British Columbia Hansard — 26 April 2018, p.m., Issue 127 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20180426pm-Hansard-n127

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, April 26, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 127 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 Third 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.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall 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, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston 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 ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

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, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo 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 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, Hon.

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 (BC Green Party) ......................... 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 ...............................................................................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 ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog 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........................................................................... Hon. 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; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, April 26, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 4291 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 4291 Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018 S. Gibson Hon. M. Mark M. Lee A. Weaver Hon. D. Eby S. Bond Hon. C. James D. Barnett Hon. D. Donaldson Hon. S.

Robinson S. Sullivan Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 4297 Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 4297 Bill 22 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018 M. Lee Hon. D.

Eby Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 4306 Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. D. Eby J. Y ap A. Weaver R. Coleman L. Throness R. Sultan S. Gibson J. Martin Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 4323 Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction(continued) M.

Hunt Hon. S. Simpson Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services Hon. J. Sims S. Thomson M. de Jong

THURSDAY , APRIL 26, 2018 The House met at 1:31 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. C. Trevena:I would like the House to welcome a group of students who are going to be in the gallery shortly. We have, from my constituency, 30 grade 6 students, joined by five adults, from one of two middle schools that are in Campbell River. These students are from École Phoenix Middle School. They are here to see the workings of the Legislature. They’ve been studying government in middle school.

I hope that the House will make them very welcome and show them how interesting, intricate and important the role of the Legislature is. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call the committee on Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. I’m just reminded that we have about half an hour left on Social Development. So that is also called first, followed by Citizens’ Services.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2018 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; L. Reid in the chair. The committee met at 1:35 p.m. On

section 1. S. Gibson:A few queries on the Advanced Education file.

Part 1,

section 1 eliminates the requirement of the Minister of Finance to sign off on colleges and institutes for the dis- posal of land and leaves the decision solely with the minis- ter. A few queries on this, if I may. What is the purpose of this section? What inspired this to be brought forward? That would be my first question, hon. Chair. Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. This legislation will remove the statutory requirement for approval of these acquisitions and disposi- tions from the Minister of Finance.

It will reduce unneces- sary duplication of work, reduce red tape and remove com- plications for government’s administrative processes. If this amendment does not proceed, government’s pro- cesses for approving land transactions for colleges and insti- tutes will continue to be lengthy and administratively bur- densome. So it’s really about moving forward on the prin- ciples of administrative fairness and getting those decisions to the people that want decisions from my ministry. M.

Lee: Just as a follow-on, is that amendment similar to other government assets in terms of not requiring Minister of Finance approval? Hon. M. Mark: The Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, under my authority, is an anomaly. Under the SUCH sector — schools, universities, colleges and hospitals — education isn’t required to have this secondary step. It actually just slows down decision-making. But this amendment will bring things into line with the decision- making authority for education and hospitals. A. Weaver:To the minister: would you classify this as reducing red tape? Hon. M. Mark:Y es.

Thank you for the question. S. Gibson: I guess the question is: what policy out- comes…? What is the logical conclusion of changing this, which is a relatively significant change? Should the Minister of Finance have some purview at some point over these decisions? Hon. M. Mark:There are levels of due process in these chambers, and when we make decisions in government, the Minister of Finance can always ask questions. But there are lots of steps before decisions are made to transfer off any assets or make any leases to land, etc.

This is really about moving things along quicker, faster, more efficiently, more effectively. But it doesn’t mean that the quality of the decision-making is going to be compromised by making these amendments. S. Gibson:Will there be any written criteria for disposal of lands? Will there be something that will be reviewed and disseminated that people can see that shows criteria, in particular? Hon. M. Mark: There are already very robust criteria that are required. It’s identified in theCapital Asset Refer- ence Guide. [1:40 p.m.] S. Gibson:Will the criteria change at all, in any way, as a result of this decision?

Secondly, will the minister have any kind of communication with the Minister of Finance or that ministry in a part of this process? So a two-part question. 4291

Hon. M. Mark: Just for the member’s information, I already have the authority, as Minister for Advanced Edu- cation, Skills and Training, to only go through my ministry to dispose of assets for universities. What this amendment is doing is bringing into line the same process for colleges and institutes. So there will be no change in the requirement. What we’re doing is making it more efficient for my min- istry to make decisions. We are always in contact with the Minister of Finance when we’re going forward in making decisions, but we don’t need the Minister of Finance’s authority to make those decisions. S.

