal government, and needs to be dealt with.
As you know — and I just say this; we may be discussing this later as well — British Columbia was recently fined $15.9 million by the federal government in the previous fiscal year, at the end of the fiscal year in March, with respect to the Canada Health Act and private clinics. That obviously has an effect as well. People say: “Well, the budget is really big. What’s $15.9 million?” Well, I can tell you. It’s 55,000 MRI exams, for example, which is one of the issues that we are being fined about.
These are significant issues with the federal government, and we make the case to them all the time. But they’re also our partners, so every discussion with them isn’t going to be about us complaining about them. We have to engage with them in dealing with the reality that’s in front of us.
The issues we’re talking about for Canada are very important. There’s a tendency…. We’ve had a little debate between provinces, as the member will know, in recent times about other issues, but these are the things that make the country what it is. I have no issue with someone living their life in Edmonton and paying taxes in Edmonton and then moving to retire in Comox or Surrey or Coquitlam or White Rock or wherever they retire. That’s fantastic. That’s Canada. We are a part of this country, and we have to celebrate that and celebrate them. It does present certain challenges to the health care system. That’s undeniable.
J. Isaacs: I just want to return to the first-bed policy. A constituent of mine had sent a letter to me regarding the time of her life where her husband had to go into long-term care. A bed became available, and she and the family went to the facility to have a look at it. She was not happy with the facility, so she didn’t want to leave her husband there.
How I understand this is that if you are offered a bed based, of course, upon the urgency of your care needs, there are some factors that are taken into account, such as your care home preference, the availability of care-holders and community supports, clinical needs, if the facility can actually deliver the appropriate level of care needed, and certainly assessing the risk of the individual if the individual was to return home.
Can the minister provide an update regarding what the first-available-bed policy is and just confirm if that’s sort of the protocol that you go through in order to decide that you don’t want to go ahead with a bed?
Hon. A. Dix: I think what the member said was accurate about the existing policy. We’re reviewing and revising that policy, working, obviously, with the health authorities. What we’re hoping to do, and what we’re looking to do — this is not now; that’s the policy now — is to provide clients with more than one option to choose from with a limited period to choose because of these very issues of availability and vacancy.
I think it’s a reflection of what I’m sure she’s heard in the work she’s doing on seniors issues. What I’ve heard in my years as an MLA is that the first-available-bed policy can cause upset to people. It’s not where they want to go, and the moment of moving into residential care, for some, not for everyone but for some, is itself upsetting. So if people are not at their…. This is not their best moment to deal with challenges — right? — because they’re in these circumstances.
What we’re hoping to do, and our goal is to achieve this by the end of 2018, is to revise the policy so that people will have not a big menu but a small menu of options, where possible, to choose from and a limited amount of time to choose. I think that’s really excellent work by people in the health authorities and the ministry working on these issues, because it’s very, very challenging — the management.
The reason first-available-bed was brought in by the previous government wasn’t because they wanted to deny options, but because it was made necessary by practical realities. We’ve looked at that. We look at the struggles in the system, and we’re trying to provide a few more options to people so that this notion of first-available-bed isn’t completely limiting to them.
J. Isaacs: Thank you for the answer there.
Can the minister advise what happens to this family when they decide that they don’t want to go into that care home? Is their name sent to the bottom of the list to have to wait all over again? What’s the process for that?
Hon. A. Dix: That is, of course, sometimes a challenging situation. No one goes to the bottom of any list. You’re on that list because you need to go into long-term care. You’ve been assessed to go into long-term care, and it’s a significant need.
What sometimes happens — because then the health authority has to find an available bed and, essentially, make another offer — is that in that interim period they definitely would provide supports at home, potentially. Or if there are urgent circumstances, they’d simply find a bed, as a temporary measure, in advance of getting a new bed. So no one goes to the bottom of any list. But obviously, for the system to work successfully, most people do take the first available bed. If they don’t, then that creates some challenges.
The new system, we hope, will empower seniors a little bit so that when we’re going through the process, they can review care homes in their communities. In some communities, of course, that’s one care home, right? Let’s be clear. In Williams Lake, it would be two care homes. It would be Deni House and Seniors Village, right? In that case, when we’re talking about choices of three, we’re talking about up to three. Those are the practical choices in some communities.
If you would go to Dawson Creek or Fort St. James or wherever, you’re going to have much, much more limited options. Often the flexibility of options that we’re talking about will be best felt in Metro Vancouver and on Vancouver Island — where there are, obviously, more care beds and more care homes — than it will in those other communities.
What we’re trying to put in is flexibility in the system so that people can select not the one care home they want — because if the care home is full and there are no available beds, that’s essentially a stalemate — but a number of care homes that they, hopefully, or their families will have seen beforehand and that they can choose from. That’s the direction we’re moving in.
I think we’ve been encouraged in that regard from the seniors advocate and from lots of people in the community, as well, to try and find flexibility, where we can, in the first-available-bed policy. But if you’re in a community with one care home, then that of course changes that perspective entirely, unless you’re prepared to move from that community elsewhere, which sometimes people have to do as well.
Those are the changes; those are the circumstances. I think the staff at the health authorities work very, very hard on the residential care, on this question. Like I say, it’s a difficult time for people, often, and they work very hard to satisfy people’s needs. This isn’t a question of being punished. It’s a question of getting people the care they need — that they’ve been assessed to get and that they need to get.
With that…. Is that the note I’m getting?
The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. A. Dix: The Chair is very, very decisive.
The Chair: Wedded to the standing orders.
Hon. A. Dix: He doesn’t even have to speak to inform me that I need to act as he directs.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada