British Columbia Hansard — 8 July 2020, p.m., Issue 336 (41st Parliament, 5th Session)

20200708pm-Hansard-n336

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday, July 8, 2020 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 336 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services...........................................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Senior Research Analyst ...................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)...........................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP).......................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)........................................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen...................................................................... Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds................................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ..............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ......................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Wednesday, July 8, 2020 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11905 Patty Edwards Hon. S. Fraser Gale Mossman M. Stilwell Mike Sorensen J. Rice Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 11905 Local production of masks for coastal communities J.

Rice Recovery from storm damage in Chilliwack area L. Throness Community response to COVID-19 in Maple Ridge and Mission B. D’Eith Daniel Fontaine and B.C. Care Providers Association L. Reid Bronze draft horse statue in Burnaby J. Routledge Skills development and value of tourism industry A. Olsen Oral Questions....................................................................................................................................................................... 11907 Strata insurance cost increases A. Wilkinson Hon. J. Horgan T. Stone Hon. S.

Robinson Economic recovery and local production and innovation A. Olsen Hon. M. Mungall Hon. D. Donaldson Government plan for education system reopening D. Davies Hon. R. Fleming J. Johal Government support for tourism industry M. Stilwell Hon. L. Beare D. Clovechok Motions Without Notice....................................................................................................................................................... 11913 Appointment of special committee on reforming the Police Act Hon. M.

Farnworth Orders of the Day Government Motions on Notice ......................................................................................................................................... 11913 Motion 6 — Judicial Compensation Commission report recommendations for provincial court judges Hon. D. Eby M. Lee Motion 7 — Judicial Compensation Commission report recommendations for judicial justices Hon. D. Eby M.

Lee Third Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................... 11916 Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act Tabling Documents............................................................................................................................................................... 11916 Chief records officer, annual report, 2019

Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 11916 Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020(continued) J. Johal Hon. D. Eby S. Cadieux M.

Lee Royal Assent to Bills.............................................................................................................................................................. 11928 Bill 9 — Evidence Amendment Act, 2020 Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 11929 Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020(continued) M. Lee Hon. D. Eby J. Johal

WEDNESDAY , JULY 8, 2020 The House met at 1:36 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart. Tributes PATTY EDW ARDS Hon. S. Fraser:I know I don’t have to convince my colleagues in the Legislature about the importance of our constituency staff and the work that they do in our con- stituencies when we are away and when we are there. Today I’ d just like to acknowledge, recognize and hon- our Patty Edwards, who began with me in my constituency back in 2005, from the very beginning, 15 years ago. She has retired. June 30 was her last day. She threatened to retire before.

She decided to stay on, and we got another three years. I’m so thankful for the work she did. I just want to let you know, hon. Speaker and my col- leagues, that she was recognized as Citizen of the Y ear in Port Alberni by the Alberni Valley Chamber of Com- merce. She’s helped thousands of people. I just want the House to help me recognize her great work and her happy retirement, and she just had a birthday. Please raise your hands for Patty Edwards. GALE MOSSMAN M. Stilwell:I rise today to recognize and honour an exceptional individual, Gale Mossman.

Sadly, we lost this extraordinary mother, wife, friend and community citizen on June 24, 2020. My words cannot capture the immense sorrow of losing Gale. She was truly a wonderful person, who cared deeply for her friends, her family and her community. Gale and her husband, Allan, moved from Ajax, Ontario, to Parks- ville, B.C., in 2004. Gale was just so genuine, warm and kind that she quickly made numerous friends in Parksville, including myself. Gale cared greatly about her neighbours. She immersed herself in helping wherever she could through community service.

She was the founding member of the Business and Professional Women’s Club, was the chairwoman of the hospital board and a member of the police services and United Way boards in Ajax. In Parksville, Gale volun- teered on many boards, including Milner Gardens, the community foundation and most recently the Royal Cana- dian Legion Branch 49. [1:40 p.m.] Gale always had time to give of herself. She volunteered in my office, especially at events like my annual seniors tea. She even tailored my clothes. For all her dedication to community, she was honoured with the Queen’s Golden Jubilee award.

Gale, you were a bright light. Y our loss was too soon and too fast. Y our life was a blessing, your memory a treasure. Y ou are loved beyond words and missed beyond measure. MIKE SORENSEN J. Rice: I’ d like to take a moment to inform the House that here in the north coast, we recently lost an important leader. Mike Sorenson was a paramedic and patient care delivery manager for the north, based out of Station 684 in Prince Rupert.

Mike started with B.C. emergency health services 20 years ago in Terrace and worked as a primary care paramedic in Masset, Prince Rupert and Vancouver before becoming unit chief of Station 684 in 2015. The fol- lowing year he was promoted to manager. Mike’s interpersonal and mentoring skills provided a real support to his paramedic colleagues and in making a difference to patient services here in the north. He loved the outdoors, often fishing and hunting with friends. My thoughts are with his family and with his colleagues during this difficult time. Mike will be greatly missed.

Statements (Standing Order 25B) LOCAL PRODUCTION OF MASKS FOR COASTAL COMMUNITIES J. Rice:We’re facing a global pandemic not seen in over 100 years. While we have all witnessed some isolated examples of selfishness and malice, our communities have overwhelmingly demonstrated solidarity and kindness. Over the past few months, we have seen diverse and creative expressions of solidarity. There is one initiative in particular which I’ d like to recognize here in the North Coast.

My riding has some of the most remote communities in the province, and the isolation and lack of services makes our communities particularly sensitive to the potential effects of a local outbreak. When the pandemic began, health providers throughout my riding worried about the lack of equipment and PPE in our hospitals and clinics. Seeing this vulnerability for his community in Bella Coola, James Hindley, a local 3D printing expert, worked together with local doctors, the Bella Coola Makerspace and a global online community of creators to make hun- dreds of face shields and other PPE for the local hospital staff.

James spent hundreds of hours using 3D printers at the community’s Makerspace, and on his living room floor, to make these face shields, while all the materials were donated by local businesses. Thanks to the efforts of all British Columbians and 11905

his own community, the virus has not entered the cent- ral coast, and these masks haven’t had to be used. He has donated over 50 masks to the Nuxalk First Nation to stockpile, and he has kept another 200 masks at home in case the hospital needs them for a future outbreak in the community. James Hindley is just one of the thousands of people across the province who stepped up to fight this pan- demic and ensure our communities remain safe. I couldn’t be prouder of his work and that of all British Columbians who have come together, at a distance, to fight this pandemic.

To everyone who chose solidarity and kindness over self-interest and despair in the face of this pandemic, thank you. Y ou are all heroes in my book. RECOVERY FROM STORM DAMAGE IN CHILLIW ACK AREA L. Throness:At the beginning of February, which seems like an eternity ago now, there was a major weather event throughout the Lower Mainland that caused significant damage in the rural areas of my riding.

Hemlock Valley Road, which leads to the popular ski destination known as Sasquatch Mountain Resort, was completely washed out for more than a kilometre, cutting off hundreds of skiers in the middle of their recreation. Just north of Harrison Hot Springs, Trout Lake Creek jumped its banks and made a detour down Rockwell Drive, destroying the road and trapping residents. The response to these local disasters was extraordinary. Resort staff and local Hemlock Valley residents made sure that everyone had plenty of food and a place to stay. Sup- plies were flown in, and some tourists were flown out by helicopter.

Emil Anderson Construction began working immediately, and within three days — and that over a weekend — they had the road open to alternating traffic. A couple of days after the Rockwell Drive disaster, local residents gathered to talk, and I went to meet them. Rock- well Drive was impassable. I had to walk in. Heavy equip- ment was everywhere, and Emil Anderson was once again working quickly to restore the road, as well as the area’s potable water.

I found resilient people reaching out to help their neighbours, and I reached out to government on their behalf. [1:45 p.m.] I want to thank Emil Anderson for its rapid response, quality work and for listening to local residents. I also want to thank two volunteers: Brian Murphy, of the Hemlock Valley residents association, and Roy Molnar, who lives on Rockwell Drive, provided leadership and worked with government to make sure that everyone was safe and ser- vice was restored as soon as possible.

I also want to thank provincial Ministry of Transportation officials, who saw the need and spent several million dollars to repair both of these areas. As we have seen during the COVID crisis, it’s good to know that when a disaster occurs in B.C., we care about each other. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO COVID-19 IN MAPLE RIDGE AND MISSION B. D’Eith:I rise in the House today to give praise to some of the heroes of our pandemic — local community members who saw a need and rose to the challenge. I’ve been incredibly inspired by the everyday stories of resili- ence and compassion in Maple Ridge and Mission.