Gibson: A final question. Given the different gov- ernance models of institutes, colleges and universities, is the criteria or the discretion of the minister applied in any kind of a different way? Hon. M. Mark:The answer is no. S. Gibson: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you for allowing me to ask these questions today.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. M. Lee: Just on this proposed amendment to the Infants Act…. As I mentioned in my second reading comments, I’ d just like to ask the Attorney General as to…. When wards covered by this provision reach the age of 19 years old, what is the process under which they might enter into agreements with the Public Guardian and Trustee? Must they sign or accede in any way to entering into that agreement? Is that a mandatory requirement? Hon. D. Eby:Thank you to the member for the question.

These sections of this miscellaneous statutes bill that we’re in committee stage on relate to creating a permission for the Public Guardian and Trustee to enter into an agreement with a youth, where they have custody of the youth’s assets, after they turn 19 — a voluntary agreement that the Public Guardian and Trustee continues to manage those assets.

It might sound strange to some members, the idea that youth in care would have significant assets, but in fact, there are a significant number of youth who potentially have assets from a number of different sources, whether they be estate assets or, also, the proceeds of litigation. They have been injured by somebody. That person has been sued and has paid out a litigation award to the youth. These amounts of money can be very significant, can be in the millions of dollars. When a youth turns 19, currently the Public Guardian and Trustee has to end that financial management relationship.

What this does is this says: “If you want, 19-year-old, you can enter into an agreement with the Public Guardian and Trustee now, and the Public Guardian and Trustee will man- age your funds for you. ” Y ou can also go off, and you can — this is totally voluntary — hire a private investment manage- ment firm, or you could go to a bank. It’s up to you. Y ou’re of age now. But if you wish, the Public Guardian and Trustee is available to assist you with managing your funds.

In terms of the mechanics, there’ d be a specific form, an agreement that the young adults would have to sign with the Public Guardian and Trustee in order to enter into this agreement. It would be entirely voluntary, and the young adult could terminate that at any point. It’s not binding forever. As long as they felt it was appropriate, they could keep that agreement in place.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. [1:45 p.m.] M. Lee: In respect of this provision of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, there has been…. I’m just curious about the background of this change. Can the Attorney General just comment on the incidents in the past that have triggered this proposal and what the background or the rationale is for this change? Hon. D. Eby: This

section of the miscellaneous statutes bill relates to conditions around when minors may be in an establishment that serves liquor. Currently those rules need to be set by regulation. Regulation is obviously a formal pro- cess that engages cabinet process and order-in-council and so on. It’s a bit restrictive in terms of conditions being able to be imposed by the general manager.

This revision allows the general manager to impose terms and conditions on a specific licensee to customize the condi- tions around the access of minors to the specific situation of the licensee, as opposed to having a more general rule com- ing out of cabinet through a regulation. We think there are great benefits that come from this relatively minor change, giving some discretion to the general manager to impose through a term and condition on a licence, as opposed to having it set out in regulation. M. Lee: Thank you for that explanation.

Is there some range in terms of those terms and conditions as to the authority — the range on authority in terms of what the general manager can impose? And is there any concern that there may be inconsistencies in terms of those sorts of terms and conditions that are being imposed by the gener- al manager? Hon. D. Eby: Generally speaking, we expect the general manager to exercise a great deal of discretion in these types of terms and conditions. I mistakenly said “access for minors. ” I should have said “employment of minors. ” This

section relates to the employment, not access, of minors to a licensed area. 4292 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

There are a number of areas where the general manager has discretion on terms of licences. So this brings terms related to the employment of minors in a licensed establish- ment into consistency with those other areas of discretion that the general manager already has around setting terms and conditions on a licence. Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved. On

section 6. M. Lee: On this particular section, I would like to ask the Attorney General whether this particular amendment cre- ates any new powers for the general manager which are not already authorized through other provisions under the act. Hon. D. Eby:This clarifies that a licence can be suspended for failure to report information that’s required by the act or by the regulations or by terms and conditions on the licence. It doesn’t create any new powers.

