In what can only be described as a political stunt, the BC Liberals introduced a private member’s bill today entitled: Miscellaneous Statutes (Passenger Transportation Services) Amendment Act, 2018.

This private member’s bill was introduced by Jordan Sturdy and apparently represents a legislative framework that the BC Liberals would have brought in to enable ridesharing if they had won the last election. Now all things being equal, you might find it odd that I voted against it at first reading. But I felt it was important for me to signal that I am not interested in political stunts but rather want to advance good public policy.

It was clearly a political stunt for a number of reasons:

1) Proponents of ridesharing have been trying to bring it to BC since 2012 while the BC Liberals were in government. The BC Liberals ignored the file and had ample time to advance their views when they were in government. It’s odd that they chose the day before the legislature rises to introduce legislation.

2) I twice brought in a private member’s bill under the BC Liberals that would have enabled ridesharing in 2016 and 2017. Neither time did the BC Liberals see fit to call my bill for debate. If the BC Liberals really wanted to debate this issue with the goal of advancing ridesharing they would have called my bills for debate in either April 2016 or  February 2017 (prior to the provincial election).

3) The BC Greens negotiated with the BC NDP to establish an all-party committee that met with stakeholders last year. In fact, Jordan Sturdy was on that committee. Why were the issued raised in this bill not brought forward through that process?

4) Finally, the BC Liberals have been serving in opposition now for well over a year. If they really were sincere with their desire to introduce ridesharing, why did they not introduce their bill sometime over the last year? I introduced my bill a third time but this time under the NDP government last fall. The BC Liberals waited instead to table their bill one day before the house rises.

Right now in the Legislature there is a government bill before the house whose purpose  is to enable ridesharing in BC. The BC Greens have a number of substantive concerns with this bill and are working diligently to ensure that appropriate changes are made. We are in near daily contact with two major ridesharing companies in order to hear from them and to keep them abreast of our activities.

My colleagues Adam and Sonia voted with the BC Liberals on first reading (see vote results to my right). The BC NDP followed my lead and voted against it. First reading passed (thanks to the support of my colleagues) and so the bill will make it to the order papers. But it will die there as tomorrow is the last day the legislature sits before the February 2019 throne speech.

At the end of the day, my colleague Adam Olsen brought forward an important amendment that passed. This amendment greatly improved the Passenger Transportation Board’s test for approving ride-hailing licenses, adding much needed flexibility. Below I reproduce the media release that our office issued in response to the passing of our amendment.

Media Release

B.C. Greens pass major amendment to government’s ride-hailing legislation
For immediate release
November 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Adam Olsen, B.C. Green Party spokesperson for transportation, is
celebrating the passage of his amendment to the government’s legislation to enable ride-hailing
in B.C.

“This amendment greatly improves the PTB’s test for approving ride-hailing license, adding
much needed flexibility,” said Olsen.

The amendment changes the way the PTB applies its three part test when it is approving an
application. The new language ensures that the board can consider the three components more
dynamically, factoring in the reality that ride-hailing presents a new business model for the
passenger directed vehicle industry. This change doesn’t require the PTB to change its
practices immediately, but ensures that as new policy direction is given, it has the legislative
flexibility to ensure it can embrace innovation while maintaining its role as a regulator.

“Although regulating ride-hailing through the PTB is not the approach we would have taken had
we been in government, as an opposition party our job is to improve legislation and find a path
forward to deliver on our priorities.

“Our goal is to strike the right balance between our responsibility to ensure public safety, a fair
playing field for business and delivering on our promise to make ride-hailing available for British
Columbians. Our view is that the government’s approach was excessively prohibitive, while the
B.C. Liberals were in favour of almost complete deregulation. Other jurisdictions with lax
ride-hailing regimes have experienced issues and it’s important that we learn from their
experiences. I believe this amendment, as well as the agreement by the Minister to amend the
terms of reference for the legislative committee that will recommend regulations to include
licensing requirements, are positive steps towards a fair and balanced ride-hailing regime.”
Olsen also noted that much work remains to be done in the legislative committee that will
recommend ride-hailing regulations to government.