In Mission, when the University of the Fraser Valley’s emergency student fund dried up due to increased demand, students, staff and alumni raised $83,000 to help support their fellow students in need. Hailey Cheema, who was raised in Mission, is using her company, Personal Pro- tect Solutions, to donate Health Canada–approved PPE to local Mission businesses through the Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Tracy and Ben Driessen, of Deroche General Store, have, for decades, been funding the Deroche Elementary School programs, and their generosity continues through weekly food hamper supports to families during the pandemic. As far as Maple Ridge, you may have heard of Quinn Callander, the 13-year-old Maple Ridge Boy Scout who made Forbes’s “Eight Under 18. ” His mother saw a Face- book post from a B.C. nurse asking for ear guards, which make masks more comfortable on long shifts.

Quinn learned how to use a 3D printer in his 3D printing club at Hammond Elementary, and with his dad, he has printed and delivered over 1,000 of these mask connectors to health care workers for free. Quinn is an impressive example of how youth can creatively use their knowledge and education for the benefit of the community. The amazing folks at Ridge Meadow Seniors Society, since May, have been going to local seniors homes with a loudspeaker, streamers, signs and a bubble machine for afternoon dances.

Of course, residents come out on their balconies to dance, and this has been a wonderful reprieve for many of the seniors in isolation. In a similar vein, the Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living has been having mobile music therapy sessions for people with disabilities. And this is with the organization Music Heals. Taryn Stephenson, who is the owner of Once Upon a Tea Leaf, also hosts tiki fundraising events for the Music Heals people. I could not be more proud of our community. These are only a few of the many stories of people who have come together in Maple Ridge and Mission during this pandemic.

I want to thank everyone in the community who has lent a helping hand. Y our solidarity and compassion is what is getting us through this difficult time. 11906 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

DANIEL FONTAINE AND B.C. CARE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION L. Reid: I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Daniel Fontaine. After almost eight years successfully leading B.C. Care Providers, CEO Daniel Fontaine has taken on a new role as CEO of the Métis Nation British Columbia. During his tenure, Daniel has taken B.C. Care Providers to completely new heights. When he first started, the BCCPA had only two staff and a small office at the corner of Broadway and Granville. Today there are 13 full-time staff and a series of popular programs and initiatives that he has implemented.

Few can argue that one of Daniel’s legacies will be the instrumental role he played in estab- lishing both SafeCare B.C. and EngAge B.C. These new entities have strengthened workplace safety and provide an integrated voice for both the care sector and the seniors living sector under one roof. Daniel has provided exemplary leadership and has been a strong voice during the current COVID-19 pandemic. I’m sure all the members join me in thanking him for his commitment, dedication and tireless service guiding us through these most challenging times.

No doubt he will do amazing things for the Métis Nation, and we genuinely wish him all the best with this new

chapter in his life. BRONZE DRAFT HORSE STATUE IN BURNABY J. Routledge:A large bronze workhorse sits on its haunches at a busy intersection in Burnaby, frozen in the act of laying down, a yoke around its neck. Behind it, a bronze log — the chains that once attached that log to the workhorse, now broken. [1:50 p.m.] This is a new public artwork, and it’s calledThe Retired Draft Horse and the Last Pulled Log. Surrounded by a rap- idly changing and rising skyline, this sight may seem out of place.

It recalls a time before Kingsway became a busy thoroughfare lined with megamalls, restaurants, gas sta- tions and neon signs; a time when it was the route taken by the draft horses that drew logs from the Fraser River to the harbour in English Bay or delivered milk or hauled kegs of beer or kegs of nails. Created by Ken Lum, winner of the 2020 Governor General’s Awards in Visual and Media Arts,The Retired Draft Horse and the Last Pulled Log pays homage to the working people who built the city of Burnaby.

But forever frozen in limbo between laying down and standing up, it also honours the working people who continue to trans- form and modernize our city through their labour, their service, their commerce and their commitment to com- munity. The next time you happen to be travelling along Kings- way, perhaps in start-and-stop traffic or riding the Sky- Train, I invite you to take a moment to reflect on the generations of brain and muscle upon whose shoulders we stand. When you pass by the corner of Edmonds and Kingsway, look for a bronze statue.

It won’t be the ubi- quitous proud steed riding into battle with a general on its back. Look for a tired workhorse. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND V ALUE OF TOURISM INDUSTRY A. Olsen:Today I stand to honour part of the journey that got me here. Community service was a value instilled in me by my grandparents. The craft was taught to me by patient, professional people who walked their talk. Imagine how I felt as a 16-year-old kid, one of hun- dreds hired for the summer at Butchart Gardens. When I showed up to my first shift, the owner, Mr. Ross, was in the dish pit in the dining room.

He was there to wel- come me and show me that no job in the gardens is too great or too small, an impression so deeply lodged that I recount it with ease today. The hospitality and tourism industry is about impres- sions, experiences, thrills, moments, emotions — the dorsal fin cresting out of the Salish Sea, a grizzly bear or a coastal wolf fishing in a delta, wrapping your arms around one of the earth’s most ancient creatures: a majestic Douglas fir or a western red cedar. It’s the industry that taught a stinking teenage boy grooming habits and how to iron a shirt.

The skills that I need in my job as an MLA — how to fearlessly knock on doors, read the energy of a room and how to effortlessly balance dozens of pressing issues — they all come to me from the training and experience that I got waiting tables. The tourism and hospitality industry packages and delivers “Super, natural British Columbia. ” It’s one of the reasons we work so hard to keep British Columbia super and natural. What are we without the dorsal fins and the old growth forests? COVID-19 has hit the hospitality and tourism sector hard. The recovery is not a sprint but a marathon.

To the people working in the hospitality industry, thank you. I see you. To the investors who have poured your life into cre- ating great food and unforgettable experiences, I hear you, and I know. Seeing you and hearing you is just the start. Oral Questions STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES A. Wilkinson:It’s a year ago this month, in July of 2019, that the first sign of massive increases in strata condo insurance premiums showed up. It accelerated through the rest of 2019, and the crisis is now fully developed in 2020. The question is very simple to the Premier.

When can the 1.5 million citizens of this province who live in strata Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11907

condominiums expect some financial relief from this province? Hon. J. Horgan:I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I fully appreciate that this is a grave situ- ation for many countless numbers of strata participants right across the province. It’s been a challenge we’ve been working on very diligently for the past number of months. [1:55 p.m.] The member will also know that we are in the grips of a global pandemic. That’s not to say that we can’t do many things at one time, but we are doing systematically the best we can to do a number of things.

Firstly, we’re trying to make sure we keep people safe. We’re focusing on making sure that as we rebuild the eco- nomy, immediate relief is available for those that were drastically affected by COVID-19. At the same time, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance put together a package of changes to legislation to make it easier and better for those that are struggling at this very moment. There’s much more to do. I’m not suggesting for a second that we have completed the task. But the task is underway, and I am grateful that members on the other side have awoken to this issue as well.

I believe that if we work together and we put our shoulders to the grindstone, we’ll come up with solutions for the people that are in grave distress right now. This is a private sector failure, hon. Member. I’m certain that you understand that. The challenge is not just in Brit- ish Columbia. It’s right across the country. It’s grave here, and we’re going to work as hard as we can to resolve that for the people that care about it and are concerned about it and are counting on government to give them a hand. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. A.

Wilkinson:Well, with all due respect, that was a complete evasion. The question is very simple. Can the 1.5 million British Columbians who live in strata condomin- iums expect financial relief in the foreseeable future from this government or not, yes or no? Hon. J. Horgan:I think it diminishes the Leader of the Opposition to say that the question is very simple. It’s not simple. If it were simple, we would have resolved it by now. In fact, we would have had a bevy of ideas coming from the other side.

I hear now that the Leader of the Opposition and his crew seem to think that we should nationalize the private sector insurance companies. That is a novel change from the positions that they’ve held in the past. It’s a serious issue. It’s not a simple issue. We’re working as hard as we can on it. We’re going to continue to do that, through the summer, into the fall and into next year, until we can get it right. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental. A. Wilkinson:Still no answer — simple question.

Can British Columbians expect relief from strata condomini- um insurance increases or not? Y es or no, Premier. Hon. J. Horgan:I thought for the past four months that everyone was paying attention to the world environment that we are part of. I thought for the past four months that every member of this Legislature understood what the consequences of global pandemic meant not just to the resources of this province but to the resources of Canada.

To suggest that there’s a simple solution to a private sec- tor market failure is surprising — surprising coming from a group of people who profess to put up the flag of free enterprise every morning, salute it and say: “Be damned helping regular people. The market will resolve it. ” Appar- ently not, in this instance. That’s why we’re working so hard on this side of the House to get it right. T. Stone:Well, obviously, the answer from the Premier is no. There’s no relief forthcoming. Bob and Susan are pensioners in Kelowna. They’ve received their insurance renewal, and they can’t afford it.