What it does is it’s intended to communicate to people who are reading the act and trying to understand what their obligations are that they could have to report information under any of these specific sections, under the act, under the regulations or under the terms or conditions. So there’s no new power here. It’s just a clarific- ation for people so that they understand what their obliga- tions are. Sections 6 and 7 approved. On

section 8. [1:50 p.m.] M. Lee: In terms of this particular

section and the threshold for the examination to determine that the per- son has a reasonable belief that the identification with respect to the conclusion that the person is not a minor…. I just wanted to go to that due diligence aspect. What is that threshold for examination to ensure that that’s suf- ficient to give that person the reason to believe that that authentication is sufficient? Hon. D. Eby:This

section is a response to the fact that the current act says that no matter what the circumstances are, you commit an offence if you allow a minor into your liquor store or other age-controlled, licensed establishment. What we wanted to do was say…. It is possible that someone could present identification that would reasonably cause someone to believe that they were of age. We didn’t want to punish a store operator or a bar operator for somebody producing a convincing forgery. I knew some kids in high school that had some very convin- cing identification from older siblings — friends of mine.

The idea here is that instead of an absolute liability offence, if someone manages to get their way into the bar with a convincing fake, we wouldn’t be punishing someone who allowed them in, if they took reasonable steps. The member has asked, reasonably: “Well, what’s reason- able?” There are a couple of cases on this that establish the standard. Haney Hospitality is one which made a determin- ation around this. There was also a case in the B.C. Supreme Court calledMiller’s Landing v. British Columbia. In the Miller’s Landing case, at paragraph 74, the court specifically talks about the adjudicator’s

interpretation of the term “authentic” and the reasonableness of that. The court has said that…. The member knows, as someone who has practised law, that there’s a lot of reason- ableness in the law in terms of tests. But the court says that the adjudicator’s obligation…. She was imposing a require- ment that the licensee take reasonable steps to determine that the identification was genuine, in the sense that it had been validly issued, that it was genuine in the sense that it belonged to the person that was offering it to the licensee.

The standard of reasonableness was also examined more broadly as a sort of legal test in paragraph 84 of that decision, so I recommend it to the member if he’s curious about how the courts have interpreted reasonableness around examin- ing identification.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. M. Lee: In this particular section, I just wanted to ask the Attorney General whether there are any particular implica- tions to be considered beyond what’s on its face, in terms of expanding the definition of “authorized vendor. ” Are there any unintended consequences in doing so? Hon. D. Eby: The answer is no. This simply corrects an error in the drafting of the original act, adding a

section to the definition of authorized vendor to include a person to whom a special event permit is issued under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. It was an oversight, and it doesn’t add any additional powers, authorities or responsibilities beyond what already existed in the act.

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. M. Lee: In terms of the update on the Property Law Act, I appreciate that that is what this is. In terms of the use of the terms “building, structure, improvement or work, ” what standard would be applied to determine whether something falls within those categories? [1:55 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:This

section deals with the unusual situation where someone might own land that they don’t have access to without having to go across somebody else’s land, and they can’t get permission of the person that owns the land to allow Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4293

them to go through to do repair work — in this particular part of the amendment, sub 34(1), where they might have a “building, structure, improvement or work. ” The old

section of the act said you had to have a “dwelling house” on the parcel of land in order to get an order from the court that allowed you to cross someone else’s property to get there. This is a more expansive definition — building, structure, improvement or work. It’s intended as such, that people should be able to access their land, and they should be able get through if they have something that they’re working on — their building, structure or improvement. It’s meant to be a broad definition.

In terms of the member’s question, it’s meant to be written more broadly than the current section, which is dwelling house. The courts will interpret it, but it’s meant to be inter- preted broadly. M. Lee: I’ d like to ask whether this has been a particular issue that has been seen, up to now, in terms of how this par- ticular provision has been interpreted for property owners. Has it been a challenge? Hon. D. Eby: Apparently, this came to the attention of the ministry because someone owned a commercial building on a property that was enclosed by land owned by others.