“I look forward to working with my colleagues from all parties on the legislative committee to
ensure B.C.’s ride-hailing regime strikes the right balance. Our current view is that Class 5 with
additional requirements to ensure public safety would be the best approach, and that is the
regulation we will encourage the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP to join us with recommending
to the Minister. I hope the government will accept the recommendations put forward by a
majority of the committee, as they will represent a majority of seats in the House.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

The BC Minister of Transportation today tabled Bill 55: Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018. As noted in the government press release, Bill 55 finally paves the way for ride-hailing companies to operate in British Columbia in 2019.

As readers will know, I have been attempting to bring ridehailing to British Columbia for almost three years. In April 2016,  February 2017 (prior to the provincial election) and October 2017, I introduced Private Member’s bills which would have allowed this to occur. While I am pleased that government has finally brought this enabling legislation forward, there is still work to do to ensure that ridesharing becomes a reality in British Columbia in 2019.

Below I reproduce the media release the BC Green Caucus issued in response to the tabling of this legislation. My colleague Adam Olsen (our transportation critic) will be representing the BC Green Party on the proposed legislative committee.

Media Release

Weaver: Legislation a step forward, but parties will have to work together to make ride-hailing a reality
For immediate release
November 19, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, says the provincial government’s legislation to introduce ride-hailing today is a long overdue step forward on the issue. Weaver says the all-party committee that will advise on regulations is a promising development because parties will have to collaborate to make ride-hailing a reality.

“While it’s a step forward to actually have legislation in front of us, more work needs to be done to ensure British Columbians have access to ride-hailing in 2019,” said Weaver.

“The fact that an issue with such high levels of public demand has taken so long to see progress is a failure of our political system. It’s obvious that neither of the other parties has been able to find the political will to action this issue in a timely manner. The legislative committee is a promising path forward because it will require all parties to share the responsibility of delivering for British Columbians.

“It’s important that the legislation and regulations strike the right balance so that the province meets its responsibility to ensure public safety and a fair playing field for business while also providing British Columbians with access to the full range of modern transportation options. We have questions about the timeline; although it’s encouraging that ride-hailing companies will be able to apply for licenses by Fall 2019, what British Columbians really want to know is when they will be able to access their services.

“At first glance a key difference between what government has put on the table today and the recommendations of the Hara Report is to require driver training and Class 5 licenses rather than Class 4 licenses. Other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, have seen success with driver training as part of their ride-hailing regulation.

“We look forward to discussing all of these issues in the house as well as canvassing some of them specifically in the legislative committee. We will continue do everything we can to deliver ride-hailing for British Columbians in 2019.”

Weaver has introduced legislation to enable ride-hailing three times. The third time, in Fall 2017, resulted in the subject of the bill being referred to an all-party committee, which held public consultations and delivered a report in February 2018.

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today the BC government announced that it was injecting another $10 million into the Clean Energy Vehicle Program (CEVP). The program has been so successful, that it was in danger of running out of funds later this month. As noted in our media release (reproduced below) I am very pleased that the program received the additional funding.

This file is one on which I have spent a good deal of time. Ensuring the stability of this flagship program was essential in advance of the upcoming announcement of British Columbia’s clean growth strategy later this fall.

Media Release

Weaver welcomes additional funding for electric vehicles
For immediate release
September 24, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, praised the BC government’s efforts to find more funding to support vehicle adoption. Weaver says the higher-than-forecasted demand shows that British Columbians are on board with the transition to the low-carbon economy.

“British Columbians clearly want electric vehicles and I am pleased the government has found more funding to support their choices,” said Weaver.

“Over the past several months, we heard concerns from British Columbians that this funding was running out. We communicated these concerns to government and I am delighted that they acted quickly and decisively on this essential priority.

Due to higher-than-expected demand for EVs, the government added an additional $10 million to support the adoption of EVs, hybrids and fuel cell vehicles while it looks for more stable funding.

“As with any new technology, the cost of research and development is baked into the price of electric vehicles, driving up prices,” Weaver continued. “Transportation makes up 40% of B.C.’s emissions. We should ensure that stable, long-term funding is available to help support British Columbians to make the shift towards zero-emission vehicles.