It says loud and clear that their water deductible is going up from $15,000 to $150,000. Their premium is going from $84,000 to $387,000. The net effect of this on their pock- etbooks is an additional $200 per month in monthly strata fees. They cannot afford it. Now, all week the Housing Minister has boasted about just how pleased the international insurance sector is with the government’s strata action plan. On Monday, she said: “It’s about making sure…that the insurance sector has some comfort in knowing that they, too, can make money. ” Does the Premier agree with his minister’s statement? Hon. S.

Robinson:As I said before in this House, this is a problem that has been years in the making, and there have been some serious gaps left behind by the previous government. We tasked the B.C. Financial Services Authority to dig into this issue and to make some recommendations, which they have. They’ve provided us with an interim report. We are acting on those recommendations. There’s legislation before the House. I look forward to debating that legisla- tion. We are going to continue to work on this issue so that we can get it right for the people of this province. Mr.

Speaker:Kamloops–South Thompson on a supple- mental. T. Stone:Well, we’ll assume that the Premier must agree 11908 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

with the minister’s statement, if he’s not going to stand up and say otherwise. [2:00 p.m.] The fact of the matter is that the legislation that the min- ister keeps referring to does absolutely nothing to provide relief that people need today. In fact, 14 of the bill’s 16 sec- tions are actually dependent on the development of more regulation and consultations that the government plans on having, which could take months, potentially years. An empty bill is not a solution. Don’t take my word for it. This is what the Finance Min- ister had to say about this issue.

Just last March she said: “Bringing forward a bill that does nothing to address the pressures that are being faced does not make a good solu- tion. ” Well, the government has done exactly this. They’ve brought forward an action plan. They’ve tabled a bill that does nothing to address the pressures that thousands of British Columbians are facing. Again to the Premier, will the Premier provide imme- diate relief for the thousands of British Columbians who need it today? Hon. S. Robinson:We know that people are struggling today. We know that, and we hear them. That is why we tasked the B.C.

Financial Services Authority to work dili- gently, to work quickly to develop the recommendations. Of course, there’s more work to do. There’s absolutely more work to do to get it right. We want to make sure that part of what we’re doing is mitigating the risk so that we can actu- ally get the kind of insurance that people need, that they can afford. So we’re taking steps to do just that. I look forward to debating the bill and getting it passed quickly through the House so that we can get to work and we can resolve this for the people in British Columbia. We’re expecting a final report in the coming months.

I look forward to continuing to act on this file so that we can, again, bring relief to the people who are continuing to struggle with the affordability of insurance products. ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND LOCAL PRODUCTION AND INNOV ATION A. Olsen: As B.C. addresses the health crisis caused by COVID-19, the most pressing issue becomes, like for the rest of the world, the economic crisis and rebuilding our economy. The $1.5 billion stimulus package, which government is preparing to spend, invests a substantial amount of capital into our economy to precipitate found- ational changes.

As we know, we can’t afford to go back to business as usual, because going back means being unpre- pared for what’s ahead. The health crisis has highlighted the many areas in our society and economy that lack resilience. In many cases, our lack of local technological and manufacturing capab- ilities has forced us to rely on fragile global supply chains. The final report from B.C. ’s first innovation commissioner points to an opportunity to use CleanBC as an economic driver by incenting made-in-B.C. solutions to help us meet our climate targets.

We can develop and strengthen our domestic supply chains while lowering GHG emissions. My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Devel- opment and Competitiveness. Is her ministry developing a concrete proposal for how stimulus spending can enact this recommendation to use CleanBC as an economic driver in recovery that can also help us build greater resili- ence in local supply chains? Hon. M. Mungall:Thanks to the member for the ques- tion. I know that he’s very interested in this topic, because we’ve actually been talking about it over the last few months.

In a short word, the answer to his question is yes. This is very important. I think COVID-19 has shown us all, and Dr. Winter is absolutely correct to point it out, that global supply chains have been disrupted. We have to do more to localize those supply chains and bring that pro- duction closer to home. Some of the things that we already started doing, dur- ing the height of the pandemic, was to create a supply hub. Now, the supply hub was helping people who needed medical PPE to get medical PPE and other types of supplies. The people that created that were right here in British Columbia.

Traction on Demand, which is a British Columbia company headed by a young man who originated from Nelson — I have to put that in there, hon. Speaker — put together the supply hub, in partner- ship with our government. There were other B.C. companies who were also part of this important project. Westlab in Surrey, Breathe Med- ical in Kelowna, WestBond Industries in Delta and Pro- totype Integrated Solutions in Langley were all contribut- ing to this important initiative that allowed greater supply chains here locally in British Columbia.

Going forward, we know how important innovation, as our former innovation commissioner pointed out, is going to be for our future economy. We’ve already appointed the member for Delta North. He’s already the parliamentary secretary, giving him the added responsibility for expand- ing and growing our mass timber industry, as an example. [2:05 p.m.] Another example. Innovate B.C. has also created 100 paid internships with Mitacs for small and medium tech companies that are building solutions in the COVID era.

This question of localizing our supply chains is an important question that the new innovation commissioner is going to be looking at. I’m very much looking forward to announcing who that person will be in the near future. Mr. Speaker:Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental. A. Olsen:COVID-19 has daylighted our lack of stock- piling and local production of personal protective equip- ment, and the minister mentioned it. PPE is critical to Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11909

protecting front-line workers, and we saw the devastating health consequences when we lack supply. B.C. has a lot of natural resources, much of which we export raw. This is not sustainable and forgoes many local potential jobs. Now, more than ever, we need immediate job-creating measures. Coupling our abundance of natural resources with the strength, value-added industry, will mean a more resilient economy and well-paying jobs for the future. Our forest could provide essential bioproducts such as masks, which will help transition the forestry industry and bring jobs to many hard hit communities.

Researchers at UBC have created a biodegradable and compostable N95 mask made entirely of B.C. wood fibres and will apply for Health Canada certification. Shovel-ready, shovel-worthy. My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development. The minis- ter has spoken about shifting the industry to value-added instead of volume. We haven’t yet seen many concrete changes. What steps is the minister taking to capitalize on the opportunities in bioproducts, like masks, and making it a reality for our forest industry? Hon. D.

Donaldson:I welcome the question from the interim leader of the Third Party to discuss innovation in the forest sector. We definitely have a focus on adding value over volume on the use of the public resource, the forests of B.C., and innovation is an important part of that. Unfortunately, the forest sector we inherited under the previous government had an overconcentration of tenure and a focus on traditional forest products. Those factors do not lead to the stimulation of innovation. In Budget 2020, we allotted $13 million over the budget cycle to the new forest economy.

That’s to increase First Nations participation in the bioeconomy and to work on the supply side around fibre, and access to fibre, for innov- ators. That gets to the point of the member’s question. That access to fibre is absolutely essential for a com- pany like Harmac Pacific, who I just spoke with — the CEO and senior managers — yesterday on the tele- phone. Harmac Pacific has doubled the supply they provide to companies producing surgical gowns, for instance.

So that access to chips for that pulp is some- thing that is important to innovators like Harmac Pacific, and we’ve taken measures to reduce waste in the forest and taken measures to drive logs to domestic pro- duction, so that chips are available for the innovators and for the production of value-added products like sur- gical gowns and the pulp that goes into that. We’ve also worked with FPInnovations. I believe the member’s question, when it referenced that the biodegrad- able N95 masks that UBC [audio interrupted]. Overall, this is important for the workers and important for communities. Mr.

Speaker:Minister, thank you. I think we had a bit of a technical glitch there. GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR EDUCATION SYSTEM REOPENING D. Davies: Parents and students have been patient as schools dealt with COVID-19 and managed the uncer- tainty of this past school year, but now they’re getting anxious. They want and expect the government to have a plan in place for this fall, sooner than later. The Premier said that June was a trial run and that they learned from that. Now parents are looking for direction. To the Minister of Education, will he provide students and parents with an action plan by August? [2:10 p.m.] Hon.

R. Fleming:I thank the member for the question. We have provided a plan for British Columbia, and it’s exactly why we’re one of the handful of jurisdictions in North America that was able to safely reopen schools in June. I think that has provided us with a fantastic learn- ing opportunity, which is now being seized upon by the steering committee that I appointed, for the September restart of schools. That steering committee has met a couple of times already.

It is composed of the teaching profession, sup- port staff, principals and vice-principals, parent organ- izations — every stakeholder in the K-to-12 education system. It furthers and builds upon the work that we’ve done as a government to have a collaborative approach to the complicated management of safe school operation during this pandemic. I think British Columbia is now being regarded as a leader in jurisdictions across the world and close to us.