They couldn’t reasonably get permission from the owners to access that commercial building because the definition said: “the owner of a dwelling house on one parcel of land. ” That’s why it’s been expanded to now say: “The owner of a building, structure, improvement or work. ” It was the advice of leg- al counsel that that was really the intent of the provision. It makes sense, certainly, to have a provision to allow someone to access their land when necessary. I can advise the member that to our knowledge, it’s a very rare thing. But it may be that we don’t hear about it a lot because people use this

section when someone refuses them permission to cross over their land to get to their dwelling house, to use the old term. They would provide them with this

section of law and say: “If you don’t provide me with access, then I’ll go to court and get an order. ” Then they allow access, and the government would never know. It’s rare to have somebody, though, go to court because they can’t find the owner of the property or they can’t get permission. We don’t see a lot of that. Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved. On

section 14. S. Bond:I understand that this

section relates to the elim- ination of a particular board. I understand it’s because of redundancy, but could the minister confirm that? [2:00 p.m.] While she does that, could she also let me know whether or not the board has been used throughout the course of its existence? Hon. C. James:Thank you to the member, because I think it’s important to just set some context for these pieces. The challenge of a misc bill, a miscellaneous bill, is that you don’t get a chance to do second reading and give the overview. The

section of these amendments to the Business Corpor- ations Act, as the member has said, eliminates the Auditor Certification Board. It’s been inactive for more than ten years and is no longer needed because in 2015, the accounting professionals came together in one single designation. When they came together in that single designation, the need for a separate certification process — so a separate board to do that process — was no longer needed. That used to be done through the Auditor Certification Board.

Now, because they all are required to meet the requirements of one association, the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia, the board is no longer needed. As I said, it’s been inactive for more than ten years, and it’s time to clean it up. S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for her response. I think all of us agree that getting rid of redundant legislation is an important part of the process, so I appreciate that.

If the minister could just confirm for me — and then we can zip through a number of other sections — that sub- sequent sections 15, 16 and 17 are actually housekeeping and that they are consequential to the change in sections 13 and 14. Hon. C. James:That’s correct. Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved. On

section 18. S. Bond: I do have a series of questions, because I know that a number of things are being amended here. I want to recognize the staff, and I appreciate the briefing that they provided. I thank the minister for that opportunity.

Section 18 talks about voting threshold for a special res- olution. Could the minister just walk through what the pur- pose and intent of the

section is and whether or not it will actually have a direct impact? Is it practice that we’re now bringing into legislation? Are societies familiar with this pro- cess, or will it be a significant change for them? Hon. C. James:Thank you again to the member. Perhaps I’ll do the same thing I did with the Business Corporations Act — just give a little bit of an overview of the reasons these changes are coming forward. I think the member has asked an important question about whether this will be a change for societies or whether they’re already operating under these rules.

As the member will know, there were changes made to the Societies Act in 2016. The previous government passed 4294 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

what was called the Societies Transitional Interim Regula- tion, otherwise known as STIR, before the Societies Act changes passed, to give broad authority for transitional pro- visions for any unforeseen legal issues that arose. This was a regulation put in place so that if there were implementation challenges in the Societies Act, there was an opportunity through regulation, these interim regulations, to be able to address them. These changes in the next few sections that we’re talking about take three of those provisions from the regulations and actually add them to the body of the act.

These are tempor- ary provisions that societies have already been acting under. It will be continued practice. But instead of them being in regulation, it will move them into the body of the act, and they become part of the act. Right now, they’re due to automatically repeal in 2019. That was how long the regulation was put in place. Again, this is making sure we take care of putting those into the body of the act before that regulation expires. S. Bond:Thank you to the minister. In essence, it is mak- ing permanent what the transitional measures were put in place to do. Hon. C. James:That’s correct.

Section 18 approved. On

section 19. [2:05 p.m.] S. Bond: This was an interesting little piece of an inter- esting amendment. The sections are related to how votes are recorded. I think that’s a fair way to describe it. In fact, this now requires that minutes would cover both the yes and the motions that would have been defeated. Maybe the minister could, first of all, confirm that that’s an accurate description. Then, secondly, were there issues that generated the need to include this? Hon. C.

James:I think both the member and I have sat on enough boards and agencies to know these experiences and to know that there’s probably something that has occurred that has brought forward this kind of resolution and piece. Just to be clear, these amendments require the text of the resolution. They don’t require the vote, whether the num- bers…. It’s just the text of the resolution so that it’s clear there was a resolution that was brought forward. The text of the resolution is included. Y es, this was feedback. When we were looking at the Soci- eties Act, this was feedback that came forward.

People felt that it should be recorded that there was a resolution that came forward. Previously, people would say: “Oh, it didn’t pass. Therefore, it’s not required to be included in the text of the minutes that a resolution came forward. ” But this will require that that text be there. S. Bond: Thank you very much for that clarification. I’m just curious.