“Our office has been working closely with the government to develop the Clean Growth Strategy that will position B.C. to be a leader in the low-carbon economy while enabling us to meet our targets. It will be essential that this plan be backed up with adequate funding and implementation. As the New Zealand Productivity Commission found last month, early action is almost always a winning economic strategy, even if other jurisdictions are slow to act. B.C. has all the strategic advantages we need to seize the economic opportunities arising as the world transitions to low-carbon economy, and the demand for EVs shows that British Columbians are on board. I look forward to making this vision a reality.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today I was afforded the distinct honour of giving a keynote presentation at Clean Energy BC’s Global Electrification Summit. I took the opportunity to take the audience on a journey from the past to the future — from where we were when Gordon Campbell was BC’s Premier, to where we went when Christy Clark was BC’s Premier, to where we are in this minority government guided by our Confidence and Supply Agreement, to where we can go, when we focus on our potential in the Clean Energy sector.

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Introduction

Thank you. It’s a distinct honour for me to be here and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Clean Energy BC’s Global Electrification Summit.

I entered politics via an unusual route. Prior to my election as the MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head (and subsequently becoming leader of the B.C. Green Party), I was Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria.

With a PhD in applied mathematics I’d spent 25 years working in the field of atmosphere/ocean/climate science.

I decided to seek election with the BC Green Party in 2012 as I could no longer stand by and watch the dismantling of British Columbia’s climate policies and leadership in clean energy innovation.

Over these past 25 years Clean Energy B.C. has been the voice of British Columbia’s Clean Energy sector and I am sincerely grateful for your contributions to our province.

The BC Green Party and I share your goal to support the growth of British Columbia’s clean energy sector and we will continue to do what we can to improve the regulatory and economic environments for clean energy production through our work in the B.C. legislature.

Clean Energy B.C.’s vision statement is to have British Columbia, Western Canada and the Western US all having access to clean, reliable, cost effective energy produced by the private sector.

It’s to see British Columbia leading the world in modelling a sustainable way of life.

That too is my vision for British Columbia, and the subject on which I would like to speak to you today.
Over the next 20 minutes I’d like to take you on a journey from the past to the future.

From where we were when Gordon Campbell was BC’s Premier,

to where we went when Christy Clark was BC’s Premier,

to where we are in this minority government guided by our Confidence and Supply Agreement,

to where we can go, when we focus on our potential in the Clean Energy sector.

Where we were, with Campbell

Last month I rose in the legislature to speak to Bill 34, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act. The Act made a number of amendments to the original Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which first became law on November 29, 2007.
Speaking to that bill brought me back to a very important time in my life. 2007 was the year in which the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — released its Fourth Assessment Report.

It was the fourth consecutive report for which I served as a Leader Author in Working Group I’s volume on future projections of climate change.

It was also the year the B.C. government, under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell, decided that acting on climate change was an opportunity that B.C. could not afford to miss out on.

Mr. Campbell recognized that the first piece of legislation needed prior to taking steps to mitigate greenhouse gases was to set a clear target for where we were heading. In doing so, he sent a signal to the market that B.C. was going to be a leader in the new economy.

He set the stage for the emergence of a clean tech sector, a renewable energy sector and created a climate that saw companies starting to invest in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

I had the honour of participating as a member of BC’s first Climate Action Team. We were tasked with coming up with interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

We recommended that government should seek to reduce emissions by 6 percent, relative to 2007, by 2012. And for 2016, we recommended an 18 percent reduction.

I sat in the legislative gallery as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act was introduced in 2007 and listened to Minister Penner speak to its purpose. I felt proud to be a British Columbian that day and told my climate science colleagues around the world to look at the example our jurisdiction was setting for the world.

In 2008, Mr. Campbell’s government developed and entrenched in law the Climate Action Plan. The Plan was, at the time, the most progressive plan to address greenhouse gas emissions in North America, largely due to its revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Government was on track. In fact, we made the 2012 target, thanks, in part, to the policy measures put in place.

Nevertheless, at the time we knew, and government knew, through their wedge analyses, that proposed policies alone were not going to take us to the 33% reductions by 2020 — let alone an 80% reduction by 2050.

More needed to be done.

But we were well positioned to meet the challenge because BC had emerged as a leader internationally in both dealing with the challenge and recognizing the economic opportunity associated with greenhouse gas mitigation.