In the Departments of Education in Washington state, Ore- gon and California, they’re looking to the plans that we’ve already developed, as a government here in British Colum- bia, that safely guided our school system back to in-class instruction in June. The steering committee is working to provide informa- tion that will be public, which I will announce in the com- ing weeks, about what stage we will be in, what the features around health and safety protocols will look like and what the school

schedule will look like. What we will always do as a government, in the educa- tion system and across government, is to have a science- led approach. The provincial health office has to be con- gratulated for how it has worked with everybody in the education system to make what has happened possible. That will guide us into the future. Mr. Speaker:Peace River North on a supplemental. D. Davies: Surely, though, the minister must under- stand that parents need a plan for the return of school in September. Numerous articles that are in the news have stated mid-August, August 20, before a plan would be released. 11910 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Parents obviously understand the impact of the pan- demic, but the reality for families across British Columbia is that they need to arrange child care. They need to have a plan to pick up kids from different schools they might attend, a plan for what kids are going to do on the days that they’re not in the classroom. It’s not fair for families to only have a week or so to organize all of this. It sounds like the minister has got a plan to get a plan, but families want some certainty for September. Again to the minister, will he ensure that parents know the plan for the new school year by August? Hon. R.

Fleming:I’m pleased to tell the member that that closely guarded secret has been broadcast to every media organization that cared to cover me — that we will, in the next few weeks, be giving substantive information about what September looks like. But we will always have to check that and update transparently, as we do as a gov- ernment, against the backdrop of pandemic management in British Columbia. We want to have a safe plan. Safety remains the paramount concern of our government. We published the stages document a couple of months ago. The member knows that. He’s been briefed on that. So we’ve had a plan.

It guided us in June. A version of it will guide us, going forward, in September. We have a collabor- ative plan. Every major organization has representation on the steering committee that is planning the safe reopening of schools in September. Look, we should be proud, as a province, to be so fur- ther ahead of other jurisdictions, having worked hard with 70,000 working men and women in the school system, hundreds of thousands of parents who are connected to parent advisory committees, to be able to have done what other jurisdictions have only contemplated and not been able to achieve.

I am very happy to take a question from the opposition on this. Back in April, the opposition said we couldn’t open schools. In May, they said we shouldn’t open schools, and in June, they said we couldn’t open schools. We did all that. We did it safely. Look, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from those who participated in the voluntary return to school. Our plans, going forward, are ones that are being co-developed with every K-to-12 stakeholder and will be shared publicly in the very near future. J. Johal:The Premier said the return to school in June was a trial run.

I can tell the minister that certainly in my community, in Richmond, the participation level, I think, was 35 percent. I’m not sure who’s grading his class, but 35 percent generally would be considered a fail. [2:15 p.m.] Parents expect government to get involved and provide plans moving forward in the fall. Instead, the minister is waiting until a week before school returns before provid- ing details. Other provinces have provided clear plans that take into account all contingencies. I have one of those plans from back east.

There’s information here on school attendance, school day routine, limits of students in classrooms, child care and before-and-after programs — 22 pages of vital information all available online to parents. If other provinces can do it, why can’t this government do it? To the Minister of Education, why doesn’t he tell par- ents, students and teachers what the school plans are for this fall? Hon. R. Fleming:These questions are very, very prob- lematic. As the member knows, we had a voluntary return to the school system because that’s what was possible. Y ou know what they had in other provinces?

They had a zero percent return to school. We did very well. All of those that were involved…. This tremendous exercise — which took incredible hard work, thoughtfulness and guidance from the provincial health office and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control — paid off in spades. We wanted vulnerable children to be reconnected to schools, and they were. We wanted those with special learning needs to be reconnected with schools, and they were as well. That opportunity was available to 100 percent of families.

Families that felt that it was the right decision for their child, at the time in June, were able to take advantage of that. The lessons and experiences from June are informing the September restart. We are ahead of other jurisdictions because of the work that we put in during the pandemic and through the June restart. I think that British Colum- bia…. When you look at what other provinces and territ- ories are inquiring of us, they’re looking at our plans to develop their plans. I think that’s a testament to the lead- ership British Columbia has provided in Canada. Mr.

Speaker:The member for Richmond-Queensbor- ough on a supplemental. J. Johal:We’re hearing from across the province that there is no district-level planning happening and that nothing is expected for weeks. Now, the minister says that they’re ahead of other provinces. In Alberta, official plans will be announced by August 1 to parents. In Ontario, each school board is required to present a plan for schools to return by August 4. In Quebec, schools planning to fully reopen in September. In Saskatchewan, schools will reopen fully on September 1. That’s a plan.

Parents know that they can plan for it and know what’s going to happen in September. Here’s what education columnist Patti Bacchus had to say: “The time to talk about solutions is now, not in late August. Parents need to plan. ” Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11911

Again to the Minister of Education, why won’t he tell parents what the plan is today for the fall? Hon. R. Fleming:To a previous question…. I know the member here is a former journalist. I said to his former colleagues — the press gallery and others — who joined a briefing today, in fact, that we will have a plan published in three weeks’ time. What we have is a steering committee composed of all of the stakeholders, including parent organizations, working right now on that plan. I think what you’re seeing in other provinces is that they’ve announced dates. They’ve announced elements of what they are planning.

That’s fine. We’ve done that as well. But when you look at the national organization of educa- tion ministries in the country, British Columbia’s leader- ship is well recognized. We’ve done what other jurisdic- tions have not. We are committed, and we have behaved, as a gov- ernment, in the most transparent fashion, giving people information that is real, that is well thought out and that is guided by science. That’s what we’re going to contin- ue to do, in the most timely manner possible.

As I have committed to do, we will have a more accurate picture of what a return to school looks like in September in the coming weeks. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR TOURISM INDUSTRY M. Stilwell:Y esterday the Minister of Tourism tried to paint a rosy picture of the tourism sector’s future. Except the reality on the ground is quite different. Businesses are hurting. They can’t afford to wait for the minister to stop talking and come up with a plan. They need support now — today. Here’s a quote from John Wilson of Wilson’s Transport- ation: “With every passing day, it is getting tougher and tougher to see the light.

Wilson’s and the industry, as a whole, need something soon to make it through 2020. ” To the Minister of Tourism, when can businesses expect a plan that provides them with the support that they need to survive this crisis? [2:20 p.m.] Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question, because our government absolutely recognizes the value of tourism and how they’ve been hit extremely hard by the COVID-19 virus. Our tourism operators and I have been working very closely over the past three months. We are working with them on response, recov- ery and resilience.

We immediately, as a government, provided $5 billion in support. We reallocated funds and launched our domestic marketing campaign so that tourism operators can have a summer season. We continue to protect and monitor our international markets, because we know those spaces need to be protected because bookings come 18 months out usually. We continue to work with the sector towards recovery to hear what they want. We work with the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., the RDMOs, the sector asso- ciations and the businesses.

We’re working on resilience by focusing on destination development and by focusing on Indigenous tourism. Here’s a quote for the member, because we are work- ing closely with the sector, and we’re going to continue to work closely with the sector. This was a letter from the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., which they provided yesterday morning.

It’s on behalf of the mem- bers, directors and partners of the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. “I wish to express my sincere thanks for your leadership in support of B.C. ’s tourism industry as we continue to deal with the devastating impacts of COVID. ” They go on: “Thank you, again, for champion- ing the needs for tourism workers and businesses and communities throughout B.C. ” What we’re going to continue to do is work directly with the sector. What we’re going to continue to do is discuss with them what they need for supports towards recovery, and we’ll work together towards that. D.

Clovechok:The people in the tourism sector are being very up front, and they’ve been very clear. They need support from the province, and they need it immediately. They want a defined recovery plan that lays out what the next 18 months look like. Other provinces have plans and are making significant investments to sustain the industry, yet in B.C., nothing. To the Minister of Tourism, when will the minister provide a recovery plan that the sector is desperately ask- ing for? Hon. L. Beare:It’s really unfortunate that the mem- bers are painting this picture. We continue to work with the sector.

We have already secured and provided invest- ments, and we will continue to do that. We provided $10 million in marketing money for community destin- ation marketing organizations. We provided $400,000 to the tourism associations so that they can have market- ing plans ready. We provided $130,000 to visitor net- work services. We provided money for smaller CDMOs to work with Destination B.C. We know that the tourism sector has been significantly hit. We have worked with them to address their concerns to date, including wholesale prices of alcohol and pieces like that.

We’re going to keep working with them together, moving towards a recovery in the future. I’m going to con- tinue, as I have been for the past three months, working extremely closely with the sector and with the direct busi- nesses to hear what it is they need. [2:25 p.m.] 11912 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

[End of question period.] Motions Without Notice APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REFORMING THE POLICE ACT Hon. M. Farnworth:By leave, I move: [That a Special Committee on Reforming thePolice Act be appoin- ted to examine, inquire into, and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on the following: 1.

Reforms related to independent oversight, transparency, governance, structure, service delivery, standards, funding, training and education, and any other considerations which may apply respecting the modernization and sustainability of policing under thePolice Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367) and all related agreements. 2. The role of police with respect to complex social issues in- cluding mental health and wellness, addictions, and harm re- duction; and in consideration of any appropriate changes to rel- evant sections of theMental Health Act(R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 288). 3.

