Today in the legislature the premier rose to offer a Ministerial Statement on the flooding in the Boundary Similkameen area. As is normal practice, the leader of the official opposition and I were also granted an opportunity to respond. Below I reproduce the text and video of my response.

Unfortunately, I was cut short by the speaker. And so, I also append the ending of my speech that I never got to say.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Like every member in this House, I’ve been following the flood crisis closely and with a heavy heart. I commend the Premier for offering disaster recovery assistance today. Every support possible must be extended to the communities threatened by rising rivers. It’s heartbreaking to see homes submerged and businesses lost. I hope the worst is behind us. Sadly and unfortunately, the forecast for the coming days is not looking so positive.

I’d like to also extend my gratitude to the first responders and emergency support providers who are helping people evacuate safely and making sure that nobody is left behind. The National on CBC last night had footage of firefighters swimming through polluted waters to reach houses in Grand Forks. Our province could not weather these emergencies without their bravery and determination, and I offer my sincere thanks.

It seems cruel and unusual to be facing more devastation after last year’s floods and fires. The 2017 fire season, as we know too well, was the longest in the province’s history. We had a state of emergency in place for ten weeks, and more than 65,000 residents were evacuated. The flood response cost more than $73 million, and direct fire suppression cost more than $568 million.

Incredibly, thanks to the hard work by so many volunteers, there were no fatalities despite the 1,342 fires. The strength, courage and resiliency of British Columbians are unmatched and unrivalled. Those qualities paired with a world-class team of firefighters and first responders is why we made it through last year’s floods and fires without a single life lost in British Columbia — especially those in rural areas who have been fighting the front lines of climate change for so long.

It’s cruel to be facing more flooding after last year’s natural disasters, but sadly, it’s no longer unusual. And there is so much more to come as a consequence of global warming. It’s going to get much, much worse if we, as elected officials, fail to transition to a low-carbon economy.

I had an elderly gentleman in my office last week from a riding hit hard by the 2017 fire season. He talked about staying up all night to watch the fire move across nearby hills, going out to hose down his house with his son, checking on his neighbours to make sure they were okay too.

He talked about having post-traumatic stress disorder, but also he talked about having what he called pre-traumatic stress disorder, as the fire season for 2018 approaches. He doesn’t look forward to summer anymore. He said he’s too worried about fires.

The irony and the illustrative cognitive dissonance is that that afternoon, his MLA stood in this House to speak in support of Kinder Morgan and the LNG development.

We as elected officials cannot let British Columbians fight climate change alone. We need to be there when disaster strikes — like this week in the southern Interior — but we also need to be here with the will to recognize the link between the laws we pass or protect and the climate change impacts felt by our constituents. The world has no time for politicians who show up to help sandbag one day, but work to prevent meaningful climate action the next.

As the B.C. Auditor General wrote…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The ending I didn’t get to say

As the BC Auditor General wrote in her February 2018 report, Managing Climate Change Risks, from 1900 to 2013, BC’s average temperature has increased faster than the global average.

Scientists, including myself, projected that the province will face increases in extreme weather, rising sea levels, increasing risk of wildfire and flooding, as well as widespread loss of biodiversity and extinction of species.

Recognizing the linkages between and among these extreme weather events, and the impact of global warming is critical to any real progress going forward.

As early as 2004, a postdoc and I published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters pointing out that we can now detect and attributing the increase area of Canadian Forest fires to global warming. In 2000 a student and I showed the Canadian precipitation record exhibited significant increases in extreme events. More recently these changes have been attributed to global warming. The list goes on.

British Columbians are working tirelessly to fight the effects of climate change. I vow to do the same from this chamber.

Video of Speech

Today I had the distinct honour of providing the opening remarks at the Reimagining Masculinities Conference 2018 held at the University of Victoria.

As noted on the conference website:

ReImagining Masculinities is cultivating meaningful conversations about healthy, non-violent masculinities. Our hope is to inspire empathy, action, and self-reflections through conversation, education, and awareness.

Online streaming of the conference is also available.

Below I reproduce the text of my opening remarks.

Text of Opening Remarks

Opening statement – Reimagining Masculinities

Thank you everyone for being here today to explore an issue that isn’t often discussed in such a public setting.

I’ve been given the opportunity to say a few words about Reimagining Masculinities and as both a professor at UVic and MLA for this riding, it is my absolute pleasure to do so.

Please keep in mind that I teach climate science rather than gender studies, but I will do my absolute best.

This conference is such an accomplishment, not only because of the topic, but because of the breadth of talent represented as well.

Paul Lacerte has many fans in the legislature who are proud to wear their moosehide campaign pins and I hope everyone here today will pledge to get involved.

We could surely all benefit from more poetry in our lives and I know Councillor Jeremy Loveday will show that politicians can have a way with words.

The links between Tanille Geib’s Healthy Relationships workshop and Allan Wade’s analysis of colonial masculinities show just how complex this topic really is.

When I consider toxic masculinity, it is not hard to make connections to the events that we hear about every single day.