Where we went, with Clark

But all of our successes started to be overturned when British Columbia’s provincial leadership changed.

In every year since the 2011 change of leadership, emissions have gone up.

Why? Because of the signal government sent to the market that our emissions reductions targets no longer mattered — that economic prosperity would be found in industries from the last century, and that they would help take us back there.

The BC Liberals under Christy Clark stifled clean innovation and introduced policies that further entrenched “dig-it and ship-it” oil and gas development.

And when the market no longer supported these activities, they doubled done by creating more and more subsidies in a desperate attempt to squeeze water from a stone.

The first crack in our wall of climate policies started in July of 2012 when then Premier Christy Clark excluded LNG from the Clean Energy Act. From there, the dismantling of policies became far more aggressive.

I became so frustrated with the direction Ms. Clark’s government was taking B.C., that I ran for office and was elected in 2013.

I felt it was my job to ensure that there was a voice, and a party, that was going to stand up to the government on this issue and try to get government to once again commit to the climate leadership.

Unfortunately, the generational sellout continued, culminating in 2014 with the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, where the Legislature repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act from 2008.

All of this was done with the promise that LNG would make British Columbians rich and give the B.C. government a significant new revenue stream. This just hasn’t materialized.

Indeed, despite government doing everything in their power to position B.C. with a booming oil and gas economy, we have seen massively decreasing revenues to B.C. from increasing gas extraction.

What the data shows is quite shocking – while gas production has gone from 25 billion cubic metres in 2001 to over 50 billion cubic meters in 2016/17, royalty and land lease revenues to the B.C. government have gone in the opposite direction, from a record $2.4 billion in 2008/09 down to only $139 million in 2015.

Not only are we not getting paid for this public resource, we are literally paying companies to take it from us.

In 2009, B.C. collected $1.3 billion in natural gas royalties.
Last year, we collected a mere $152 million. Measured as a share of the value of oil and gas production in B.C., royalties collected by government has fallen from 44 percent in 2008 to just 4 percent last year.

In 2009, B.C. earned $39.90 in royalties for every 1000 cubic metres of natural gas. In 2017 it was $2.95.

This is a dismal return on the resources that are being extracted from our province.

We are literally giving away more gas for less money while barrelling past our climate commitments. That’s race for the bottom economics at its worst.

While we became sidetracked with developing an LNG industry and expanding our oil and gas production, other jurisdictions began to emerge and surpass B.C. as climate action trailblazers.

In 2016 leaders around the world signed the Paris accord, which committed signatories to reduce emissions and keep global warming to below 2 degrees relative to pre-industrial levels.

This agreement laid out, in the starkest terms, the choice facing the global community.

We’ve already warmed by 1.1 degrees with another 0.6 degrees in the cards if we do no more than maintain atmospheric greenhouse gas levels at present values.

Add to this, another 0.2 degrees or so from the permafrost carbon feedback and we have a commitment to about 1.9° warming already in store.

The Paris accord essentially translates to this: effective immediately, we must turn the corner and stop investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure that will continue to be around for decades to come.

That’s because of socioeconomic inertia. We don’t build an LNG facility in Kitimat, for example, today to tear it down tomorrow. We build it to last 40 to 50 years. We build it to last past our 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The scientific community is clear, the international community is clear, much of the business community is clear: we need to make the right choice of investments today because they will affect tomorrow.

Which brings us to where we are now, with our confidence and supply agreement in the present minority government.

Where we are now, with CASA

CASA – the confidence and supply agreement – underpins B.C.’s minority government. It is an agreement to work in good faith, with no surprises, with the B.C. NDP.

CASA has provided the B.C. Green caucus with an opportunity to champion key aspects of our economic platform, and the ability to work closely with government on priority issues like climate policy.

From our perspective, these two files are largely one in the same.

For example, we included two key pieces from our 21st century economy platform in the CASA agreement to help us seize economic opportunities in the emerging economy.

The first piece is the Emerging Economy Task Force.

We proposed the Emerging Economy Task Force to enable government to adapt and respond to changes on the horizon.

We need to modernize government so that it is considerably more responsive to technological innovation.