Was it the public that expressed a concern about transparency — so if a motion was there and not recorded — or was it actually members of societies who, perhaps, had been participants in a process and then did not see a motion that they were concerned about reflected in minutes? Hon. C. James:This really came from the societies. The societies wanted to make sure that they had the resolution. I think there were probably challenges that could come on both sides — the people who voted for and the people who voted against — to say that they wanted the resolu- tion recorded, that it was there.

So it came from feedback from societies.

Section 19 approved. On

section 20. S. Bond:Again, one of the things that…. I actually appre- ciate the amendments that the minister has brought forward. We have that discussion often in this House — that there are some practical things that actually help these societies and other organizations be more efficient. This section, as I understand it — again, I had a good discussion with the minister’s staff about this — is about access to documents. I certainly know — I have seen situ- ations where there are concerns about societies — that there is not necessarily the transparency and access that some would like to see. Could the minister just walk through the changes and what the purpose of the

section is so we can, for the record, look at why the change was necessary, recognizing fully that transparency’s a good thing? We understand that previous to these amendments, this may have generated an order, which is apparently a very significant action, so perhaps just some context about what exactly is being accomplished. I assume it’s to have an escalating process, rather than simply moving straight to an order. [2:10 p.m.] Hon. C. James: I think “escalation” is a good way to describe it. Currently, if an order is given, that remains on the record for societies.

This gives an opportunity for that escalation to occur, for the registrar, for example, to approach the society to ask them…. They don’t have the power or the authority to order that the document be given, but they can order: “The document has been requested. If you’re not giving it, why aren’t you giving it?” This gives a chance for that conversation to occur first and that step to occur before a formal order is put in place that then goes on the record for the society.

Section 20 approved. On

section 21. Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4295

S. Bond:I see

section 21 as housekeeping, if we’re looking at what the substantive pieces are. Would the minister con- cur that it’s a housekeeping item? Hon. C. James: I would. This again reflects the fact that you don’t need the authority, because of the changes that happened earlier in the bill.

Section 21 approved. On

section 22. S. Bond:This

section is related to…. It’s about restoring a society if it’s been dissolved for administrative purposes. Pre- vious to this, there was a 21-day waiting period. Could the minister describe, perhaps, an example of why removing that waiting period would be important? Hon. C. James:Thanks to the member. This provides an opportunity for very simple, straightforward pieces that may not have been taken care of. I think the best example, probably, is filing the annual report. Societies are required to file an annual report.

I cer- tainly know I’ve had personal experience where a society has come to me, where a new board was elected. They didn’t real- ize that the annual report hadn’t been filed. It wasn’t filed in time, and the entire society was dissolved. Then they go through the full process that they need to, to get back as a society, and then they have the delay, the 21 days. This just provides more fairness for those simple, straight- forward reasons that a society may have been dissolved — not out of intent but just for the follow-up that has not occurred. It gives them a fairer process. Sections 22 and 23 approved. On

section 24. S. Bond:Perhaps the minister can just confirm: is

section 4 transitional or consequential? It’s a bit confusing in terms of the relationship to a special resolution. If the minister could just clarify that, I’ d appreciate it. [2:15 p.m.] Hon. C. James:Y es, this is transitional. This is transition- ing to the new Societies Act, and it really creates a two-step transition. It’s intended to ensure that membership has an opportunity to be able to thoroughly review what often can be very serious provisions in a society act. So it ensures that unalterable provisions have to go into a bylaw.

When they’ve gone into a bylaw, then the society can go through their vot- ing process that they would normally do and vote, based on their existing bylaws, on a resolution. This is really kind of a check and balance, but it is one of those issues that was in regulation, that is in STIR and that will now go into the body of the act. Sections 24 to 30 inclusive approved. On

section 31. D. Barnett:I notice these are very minor changes, Min- ister, but I do have a couple of questions. First, what is the reason for these changes? Hon. D. Donaldson:I’ll run over a high-level overview of the changes that are being contemplated here under the Riparian Areas Protection Act. Riparian areas of the province are areas near streams and rivers. Since 2006, regu- lations have been in place to protect fish habitat and ensure environmental stewardship, under increasing threats from urban development.

The proposed amendment will enhance that protection by giving the minister the authority to publish criteria and methods through a manual for qualified environmental pro- fessionals, like registered biologists, to follow when they are carrying out habitat assessments in riparian areas. The change also means that government can reject an assessment report if it’s incomplete or does not comply with the methods or criteria set in the regulations of the manual. Importantly, this change responds to one of the recom- mendations from the 2014 B.C.