Whether it’s disgraced actors or the tragedy in Toronto, the MeToo movement has highlighted just how big an impact toxic masculinity has on all of us.

It’s possible that until recently a lot of men may not have realized the extent of abuse that women have always had to deal with.

On the other hand, I want to avoid the idea that the only role men can play in the movement is of the accused.

This conference is a prime example of the role that men can play in addressing this problem, and it’s something that I have always tried to do as an MLA.

Through collaboration with the previous government, I was able to ensure that legislation passed to require all universities and other postsecondary institutions in British Columbia to implement comprehensive sexualized violence and misconduct policies.

My hope was that survivors of sexualized violence on campus would be better supported by their schools, and that the process would be more transparent for all involved.

Based on our initial consultations it appears as though this has been the case. I thank Kayla Phillips, who has been working diligently in our BC Green Caucus as a legislative intern.

She has been spearheading our efforts to determine the effectiveness of the legislation that we introduced two years ago.

I was also able to introduce and get implemented a law that banned employers from requiring their employees to wear high heels which had been a problem particularly in jobs like serving where women have traditionally been subject to high levels of sexual harassment.

While it has not righted all wrongs in the industry, I have spoken with many women who are happy to no longer fear losing their job for refusing to wear painful footwear.

This conference also highlights the importance that intersectionality plays when considering toxic masculinity. This is not simply an issue of masculine men and feminine women, but a whole spectrum of those with varying identities impacting their own experiences.

I encourage anyone involved in tackling toxic masculinity and its effects to think outside our standard binaries for innovative solutions, such as we have here today.

I would like to thank hosts Scott Thompson & Steven Hao as well as the organizers, including Nick Sandor, for asking me to speak today.

I’d now like to introduce Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South and Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women, Terry Duguid.

Terry’s appointment in this role is a great example of how the status of women in Canada is not a responsibility that rests solely with women, and the part that everyone has in addressing it.

While Terry can’t be here in person, he can tell you more about his role through this video:

I’m also lucky enough to be joined by MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, Mitzi Dean. Mitzi was recently named Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity in BC and it’s hard to imagine a better choice for that role in the legislature.

Before her election last year she had spent many years advocating for women and children in various parts of the world and with the U.K.’s largest child protection charity. She now brings that experience to share with you today.

A new report was published today which examines and assesses the government’s response to the 2017 flood and wildfire events. The report, entitled: Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia was written by former MLA George Abbott and Hereditary Chief of the Sq’ewá:lxw First Nation, Maureen Chapman. It provided government with 108 recommendations that will assist it to improve existing systems, processes and procedures.

Below I reproduce the media release we issued in response to the release of the report.

Media Release

Weaver: Wildfire and flood report demonstrates need to prioritize adaptation and greenhouse gas reduction strategies
For immediate release
May 10, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party caucus, says that the new report on the 2017 flood and wildfire response underscores the need for B.C. to meet our climate targets.

“Chief Chapman and Mr. Abbott have provided excellent recommendations for how the government can better support communities that are affected by wildfires and floods,” said Weaver.

“The effects of climate change are having nuanced impacts on every corner of the province. We must do everything we can to ensure British Columbians have the resources they need to respond to the ‘new normal’ of extreme weather events. In particular, the province should adopt the report’s recommendations to work more closely in partnership with First Nations and to develop better preventative measures to support communities that are vulnerable to floods and wildfires.

“These rising costs also demonstrate the urgent need to keep our commitment to the next generation to meet our climate targets. Under the Paris Agreement, countries around the world is coming together to do their part to prevent an increase in global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius. We are seeing historic investments in cleantech and renewable energy from countries diverse as China, Germany and Saudi Arabia as the world transitions to the low-carbon economy.

“B.C. was once a leader in climate action. After enacting the carbon tax in 2008, British Columbia showed the world that a strong economy and bold climate action are perfectly compatible. By seizing the opportunity to reclaim this leadership, we can position our province to develop a thriving 21st century economy centred around innovation, sustainable value-added resource development and entrepreneurship.”

-30-

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

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

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. I sought to explore this further in Question Period today. In particular, I asked the Minister of Finance what she was doing to clamp down on this egregious behaviour.

I was very pleased with her response.

In my supplemental question, I asked the minister if she would consider stepping in to rectify a problem that has arisen from the upcoming ban on limited dual-agency transactions in the real estate sector. The BC NDP inherited this problem from the BC Liberals’ “sledgehammer” approach to dealing with what was largely a Metro Vancouver issue. There are profound consequences for rural BC if this ban goes ahead.

I remain optimistic that the Minister is aware of the problem and is sympathetic to taking action prior to the June 15 deadline. I will raise this issue again during Ministry of Finance estimates.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

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?

Answer

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’re 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.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that very constructive response.

As the ministry 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.

Yet 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 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.?

Answer

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 the House have heard those concerns in their communities as well and heard the concerns from realtors.

Just to be clear, the office of the superintendent is an independent regulator. And 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, and 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.