The Emerging Economy Task Force is looking to the future, identifying emerging trends & advising government on how to maintain our competitiveness & achieve prosperity amidst these changes.

The second item from our platform integrated into CASA is the Innovation Commission (now Innovate B.C.) as well as the appointment of an Innovation Commissioner.

The innovation commissioner serves as an advocate and ambassador for the B.C. technology sector in Ottawa and abroad, to enable B.C. companies to more easily tap into existing federal programs and build key strategic relationships internationally.

I’m confident that both of these initiatives will bolster and grow key sectors of our economy.

Since government was sworn in last July, I have had regular meetings with the Environment, Minister George Heyman, to discuss BC’s climate plan.
Over the past few months, our senior staff has been meeting weekly to further these goals.

I know the Minister cares deeply about this issue and I’m impressed by the expertise of the public service supporting his ministry.

It has been a pleasure to be working with them and I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish collectively.

The B.C. Green Caucus and government both agree that a meaningful climate plan will require careful planning, innovative ideas, and a new economic vision for how B.C. will prosper in a changing and challenging world.

We agree the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples need to be front and centre as we chart a course forward.

Rights, title, lands, territories, culture, traditional knowledge and identities must be protected by, and included in, B.C.’s clean growth strategy.
We want to create a strategy that will treat reducing greenhouse gas emissions as an economic priority and a key driver of our plan to create sustainable jobs and log-term prosperity.

We know responding to the challenge of climate change is both an intergenerational opportunity and responsibility.

I am working directly with the BC NDP to ensure a climate plan is put together that doesn’t simply show a plausible pathway to meeting our targets – but drives a return to the vision of a clean 21st century economy.

We have one of the best public services in the world and for a long time they have had the policies ready to get us there.

What has been missing is political leadership. This minority government must – and will – show that leadership.

I’m hopeful, but still wary of our starting point and the strength of the status quo.

In preparation for this speech, I reread parts of The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery – one of the books said to have inspired Mr. Campbell’s climate action ambitions.

In it Flannery writes; “Climate change is difficult for people to evaluate dispassionately because it entails deep political and industrial implications, and because it arises from the core processes of our civilization’s success.”

I think that speaks to the crossroads many governments face today.

Despite the new opportunities we’re presented with in B.C., some fractions of the B.C. government are continuing to entertain the dream of exporting LNG and are continuing the natural gas giveaway started by the previous administration.

Acknowledging that we need to transform our energy systems, with a plan for our environment, our economy and our communities – and that a climate action strategy is also an exciting economic strategy – is a big step. But it is not enough.

And that is where you come in: Where we can go, working in partnership with the Clean Energy sector.

Where we can go, with Clean Energy

If we are to meet our legislated targets – we will be doing so with clean energy — likely following the lead of people in this room.

In that regard, B.C. is setup to succeed. From our access to cheap, renewable energy, to our educated workforce, to our innovative business community, to the quality of life we can offer here, together with British Columbia’s natural beauty, we have an opportunity to develop our Province into one of the most prosperous jurisdictions in the world.

Our challenges are too big, and the consequences too profound, to ignore this opportunity.

We stand to gain by building on the expertise that our neighbours have already developed in these areas. And yet, there is still so much room to grow in this sector, to improve upon current technologies and policy innovations.

We need to learn from what has worked for our neighbours, and craft them into a “made in B.C. approach” that respects the unique characteristics of our economy, our environment and our energy needs.

The approval Site C was a terribly disappointing decision for me because I believe small-scale, distributed energy projects are the way of the future for B.C. and that we should fundamentally change the mandate of B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro should no longer be the builder of new power capacity.

Rather, it should be the broker of power deals, transmitter of electricity, and leveller of power load through improving British Columbia power storage capacity.

Let industry risk their capital, not taxpayer capital, and let the market respond to demands for cheap power.

We need to optimize support for clean energy development, including grid storage for community or privately generated power and work with neighbouring jurisdictions to expedite the phase out of fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

The future of economic prosperity in B.C. lies in harnessing our innate potential for innovation and bringing new, more efficient technologies to bear in the resource sector.