The scope of systemic racism within British Columbia’s po- lice agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in- dependent municipal police and designated policing units, and its impact on public safety and public trust in policing. 4. Whether there are measures necessary to ensure a modern- izedPolice Actis consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), as required by sec- tion 3 of theDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (S.B.C. 2019, c. 44).

The Special Committee shall undertake the above examinations as it deems appropriate with regard to relevant reports, studies, and examinations. The Special Committee shall have all the powers of a Select Stand- ing Committee and in addition is empowered to: (

a) appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee; (

b) sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House; (

c) conduct consultations by any means the Committee con- siders appropriate; (

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (

e) retain personnel as required to assist the Committee. The Special Committee shall report to the House by May 14, 2021, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall pres- ent all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The Special Committee is to be composed of Nicholas Simons (Convenor),Garry Begg, Bowinn Ma, Rachna Singh, Jas Johal, Mike Morris, Ellis Ross, Michelle Stilwell, andAdam Olsen.] Leave granted. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:We are going to go to Motion 6. Government Motions on Notice MOTION 6 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES Hon. D. Eby:I move Motion No. 6 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [Be it resolved that pursuant to

Section 6 (2) of theJudicial Com- pensation Act, the Legislative Assembly: a. rejects the following recommendations of the Judicial Com- pensation Commission 2019 Final Report as laid before this As- sembly on February 24, 2020 for the reasons outlined in Govern- ment’s Proposed Response to the Judicial Compensation Commis- sion 2019 Final Report in Respect of Provincial Court Judges, filed in this House; and b. sets the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be sub- stituted for the remuneration, allowances or benefits proposed by the rejected recommendations; as follows: 1.

The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 of $287,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 is set at $276,000. 2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 of $297,000, is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 is set at $282,250. 3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 of $307,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 is set at $288,500. 4.

Recommendation 13, that government pay 100% of the reas- onable costs of the legal fees and disbursements of the Provin- cial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, including the costs for experts, be rejected. That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommenda- tions in respect of Provincial Court judges contained in the report.] I’ d like to take a few moments to speak to this motion respecting the compensation that is paid to the province’s provincial court judges.

As members may know, the process that is followed to determine judges’ compensation is necessarily different from collective bargaining. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law — namely, that anyone who is accused of a crime or challenges government before the courts can be sure that their case will be decided by an impartial judge. As such, it is a constitutional require- ment that judicial remuneration must not become the sub- ject of negotiation between government and the judiciary.

Instead, government and the judiciary make submissions to an independent commission. In British Columbia, the Judicial Compensation Act, JCA, establishes the process for the independent, objective and effective Judicial Com- pensation Commission. Every three years the Judicial Compensation Commis- sion reports and makes recommendations on judicial remuneration to government after considering the stat- utory factors set out in the JCA.

The government and this assembly are not bound to accept the commission’s recom- mendations, but if the assembly wishes to depart from them, the assembly must give legitimate and rational reas- Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11913

ons compatible with the common law and constitution and that rest upon a reasonable factual foundation. [2:30 p.m.] The commission’s recommendations must have a mean- ingful effect on the process of determining judicial remu- neration. They must be considered by the government and given weight. Overall, the response must respect the com- mission process and ensure that the process has been effective. Before I address the proposed response, I want to take the time to recognize the valuable work of the Provincial Court and the Provincial Court judges.

The Provincial Court has jurisdiction over most of the criminal cases in this province, as well as the majority of family law mat- ters. The court also adjudicates small claims matters from $5,001 up to $35,000. In 2018-19, there were over 112,000 cases initiated in the Provincial Court in B.C. In addition to the court’s caseload, the Provincial Court, including its judges, has continually adapted processes to improve its level of service to the public and meet the needs of the justice system.

Government especially com- mends the Provincial Court on its efforts during the COV- ID-19 pandemic to ensure the court functions as effect- ively and efficiently as possible in these unprecedented times. Government is dedicated to ensuring that Provin- cial Court judges are supported to continue to demon- strate their innovation, flexibility and hard work when car- rying out their important work of dispensing justice.

Turning now to government’s proposed response to the Judicial Compensation Commission 2019 final report, let me first express my thanks to the 2019 commission mem- bers who undertook their responsibilities faithfully: com- mission chair, the Hon. Thomas Cromwell, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; Vern Blair; Michael Marchbank; Robin McFee, Queen’s Counsel; and Lisa Southern. Before I get into the specifics of government’s proposed response, I want to make one clarification to a statement in government’s proposed response with respect to Pro- vincial Court judges.

The proposed response states that Crown counsel will receive an increase that is 1.27 percent greater than any increase received by the judges. I have been informed that that is not necessarily so, as Crown counsel salaries are a matter of ongoing negotiation. The commission’s report makes nine recommendations concerning the remuneration, allowances and benefits of Provincial Court judges.

As set out in the motion, govern- ment proposes that the commission salary recommenda- tion for Provincial Court judges be rejected and that the commission’s recommendation that cabinet seek to enact a regulation to cover 100 percent of the reasonable cost of legal fees and disbursements of the Provincial Court Judges Association, the PCJA, also be rejected. In making this proposal, I can assure all members of this House that government has looked carefully at what the commission recommended.

Detailed reasons are con- tained in the government’s proposed response document, which I tabled in the House a few days ago. The proposed response appropriately addresses and gives weight to the commission’s recommendations as well as the statutory factors set out in subsection 5(5) of the Judicial Compens- ation Act.

The proposed response respects the commission process and ensures judicial independence while recogniz- ing that government is accountable for the expenditure of public funds and must analyze the cost of the commission’s recommendations and responsibly balance the competing demands on public resources. In regard to salaries, government proposes rejecting the commission’s salary recommendations for the reasons set out in the proposed response, including:

(1) The economic conditions in British Columbia and the financial position of the government. Subfactors 5(5)(

e) and 5(5)(

f) in the Judicial Compensation Act have changed significantly since the commission issued its final report and recommendations.

(2) The commission misapplied subsection 5(5)(

d) of the Judicial Compensation Act: “changes in the compens- ation of others paid by provincial public funds in British Columbia. ” The commission’s conclusions concerning the province’s economic position and the government’s finan- cial position must be considered in light of the new reality of the province’s economic position. The COVID-19 pandemic is an unanticipated public health emergency that arose after the commission issued its final report. The COVID-19 pandemic has had and will have a significant impact on government’s forecasted spending and revenue.

Accordingly, the proposed substi- tute salaries account for the significant impact COVID-19 is having on British Columbia’s current and expected eco- nomic and fiscal position. The proposed substitute salaries also account for the government’s view that the commission did not appropri- ately weigh the changes in compensation of others paid by provincial public funds. The assembly is entitled to re-weigh this factor alongside the others, and it is pro- posed that the assembly do this.

In government’s view, giv- ing greater weight than the commission did to changes in compensation of others paid from provincial public funds is appropriate and militates in favour of lower salary increases than were recommended by the commission. Others paid from provincial public funds are generally being held to raises of 2 percent per year and, in some cases, 2.25 percent, on account of government expenditure management policies. The size of the judges’ salaries increases should be considered in this context. [2:35 p.m.] Judges’ salaries in 2019-20 are currently $270,000.

Gov- ernment’s proposed salaries would represent a three-year increase of 6.85 percent above the 2019-20 judges’ salary, compared to the 13.7 percent increase recommended by the commission. The estimated fiscal impact of the com- mission salary recommendations is approximately 11914 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

$14,341,555 over the three years addressed by the commis- sion’s report. The proposed substituted salary increase has an estimated fiscal impact of $6,521,061, which govern- ment regards as a significant saving. The proposed salary, as estimated based on available salaries for 2019 and 2020, puts B.C. fifth compared to other provinces’ provincial court judges. In regard to the costs incurred by the Provincial Court Judges Association for participating in the commission process, government proposes rejecting the commission’s recommendation that government pay 100 percent of those costs.

Instead, we propose that the formula for the payment of such costs contained in the Judicial Compens- ation Act be applied — that government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of the cost between $30,000 and $150,000. The objective of putting a cost formula into statute was to create certainty around the cost payable to the associ- ation, having regard to the fact that government is not in a position to control these costs as they are incurred. Further reasoning for the government’s position is set out in our proposed response document. That concludes my remarks on this motion.