Ombudsperson’s report calledStriking a Balance: The Challenges of Using a Profes- sional Reliance Model in Environmental Protection — British Columbia’s Riparian Areas Regulation. D. Barnett:To the minister: will the setbacks for the riparian regulations change with this? Has there been any consultation with local governments? Hon. D. Donaldson:No, the setback criteria will not change, and yes, there has been consultation with local gov- ernment. Sections 31 and 32 approved. On

section 33. A. Weaver:Just a very quick question to ask, if the minis- ter…. The Chair:If you’ll just wait one moment, the minister will bring her staff. A. Weaver:I will, yes. [2:20 p.m.] Just a quick question to the minister on this. What is the rationale for moving away from giving approval from the minister to the inspector of municipalities instead? Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. This just shifts over to what currently exists for other service bylaws, which is the inspector of municipalities having the respons- 4296 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

ibility. This is an old piece of legislation that’s just being brought up to current standards, in terms of what the changes have been, so that it fits in with all the other service bylaws that we have, where the inspector of municipalities provides approval. The Chair:Vancouver–False Creek. S. Sullivan:That was my question. Sections 33 to 36 inclusive approved. On

section 37. M. Lee: Looking at

section 37: “The minister may make regulations respecting the procedure to be used for hear- ings under subsection (3). ” What was the reason for this change? And how often does the minister expect to be using this power? Hon. S. Robinson:This provision and the resulting link to the regulation were inadvertently removed from the act back in 2008. So it severed the link between the act and the regu- lation. That’s why we’re fixing an old error. Sections 37 to 42 inclusive approved. On

section 43. S. Sullivan:Can the minister explain the removal of the references to the Board of Police Commissioners in sections 43 and 44? Hon. S. Robinson:This removes the obsolete reference to the board. It has been flagged for removal for administrat- ive reasons, including confusion. It’s an outdated reference, so it’s misleading. This is just about tidying it up so that it’s consistent. Sections 43 and 44 approved. On

section 45. S. Sullivan:Y es, 206C: “The Council may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, by by-law, provide for a pension for any member of Council. ” Remov- ing this power seems…. Well, can the minister explain the necessity of this? Hon. S. Robinson:It’s the ten-year vesting requirement that has been changed. That’s the only thing that’s been removed. This requirement in the Vancouver Charter is cur- rently in contravention of the provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. So again, this is just about tidying it up so that they read properly. S.

Sullivan:So it used to be ten years? [2:25 p.m.] Hon. S. Robinson:Immediate vesting was brought in, in 2015, so it no longer makes sense. It no longer works. They actually contradict each other. The immediate vesting was brought in, in 2015, at which time plan rules were changed to immediate vesting for all plan participants. S. Sullivan:One additional question. How many other requests from the city of Vancouver to the Vancouver Charter are pending? Hon. S. Robinson:That’s not part of the legislation, so I really can’t speak to that at this point. Sections 45 to 55 inclusive approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved. Title approved. Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:26 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2018 Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. D. Eby: The second miscellaneous bill is always the best. I call Bill 22, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 22 — CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 2:30 p.m. Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4297

Hon. D. Eby:I look forward to questions from members.

Section 1 approved. The Chair:Shall

section 2 pass? Some Hon. Members:Aye. The Chair:So ordered. M. Lee:Sorry, just on

section 2, if I can. The Chair:We’re going back to

section 2. On

section 2. M. Lee: On sub (e)(4) where it states, under this bill, that the tribunal is considered to have this specialized expert- ise in respect of a claim, what are the implications of that in terms of the nature of the current composition of the tribunal — when the bill says it has specialized expertise? Hon. D. Eby: This raises two issues. One is: who is going to be on the tribunal? What will their expertise be? And the second is: why do we need to deem it in the act that the tribunal is considered to have specialized expertise?

The people who will be hired for the tribunal will have expertise in motor vehicle matters and in co-ops, in order to hear those specific matters that are contemplated in this act. But it’s not always enough to simply hire people with the expertise. Because the Judicial Review Procedure Act uses, in determining standard of review and determining judicial reviews of tribunals like this, one of the factors they look at is: does the tribunal have specialized expertise?