B.C. will never compete in digging dirt out of the ground with jurisdictions that don’t internalize the same social and environmental externalities that we value.

We will excel through being smarter, more efficient, cleaner and by working together to solve our problems.

This means that we not only export the dirt, but we also export the knowledge, technology and value added products associated with resource extraction.

To get a fair value for our resources that deliver maximum benefits to our communities, we need to get smarter and more strategic when it comes to embracing innovation.

Government should be doing more to support these initiatives and create fertile ground for a sustainable, resilient, and diverse economy.

We should be using our boundless renewable energy resources to attract industry, including the manufacturing sector, that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle, just like Washington and Oregon have done.

We should be setting up seed funding mechanisms to allow the B.C.-based creative economy sector to leverage venture capital from other jurisdictions to our province.

By steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivizes innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy.

The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under the B.C. jobs plan.

But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and cleantech. It’s critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together.

Similarly natural gas has an important role to play, but we should use it to use in our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport.

Global investment trends are being driven by the world’s shared Paris commitments, predicated on the fact that keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius is far more cost-effective than dealing with the effects of a temperature rise above that level.

This shift presents a significant opportunity for B.C.’s economy.

Our province is well poised to bolster its leadership in the cleantech sector – we have a strong competitive advantage in the building blocks required to foster a knowledge-based economy.

In Closing

I am truly excited about the prospects that lie ahead for this minority government. I am working every day to ensure that this government embraces the opportunity in front of it. British Columbia has so much to offer and we can and should be a leader in the new economy.

The years ahead will require all of us to come together to look for areas where we can be partners – to drive the innovation that will enable us to conquer what lies ahead. I don’t doubt many of solution we need will come from the people in this room.

Thank you all again for having me here today to speak with you. And for all your work to build a better future for our province.

Over the last two days I have  been exploring some of the ramifications of Bill 20: Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018,  In particular, I asked the Attorney General several questions during committee deliberations in order to get a sense of his intention for the proposed changes to legislation.

I have received a number of emails from people expressing concerns with section 29 of this act where “minor injuries” are defined. Some have implied that all psychological and psychiatric conditions are being prescribed as minor. This is incorrect (as my exchange with the Minister unpacks).

Below I reproduce the text and videos of our exchanges. The exchanges are helpful as they correct several misconceptions that are out there.

The bill ended up passing 43-31. What’s remarkable about the vote is that 11 BC Liberal MLAs were not present. It’s likely that they decided to head home early. Had the three BC Green MLAs voted against the bill it still would have passed as the BC Liberal caucus didn’t bother to show up.

Text re: Section 1 Questions

A. Weaver: We’re trying to do some coordination across…. On this actual theme of definition of “health care practitioner,” I have four specific professions. I’m wondering if they’re included within the present definition of health care practitioner and, in particular, the sub definition of a medical practitioner.

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

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

Text re: Section 8 Questions

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

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

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

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

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

A. Weaver: With respect to the section 28.1(2), and then the number (c) in there, it talks about “the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided”. This is rather broad. What are the limitations upon such a request? Are there any such limitations?

Are these persons’ conditions relevant to the accident, or is ICBC able to get the entire medical history of a patient as part of this process?

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

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

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

Text re: Section 18 Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text re: Section 25 Question

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.

Text re: Section 29 Questions

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions here. It will give the members opposite a little break. I think we’re going to be canvassing section 29 for a fair bit. They can compose their thoughts.

I have four quick questions with respect to the issue of injuries here. Section 29 — in 101 here — defines three types of issues. One is “minor injury.” It also defines “permanent serious disfigurement” and “serious impairment.”

My understanding is perhaps consistent with the minister’s, but I do note that there is an awful lot of confusion out there in the general realm with respect to the intentions of the minister with bringing in this legislation. So I’d like to pose a couple of specific examples to determine whether or not they would be covered under “minor injury,” or whether in fact they would be eligible for further litigation down the road.

The one that’s been the most common is the concern that’s expressed with respect to psychological or psychiatric conditions. Now, my understanding of this…. I’m hoping the minister can correct me if I’m wrong. Let us suppose we have two individuals. The first individual is in a car crash. That first individual gets very depressed after the car crash. It’s been declared by the medical practice that that depression has arisen as a direct consequence of that car crash. It was a depression-and-anxiety issue that responded well to medication, and six months later, the person bounced back and actually was able to continue forward. That’s case 1.