I recommend the proposed response to the House, and I look forward to hearing from other members. M. Lee: The opposition will be supporting this motion as it seems to be a reasonable response from govern- ment. Motion approved. Hon. M. Farnworth:We will now be going to Motion No. 7. MOTION 7 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JUDICIAL JUSTICES Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion No. 7, standing in my name on the orders of the day. [Be it resolved that pursuant to

Section 6 (2) of theJudicial Com- pensation Act, the Legislative Assembly: a. rejects the following recommendations of the Judicial Com- pensation Commission 2019 Final Report as laid before this As- sembly on February 24, 2020 for the reasons outlined in Govern- ment’s Proposed Response to the Judicial Compensation Com- mission 2019 Final Report in Respect of Provincial Court Judicial Justices, filed in this House; and b. sets the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be sub- stituted for the remuneration, allowances or benefits proposed by the rejected recommendations; as follows: 1.

The recommended salary for judicial justices for April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 of $138,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 is set at $125,750. 2. The recommended salary for judicial justices for April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 of $142,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 is set at $129,500. 3. The recommended salary for judicial justices for April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 of $146,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 is set at $133,500. 4.

Recommendation 13, that government pay 100% of the reas- onable costs of the legal fees and disbursements of the Judicial Justices Association of British Columbia, including the costs for experts, be rejected. That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommenda- tions in respect of Provincial Court judicial justices contained in the report.] In speaking to this motion, let me state that the pro- cess for setting compensation for judicial justices is the same as for Provincial Court judges. As with judges, judicial justices exercise functions that require judicial independence.

The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court is authorized under subsection 11(1) of the Provincial Court Act to pre- scribe the jurisdiction of judicial justices through an assignment of duties. The 2019 assignment of duties iden- tifies a broad range of jurisdiction for judicial justices, including traffic and bylaw hearings, considering police applications for search warrants and production orders under the Criminal Code of Canada, hearing applications for detention or bail and conducting small claims payment hearings.

While judicial justices’ jurisdiction is more limited than that of Provincial Court judges, they are very important components of the operation of the justice system in Brit- ish Columbia. They are required to dispense with the mat- ters before them quickly while ensuring that their decisions are fair and just. As with judges, judicial justices are essential to ensuring the court functions as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet the needs of the justice system.

Government commends the efforts of the Provincial Court judicial justices to adapt processes to improve its level of service to the public, especially during these unprecedented times. Government commits to continuing to support judicial justices to carry out their important work of dispensing justice during the COVID-19 pandem- ic and after. The 2019 commission’s report makes eight recommend- ations with respect to Provincial Court judicial justices.

As set out in the motion, government proposes that the commission’s salary recommendations for judicial justices be rejected, along with the commission’s recommendation respecting participation costs for the Judicial Justices Association of British Columbia. Government has care- fully reviewed the commission’s report, including the ana- lysis and findings that underlie its recommendations. Detailed reasons are contained in the proposed response document appended to the notice accompanying this motion. Government proposes rejecting the commission’s salary recommendations for the following reasons.

Reason 1, the economic conditions in British Columbia and the financial position of the government. Subfactors 5(5)(

e) and 5(5)(

f) Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11915

of the Judicial Compensation Act have changed signific- antly since the commission issued its final report and recommendations. Reason 2, the commission misapplied subsection 5(5)(

d) of the Judicial Compensation Act: “changes in the compensation of others paid by provincial public funds in British Columbia. ” [2:40 p.m.] Government’s reasons for rejecting the salary recom- mendations for judicial justices are, therefore, the same as those described in the previous motion respecting gov- ernment’s response to the recommendations respecting judges. One important distinction between the response respecting judges and the response respecting judicial justices is the issue of recruitment for judicial justices.

The commission concluded that there is a pressing recruitment problem with respect to judicial justices, not- ing that from 2010 to 2019, there were only 11 applicants for new positions and only five new appointments. At the same time, the commission found that provincial court judges are increasingly used to cover shifts for judicial justices. For example, judges covered 10 percent of week- end shifts and 3 percent of midnight shifts in 2018. The commission also noted that judicial justices in Brit- ish Columbia are paid less than all other provinces and ter- ritories except one.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required government to balance the commission’s finding relating to judicial justice recruitment and the need to improve judicial justices’ salaries comparative to those in other jur- isdictions with the impact of COVID-19 on B.C. ’s eco- nomy and financial position.

The significant unanticipated expenditures and the sig- nificant anticipated loss of revenues has led government to conclude that while it will support increases in salary, government will not at this time prioritize significant wage increases as a response to the recruitment issue and com- parative salary issue identified by the commission.

Government’s proposed salary, a 9.42 percent increase in salaries for judicial justices over three years, represents a higher increase than most others paid from provincial public funds, as government wants to ensure, even during the COVID-19 crisis, that it is moving to improve and not exacerbate the problems identified by the commission. However, it is the government’s view that the increase pro- posed by the JCC of 19.67 percent over three years cannot be justified in the current economic and fiscal climate res- ulting from the COVID-19 emergency.

The estimated fiscal impact of government’s proposed salary increase is $633,610 over three years addressed by the commission’s report, compared to the commission’s salary recommendation, which has an estimated fiscal impact of approximately $1,616,958. In regard to the participation cost of the Judicial Justices Association of British Columbia, government proposes rejecting the commission’s recommendation that govern- ment pay 100 percent of those costs.

Instead, as with a similar recommendation in respect to the judges associ- ation, government proposes that the formula for payment of such costs remain as contained in the Judicial Com- pensation Act: that government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of the costs between $30,000 and $150,000. That concludes my remarks on this motion. I recom- mend the proposed response to the House, and I look for- ward to hearing from other members. M. Lee: The opposition will also be supporting this motion, as it seems to be a reasonable response from government. Motion approved. Hon. M.

Farnworth:I call third reading of Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act. Third Reading of Bills BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED MEASURES ACT Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act, read a third time and passed. [2:45 p.m.] Tabling Documents Hon. A. Kang:I have the honour to present theAnnual Report of the Chief Records Officer. Hon. M. Farnworth:I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2020. Committee of the Whole House BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES (VEHICLE INSURANCE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2020 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; S. Gibson in the chair. The committee met at 2:49 p.m. On

section 1(continued). J. Johal:I have a few other broad questions that I wanted to ask the Attorney General. [2:50 p.m.] The minister has referred to this particular proposal as an enhanced-care model. Is there any difference between this and what is traditionally referred to as no-fault? 11916 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

The Chair:Attorney General. Hon. D. Eby:Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good to see you again. I think I’ve been clear, a few times, in various media interviews: this type of system — where you don’t go through the tort system in court for compensation or for rehabilitation costs — falls under a group of policy approaches that opponents of them typically call “no- fault. ” The reason why opponents of these kinds of pro- grams like to call it “no-fault” is that they want to imply that fault doesn’t matter. Under this proposal that we’ve put in front of the House in this bill, fault is a significant factor.

If you are engaging in criminal conduct while you’re driving — drunk driving, other Criminal Code offences — you can still be sued. If you cause a collision, your insurance premiums will still go up. I think it’s an inaccurate term to describe this bill or this program. I think it is a term that is used by opponents of these kinds of systems to cause people to believe that at- fault drivers are getting away with something under these systems.

The interesting piece about that is that under our cur- rent system, in fact, it’s the at-fault driver who gets their lawyer paid for by the insurance company, and the person who is not at fault who has to pay for their own lawyer out of their settlement. So I guess, in some senses, our current system is better described as a no-fault system. But that’s neither here nor there. Opponents of this have described it as a no-fault system; the member is correct. I don’t think it’s an accurate term, though. J.

Johal:The minister has in the past, to my recollection, mentioned the Saskatchewan model and the Manitoba model. One, would he view those as a no-fault system? Two, if this is not a no-fault system, is there a system that is similar to the one that you want to introduce, anywhere else in Canada? Hon. D. Eby: Y es, I think that opponents of Saskat- chewan’s and Manitoba’s systems, as well, describe them as no-fault systems. This system is very heavily based on Manitoba’s and Saskatchewan’s systems. They have public insurers.

Their statutes and their experiences were heavily consulted and considered by drafters when preparing this. I would describe our system as an evolution of those mod- els. I don’t consider myself an expert at all in those systems — the system I know best is the one that we’re proposing to this House — but I can advise the member that there are some differences. In some of those systems, you can choose whether to participate in the tort system — the court system — or in the enhanced-care-type system that they have there.

Another example is that you may not still sue someone who engages in criminal conduct while behind the wheel in some of these systems. [2:55 p.m.] I don’t know what the impact on rates is if you’re an at- fault driver in those systems, but I can tell the member that certainly, the experience in those jurisdictions was a heavy inspiration and a precedent for much of what we’re doing here. The reason for that is quite straightforward. They have public insurers, as we do in B.C. They deliver the lowest rates in Canada to their drivers.

In fact, Manitoba issued a very significant rebate that was planned before COVID because they simply took in too much money from drivers. Their operating costs are much lower, yet they deliver significantly better benefits than we do in British Col- umbia. Better benefits and lower costs through a public insurer are why they have provided the inspiration here. Other provinces — Alberta, Ontario; private insurers through a tort system, a hybrid tort system or a hybrid no-fault system — were also looked at, but they were not used as inspiration because they are not delivering afford- able rates or good benefits.