We wanted to send an unambiguous signal to the courts in making judicial review determinations that in the view of the Legislature, under this act and the structure we’ve set up, this tribunal does have specialized expertise — I don’t want to end with a preposition — upon which areas it is asked to adjudicate. M. Lee:Thank you, Attorney General, for that response. Just to further that, in terms of the standard of special- ized expertise, could the Attorney General just describe the kind of expertise that members of this tribunal will be staffed with? Hon. D.

Eby:For the civil resolution tribunal, the chair of the tribunal engages in a merit-based hiring process based on the areas of jurisdiction that the tribunal takes on. Currently, the tribunal deals with small claims matters under $5,000, and it also deals with matters related to strata disputes. Because it’s a dispute resolution tribunal, people with experience in dispute resolution matters are looked for in the hiring process. People with expertise in strata matters, strata law, are looked for in the hiring process. People with expertise in litigation around civil claims are looked for in the hiring process.

It’s not set out in the bill, but it’s reasonable to anticipate that the exact same process will happen for these hirings. The chair sets out a set of criteria for merit-based hiring, interviews candidates and determines which of those can- didates have the necessary expertise in order to adjudicate these claims. [2:35 p.m.] In this case, we would expect that, again, the chair would be looking for people with dispute resolution capacity, with experience in laws related to motor vehicle accidents in Brit- ish Columbia and experience in relation to law related to co- ops, housing service providers, and so on.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved. On

section 7. M. Lee:Just in terms of the addition of this provision (1.1) to provide for an amended initiating notice, given the nature of the initiating notice, can the Attorney General describe for this House what the circumstances would be where an amendment would be filed? Hon. D. Eby:I noticed that we were just joined in the gal- lery by a large group of students. I’m not sure whether or not it’s Campbell River Phoenix Middle School.

In any event, it might be useful for the students to know that we’re in com- mittee stage on a bill around the civil resolution tribunal that resolves disputes for people in British Columbia. It’s a tribunal, and it’s about giving this tribunal additional powers to hear different disputes. We’re going to go

section by

section through the bill. The member from the opposition will be asking me questions about the sections. I’ll do my best to answer. Then the mem- bers have the chance to vote on whether or not they allow the

section to pass. It’s one of the final stages before third read- ing of the bill. With respect to the member’s question on this section, this is an amendment that comes from a request from the civil resolution tribunal itself. The tribunal identified that there was a gap in its ability to amend its initiating notice, and that caused it frustration in trying to resolve things. From time to time, things might change in a dispute, and it might need to amend its initiating notice, but it didn’t have a statutory authority to do that. That’s what this is aimed at. It was a request from the tribunal to facilitate its processes. Sections 7 and 8 approved. On

section 9. M. Lee: This provision under the current act…. Perhaps I could just start with this provision by just understanding, under the current act, the reason for which government may 4298 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

not be a party to a tribunal proceeding. If the Attorney Gen- eral could just explain the background of the current provi- sion. Then we can go on to the proposed amendment. Hon. D. Eby: When the tribunal was initially set up by the previous government, the decision was made not to have government as a party. There were a lot of questions about the tribunal when it was being set up. How would it operate? Would it operate well? Would it be sufficiently independent of government to preserve confidence in the public around disputes resolved in front of it?

The decision was made to leave government out as a party so that disputes would con- tinue to be resolved, where government is a party, exclusively in front of the courts. It also brought into it concerns around the Crown Pro- ceeding Act, which would also have to be amended in order to allow government to appear in front of the tribunal. That is why, I understand — although I wasn’t there — the origin- al decision was made, without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of those justifications. M. Lee:Thank you for that. I appreciate your understand- ing of that. I wasn’t there either, but thank you for that.

It sounds, on its surface, to be a good

summary. In terms of the proposed amendment, then, under sec- tion 9 of the bill to

section 9 of the act, perhaps, first, the Attorney General could just describe…. When we say “government” in this case, what particular…? How will government represent itself in a proceeding on, say, sub 9(1)(b), an accident claim? [2:40 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of ways in which gov- ernment could end up in front of this tribunal. The specific goal here, obviously, isn’t related to co-ops, which is another

section of the act that gives this tribunal different powers. This is related to motor vehicle accidents. The government could actually own the vehicle that’s involved in the collision, which could bring the government in front of the tribunal. In addition, a party could allege, in front of the tribunal, that the road was built poorly or that there were insufficient safeguards on the road. There should have been a guardrail. There should have been a stop sign. There should have been a roundabout instead of an intersec- tion. Whatever the allegation is.