Person No. 2 is the same person who enters into a much, much deeper depression, perhaps with PTSD, and a year and half later, they still have not been able to recover. My question to the minister is: how would both of those individuals be treated in light of the definition of “minor injury” and “serious impairment”?

Hon. D. Eby: The second one is easier, in that it is definitely not within the cap. On the first one, there is a definition of “minor injury” that has two parts. First of all, the first part of the definition of “minor injury” is a negative definition. It says that it’s an injury that “does not result in a serious impairment or a permanent serious disfigurement.” So if it results in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury, then it’s out of the definition of “minor injury.”

 If it doesn’t result in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury or another type of injury that is within the second part of the definition, then it would fall within the “minor injury” definition. So the other types of injuries are abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprain or strain and pain syndrome — we talked about psychological or psychiatric conditions — or an injury in a prescribed class of injury captured in the regulations.

Serious impairment — the question of whether or not it’s a serious impairment — is also a defined term. A “serious impairment” is an impairment that “(a) is not resolved within 12 months, or another prescribed period” — by regulation — “if any, after the date of an accident, and (b) meets prescribed criteria” — by regulation. So you’ll see there are two pieces to this, and there is space within regulation for additional definition.

I’ve posted a paper on the Ministry of Attorney General website about our intentions related to the “prescribed criteria” around “minor injury.” It might just assist the member to know that next week, there is a meeting with the Doctors of B.C. — the B.C. Psychological Association has also been invited — to assist us in determining how the regulations could narrow the psychological or psychiatric conditions even further than is already the case for the current minor injury scenario.

A. Weaver: Another two examples that I’d like to give. Let’s suppose that there is somebody who was driving somewhat excessively over the speed limit — and maybe didn’t get caught, but there was some inkling that that person was at fault — and that that person gets into an accident with two cars. In the one car, you have an individual who’s got brain damage and becomes a quadriplegic, and they’re seeking pain and suffering, etc., and also legal process for them, as a result of this.

In the second person, you have a few broken bones that lead to some chronic issues. Perhaps it’s a broken hip, and there are some chronic pain issues that last beyond a year. They don’t just last a few months. They last beyond a year. How would both of those be treated?

Again, I’m seeking clarification for the purpose of communicating the intent of this section to a broader audience. How would both of those individuals be treated under the classification of minor injury? I suspect the brain damage and quadriplegic doesn’t apply, but perhaps the broken bones, where you actually lead to a chronic condition that lasts — say chronic hip arthritis or something — after an accident.

If the minister could expand on that.

Hon. D. Eby: No individuals with brain injuries or individuals with broken bones are subject to the limit on pain and suffering awards or the minor-injury definition.

A. Weaver: Let’s suppose it isn’t broken, but in fact you have a sprain with a cut, and that cut gets infected. You get a flesh-eating disease response that doesn’t leave you permanently disfigured, but it leads to a substantive, long-term injury. That infection gets into your bone. You get chronic arthritis. How would that person be treated in this example?

Hon. D. Eby: If it meets the definition of serious impairment — so it’s beyond 12 months and the prescribed conditions — then there would be no cap. In addition, I guess it depends on the laceration that resulted in the flesh-eating disease or the impact on the individual, because a permanent, serious disfigurement of the claimant would also remove it from the minor-injury definition.

A. Weaver: My final question. Let’s suppose you have a drunk driver who’s driving along and runs into a number of people. Some people get serious injuries that are very extensive, a couple of other people minor injuries, as defined here, and one person has a psychological disorder as a result. How would the issue of these three different classes of people be treated under these definitions when a drunk driver or somebody texting was involved?

Hon. D. Eby: Each individual would be assessed based on their own injuries, whether or not they fell within the definition of minor injury or not.

As for the driver, for anyone that was driving dangerously, there are Criminal Code and Motor Vehicle Act provisions relating to that — insurance consequences, potential jail time and so on — that flow from that, if they were engaging in dangerous conduct while they were driving — drinking and driving and so on.

Videos of Exchanges