That’s why we looked to the provinces that were having success for our approach here. J. Johal:The minister says that they borrowed heavily from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Is it fair to say that those two public insurers refer to their coverage as no- fault? Hon. D. Eby:I can advise the House that Anne Foy and Nina Bindra from the Ministry of Attorney General…. In case there are questions related to ICBC, Jason McDaniel and Doug Gormican are available as well. I am advised by this panel of experts that’s advising me that Manitoba refers to their program as a personal injury protection plan.

Saskatchewan, I’m advised, does in some areas describe their plan as a no-fault plan. J. Johal:The plan that we borrowed heavily from — in this case, Saskatchewan — does refer to their system as, in some cases, a no-fault plan. So that’s [audio interrupted]. Hon. D. Eby:Y es, that’s what I just said. J. Johal:Y esterday the minister had talked about fair- ness and broadly explained how the system would work, which I appreciate. He had talked about the CRT. He talked about a fairness officer and how those decisions, when made, could be potentially reviewed.

What’s the likelihood that those two agencies would help decisions to be reconsidered if an individual didn’t agree with whatever an adjuster had come down with in regard to their decision? What’s the likelihood of ICBC reconsidering their decision? [3:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: In relation to a rehabilitation matter or a medical care matter, the person’s physician or care- Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11917

giver is prescribing a course of treatment. If the claims adjuster did not accept that recommendation, it would be overturned by the civil resolution tribunal, because in this system the care provider determines what is needed for the patient’s rehabilitation. If it was a non-medical matter — a value of a vehicle, or so on — there’s an internal review process within ICBC; there is a fairness commissioner process, which are non-binding recom- mendations; and then, of course, there’s the CRT, which are binding recommendations.

It’s very difficult at this time to know what the success rate of various applications would be. But if the CRT ordered ICBC to change their decision, they would have to, so it would be 100 percent of the time that ICBC would be required by law to follow the CRT direction. J. Johal:I’m looking for a bit of clarity on this, because this is an integral part of the system, and I’m sure the Attorney General would agree. Could the Attorney General walk me through the pro- cess. Let’s say I was an accident victim and was told by an adjuster that I do not need treatment A, B or C.

How would a victim challenge that decision? Hon. D. Eby: Just before I get into detail, I’ d like to cla- rify with the member that in his scenario, a physician or other qualified caregiver has prescribed a course of treat- ment, and the adjuster has refused to honour that with the appropriate benefits as required. Is that correct, that this is prescribed treatment? See, because that’s an important detail about whether it’s coming from a physician or some other source. J.

Johal:What I’m trying to get to is: if an individual is in an accident and the adjuster says that a certain treatment isn’t needed, what would be the process to challenge that decision? Hon. D. Eby:What the member is describing is a failure of training. The claims adjudicators will be trained that when there is a medical recommendation for a course of treatment, the client has a right to that treatment. [3:05 p.m.] If the claims adjudicator refused that treatment, there would be two avenues available to the client.

The first would be an internal review process, to go to a manager at ICBC or to file a complaint through ICBC’s internal process. But it’s not a requirement. That’s one option. The expectation would be that the manager would have been properly trained — that when a physician is recommend- ing a course of treatment, that is what happens. The other route is to go to the civil resolution tribunal, and ICBC would lose that hearing because ICBC has an obligation to provide that care under this system. J. Johal:Can the minister touch on the consultation process that’s been ongoing with stakeholders?

So much of this still has to be fleshed out. Can he give us a sense of the consultation process and where we are in regards to stakeholders? Hon. D. Eby: Meetings have been taking place with a range of health care providers and disability advocates since February. This has been on everything related to the design of the system itself to the regulations that will gov- ern the various pieces of the system.

The goal is a system in which people can have confid- ence that their health care providers and their advocates are supportive of because they helped design it, and they know better than anyone what people need to recover and what they need when they have been injured to the point of permanent disability. This whole program is rooted in that engagement pro- cess. The member is right. It’s very important, and it’s been going on, on a regular basis since February. J. Johal:Could the minister provide names of the organ- izations, specifically, that the ministry is speaking to? Hon. D.

Eby: I’m trying to think about how to put this. What I might propose is that I could provide a list to the member rather than to read it intoHansard. That would be my preference. I wonder if the member would be agreeable to that. J. Johal:I think I would agree to that. Can the minister tell this House when he believes this consultation will be completed? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:The expectation is that the nature of these consultations and the committee will be a permanent fea- ture of the new system — that the consultations will go on through implementation and through the system’s matur- ity.

The reason for that is that I expect there will be some bumps along the road, and we want to be able to identify those as quickly as possible. The people best placed to advise us about what they’re seeing that’s not working will be the health care providers and the disability advocates, because they’re the ones who are participating in the system and who see the people who are going through the system who are most affected. So our hope is to maintain that for as long as possible. It’s meant to be a permanent feature. J. Johal:I just want to get back to my previous question.

This is not asked in a confrontational manner, but I do want to ask as to why the list of those particular organiz- ations that the ministry and ICBC are currently engaging with cannot be made public? Hon. D. Eby:It can be made public. But I would like to 11918 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

provide it to the member in writing because my interest is in ensuring that those folks who are helping us put the sys- tem together are not subjected to any sort of political cam- paigns by opponents of the system. Now, I know I can’t guarantee that. They’ve been incred- ibly generous with their time. They understand the heightened political nature of the changes that we’re mak- ing — that there are many people who are financially dependent on the system as it stands. Y ou know, it’s a heightened environment. So it can be made public. The list that I’ll give to the member can be made public.

It’s not secret, but I’ll leave it to the member’s discretion about how he uses that inform- ation. J. Johal:I understand where the minister is coming from. Have these organizations been asked to sign an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement, because of this heightened interest? Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that yes. The current work is on the regulations to support the system and, as a result, because of the sensitivity of the regulations, they have been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement with respect to the content of the regulations.

They are not subject to a non-disclosure agreement in terms of making statements about the system, whether they think it’s the right direction, wrong direction, good for patients, bad for patients or any of that kind of stuff. But they do have access to sensitive information in prepar- ing this, and also, knowing the content of the regulations before they’re publicly released is also sensitive informa- tion. So they are subject to an NDA with respect to the reg- ulations. [3:15 p.m.] J.

Johal:When you have a public insurer that has been around since the early 1970s, and now we’re looking at a wholesale change, a very significant change, the transition involves HR. A transition may include software. A trans- ition, many would argue, would involve a cultural change as well. Can the Attorney General provide some context in regards to what that transition looks like? Is there a price that can be put on the significant changes that are coming, in regards to just software, in regards to people? Can you give us a sense of what that looks like? Hon. D. Eby:I apologize to the member.

We don’t have those numbers immediately at hand. But what I can com- mit to the member is we have estimates coming up in a couple of weeks for the Ministry of Attorney General and ICBC. We’ll have the numbers there. I’ll make sure that we have a good

summary of the expected costs. What I can tell the member is that the estimated savings annually are likely to exceed $1 billion or be in the neigh- bourhood of $1 billion. The costs will be a fraction of that first-year savings. The costs have already been accounted for in the projected rate savings for British Columbians. British Columbians will be seeing those rate savings inde- pendent of the cost of the project. That’s the good news. The bad news is that I don’t have the numbers with me, but I will have them, or at least some numbers for the member, in the estimates process. J.

Johal:Can the Attorney General confirm that…? As I’ve said earlier, this is a significant change for the corpora- tion, and I appreciate that we’ll have some numbers by the time we get to estimates. But can he confirm that there is going to be hiring of management consultants and signi- ficant equipment to make this change and HR changes? I mean, I’m trying to get a sense of what that will entail. He may not have the numbers, but in regards to some of the systems that will change, I want to get an idea of what this transition looks like. [3:20 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. This is a significant project.

It involves computer system updates and training costs. There are about 300 people working full-time on this project right now. There are 28 different insurance products that are impacted by it. There are new estimation tools being prepared. Certainly, change management costs are a part of that. I want to put some specificity around the projected sav- ings. It’s $1.5 billion in projected savings. I think that gives a bit of perspective about what’s happening in terms of the implementation of this new system. J. Johal:I thank the member for that response.

I just have a couple more questions before I hand it over to my colleague from Surrey. ICBC, off the top of my head, has about 5,200 employ- ees, give or take a hundred here or there. Can the Attorney General give me a sense of staffing numbers in regards to the FTE, full-time-equivalent, after this transition is done? It was 5,200, I think, the last number that I saw. Are we going to have 100 more employees, 500 more employ- ees, 1,000 more employees? Will there be redundancies? Will there be layoffs as well? Can he give me a sense of what ICBC will look like in regards to employees after this transition? Hon.

D. Eby:Just for the record, I’ll note that that 5,200 number includes people working driver’s licence standards — ICBC services unrelated to insurance. At this point, ICBC doesn’t have projections that they’ll be significantly bigger. It’s important to note two things. One is that the number of employees is highly dependent on the number of accidents. The other thing to note is that we will be…. Essentially, the projection is about a decade, Wednesday, July 8, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11919

but I think the bulk of the cases from the old system will be through in about five years. [3:25 p.m.] So from May of next year for about five years, we’ll be working through all of the cases under the old system. There’ll be two systems running in parallel, which is why it’s difficult at this stage to project five years out from implementation date what ICBC will look like in terms of the overall number of employees. The experience in other jurisdictions is that on transition they delivered significant savings to people in those provinces.

The savings tend not to come from the employee composition of the insurance companies themselves but rather from controlling escalat- ing costs associated with litigation. I often hear people concerned about senior manage- ment salary costs at ICBC, which is why we got rid of the bonus program and contained the number of managers as well as salaries. But as sensational as those stories are, the big cost drivers of the insurance bill that people get are, in a significant part, of the order of about $1½ billion of these legal costs.

I definitely understand the member’s question — it’s an important one — on how we manage this transition, how we ensure that ICBC delivers services efficiently. It’s also important to recognize that what we’re doing is taking $1.5 billion out of the system with this change and distributing it to drivers through two mechanisms: reduced rates and improved benefits. J. Johal:This will be my final question, just a follow-up to what the Attorney General was saying. This is a signi- ficant change. But I just want to get a sense of…. I under- stand the savings.

The minister has mentioned $1.5 billion a few times now, but the employee composition, I think, is important. I think British Columbians should get a sense of: is there going to be a significant increase in the amount of employees, a significant decrease, 10 percent? Perhaps there’s some historical context in regards to other jurisdic- tions. When they have brought in a system like this, has there been a decrease?

I’m hoping the minister can provide a bit more context to that particular question, because I think it’s important for all of us to understand that once this system is brought in, is it the same amount of employees that we need, or will we need significantly more? I understand the cost savings, but I’m just trying to get a sense of the amount of employ- ees that will be required and the costs with that as well. Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that Manitoba and Saskatchewan’s insurers did increase their employee count on implementation.

But ICBC is of the belief that because they implemented their systems more than a decade ago, there are significant learnings from what they have gone through and significant new technolo- gies available to ICBC to reduce the dependency on increasing employees, which is why, at this point, they’re not projecting a significant increase in the number of employees at ICBC. Now, that may change, but at this point they’re not pro- jecting that, and it is very dependent on collision rates in the province.

The more accidents there are, the more claims there are, and people need responses within a cer- tain period of time. It underlines the importance of gov- ernment’s collision reduction programs. Pre-COVID, last year, we were down about 20,000 collisions year over year thanks to our road safety initiatives. COVID, obviously…. The member knows — he’s been talking about a silver lin- ing, I guess, of COVID and people commuting digitally — that collisions are down again quite significantly this year and that those trends seem to be holding even as we reopen the province. I hope they hold for longer.

So it’s incredibly variable. The biggest factor is the num- ber of collisions, and at this point I can advise the member that ICBC is not projecting a significant increase in the number of employees. [3:30 p.m.] S. Cadieux: Could the Attorney please tell us — or enlighten me — on average, how many catastrophic injur- ies are there in British Columbia each year? As well, know- ing that those cases take a number of years to settle, on average, how many cases settle every year? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that it’s some- where between 400 and 500 catastrophic injuries a year.

Of interest, certainly to me, when I first took over the file, was that 35 of those folks every year will eat through their lifetime benefit

part 7 limits. That’s where you’re in a one-car collision — through a moment of inattention or a bad decision, you were at fault in a collision. These are people who are catastrophically injured, received their maximum $150,000 in benefits and then were cut off and now live in poverty. We doubled that to $300,000. Even then, I think the member can appreciate the costs, if you’re catastrophically injured, of rehabilitation, never mind retrofitting your home or your vehicle and potential care if you’re quadri- plegic. This is a huge expense, so people will blow through that $300,000 limit as well. The problem is that when you blow through it, then you’re cut off under

part 7. This is why it’s these 35 people per year that, definitely, I think about when I think about this new system — the woman I met who ran into a moose and was rendered quadriplegic and used up her lifetime benefit very quickly. The 400 to 500 people who have catastrophic injury…. I acknowledge that it really depends on how you define “catastrophic. ” We had a big debate about “minor injury” previously, so it’s obviously a very sensitive area. But in ICBC’s perspective, there are 400 to 500 a year. The member also asked about what percentage of claims 11920 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, July 8, 2020

settle. The data that I’m given is that about 99.9 percent of claims settle. ICBC settles about 30,000 injury claims per year, and a handful do go to court. S. Cadieux:Thank you to the Attorney General for that. Certainly, I think I know better than most in this House what the costs of a catastrophic injury are and how it affects one’s life. Certainly, from my past experience out- side of the House, I did have some understanding of the number of injuries that occur every year.

Certainly, it is distressing to know that there are 400 people a year that would be categorized as catastrophic injuries. [3:35 p.m.] I can appreciate as well, from the minister’s comments about the no-fault benefits — the current

part 7 benefits — that the amount is inadequate. It has been for a very long time. When that change was made last year, I acknow- ledged that it was long overdue and, frankly, still inad- equate. So you won’t get an argument from me on that. But I do have a question. If there are 400 or 500 people a year having a catastrophic injury, a good proportion of those people, currently, will have the option to sue through the tort system to receive benefits relating to the injury that occurred to them through no fault of their own.

With the stakeholder consultations that are underway and the preparation of this massive change to the structure of the insurance system for British Columbia, how many people with catastrophic injuries who have proceeded through the tort system have been consulted and are being consulted on an ongoing basis as a part of that consulta- tion? Hon. D. Eby:I thank the member for bringing her per- sonal experience and knowledge to the House. I remember and I acknowledge and appreciate her comments around our modest increase to the

part 7 benefits, which I also agree are still not adequate. The member asks about, in terms of engagement, how we are ensuring to hear that voice from the people who have been disabled by car accidents, received injuries that have caused them permanent disability and then pro- ceeded through the tort system. I don’t have a number for the member. But I can advise that we have very active dis- ability advocates involved in the planning of this system who have spoken out in support of these changes.

Their membership certainly includes people who have been very badly injured in collisions and proceeded through the tort system. I can tell the member that the system that we have is one where if you’re a passenger in a vehicle, like a child or a spouse, and your partner or your dad or your mom is driving and they make a bad decision when they’re driv- ing or they hit a patch of black ice and go off the road, or whatever, and you’re catastrophically injured, you have to sue your own parent. Y ou have to sue your own spouse. Public Guardian and Trustee does that work for children in the province.

It’s an incredibly problematic system. Not only are you very badly injured and facing challenges that come with this disabling injury but also a litigation battle where you’re actually suing your own parent, your own husband or your own wife. It’s another example of how this system does not help people get better and why we believe that this system will be a significant improvement for people. S. Cadieux:I take from that probably none.

The reason I say that is because I know a number of the organizations and advocates that are being consulted. [3:40 p.m.] They are very good people, very good organizations, ones that I’ve worked with very closely in the past, some of them. But that does not replace the lived experience of people who have experience with the system. Now, I anticipate, given the minister’s commentary regarding individuals who have been injured by their own fault, in some cases, and can only access

part 7 benefits, that he has a great deal of sympathy for them — as do I, as I’ve said. Clearly, he’s listening to those people and to the advocates that speak for them, but is he listening to people who have gone through the system? Using the example that he did of having to sue a parent, for example, to receive adequate support to recover and live well is, understandably, difficult. Understandably, it leaves people with some questions that they have to deal with. However, it isn’t really the individual; it’s the insur- ance. Y ou’re suing ICBC.

It’s ICBC’s lawyers that you engage with through the process — through the mediation process, if that comes to fruition, and/or through court. I would argue that certainly, if it was me who was the at-fault driver and my family member was injured, I would want nothing more than for them to access whatever com- pensation was required. So I don’t think that his example is a particularly good one. While I agree that going through the process is by no means fun for anyone, the reality is that there is a closure that comes from the tort process.

There is a closure to the traumatic event and an ability to gain independence and to take responsibility for making positive choices for one’s own future. I think there is huge value in that, in a person’s personal recovery and ability to move forward. Now we’re looking at moving to a completely paternalistic system, whereby individuals who are injured, regardless of who was at fault for that injury, are going to be forced at every turn to request

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200708pm-Hansard-n336
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200708pm Hansard n336
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0df105e38357122b345e726ab8887e56ec297e23

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).