The concern was that if we didn’t have this, all an indi- vidual would need to do to get out of the tribunal and back into the Supreme Court system would be to allege, “Oh, well, there was a problem with the road, ” and have that determ- ined in…. That would take it outside of the authority of the tribunal, and you’ d be right off to the Supreme Court again. The goal of this — which is to get minor injury disputes and minor motor vehicle matters resolved quickly, effi- ciently and proportionally through the civil resolution tribunal — would be frustrated. People would be able to get up to the B.C.

Supreme Court and then a multi-year process with all of the attendant expenses and processes. So that’s why, specifically, the member finds this

section and this amendment in here. M. Lee: In terms of the actual workings of the tribunal, then, when an adjuster from ICBC might be called into the tribunal process, this

section is not intended to cover that situation. Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that ICBC has always been able to appear in front of tribunals. They’re not defined as “government” for the restriction around it being able to appear in front of tribunals. Government, for that pur- pose, is considered to be core government, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia, not Crown cor- porations and so on. M. Lee: Just in terms of the Crown Proceeding Act, will there be necessary amendments to that act, necessary to include now that the government can appear before or be a party to a tribunal proceeding? Hon. D. Eby:It’s

section 38 of this bill. It’s a consequential amendment to the Crown Proceeding Act. If the member wants, we can approve all of the sections and get right to it.

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. M. Lee: In terms of this particular provision, in terms of the nature of it, what sorts of claims do we expect might arise which will necessitate the application of this provision? Hon. D. Eby: The only

section that is amended here is subsection (e), which says: “the tribunal is satisfied that it has been established, on the basis of satisfactory evidence, that the claim or the dispute is beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. ” This is a

section that allows the tribunal to say, “Hold on; we don’t want to hear this, ” or: “We don’t have authority to hear this; this should go to B.C. Supreme Court to be resolved. ” The

section here is added because we’ve put a fin- ancial limit on the authority of the tribunal to hear matters that come before it, and that limit is $50,000. [2:45 p.m.] So if it’s less than $50,000, the tribunal can hear it. But if it’s more than $50,000, the tribunal should be, if it can be demonstrated as subsection (

e) says…. If the person or their lawyer or the claimant can show up and say, “This claim is worth more than $50,000. Y ou don’t have authority to hear this, ” and they can present satisfactory evidence that, yes, it is worth more than $50,000, then it gets bumped up to B.C. Supreme Court. The tribunal can refuse to hear it because it’s outside the authority of the tribunal. Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4299

M. Lee: Just as a follow-on to that response, when does this determination need to be made, under sub (e)? Hon. D. Eby: This could be made at any time, this decision by the tribunal, up to the point of adjudication by the tribunal — in other words, up to the point of them mak- ing a decision on the matter. Sections 10 and 11 approved. On

section 12. M. Lee: In terms of the elimination period. I understand, from the briefing that your office kindly arranged, that the previous provisions were a bit stop and start. I wondered, though, if, first of all, the Attorney General could just walk us through the changes that are being made here, in terms of how limitation periods would apply, just for the record. Then I’ll go on to ask a few more questions about that. Hon. D. Eby: There are two changes here.

The first is: if you file in one place in the tribunal and you shouldn’t have filed in the tribunal and should have gone somewhere else, it was felt it was desirable to have a fixed amount of time that people understood — 28 days — to get refiled in the proper place. The old provision said that the limitation period stopped when you filed at the initial place, but then it restarted once you determined that you were in the wrong place. Then you had the remainder of the limitation period to file in the new place. That was kind of unpredictable for people. They didn’t really understand how much time they had.

People could miss out. So it was thought that a clear period of 28 days, after you find out you’re in the wrong place, is enough time for people to get themselves together and show up in the right court. The other change is a scenario where somebody might show up at the civil resolution tribunal and say: “Hello, civil resolution tribunal. I have a claim that I would like to be resolved, and I’m on the last day of my limitation period. ” They say: “No problem. ” They fail, though, to issue an initiat- ing document for 24 hours.

There’s some sort of a technical problem, or there’s an issue of some kind — some responsib- ility of the civil resolution tribunal. They don’t actually issue the necessary initiating document. [2:50 p.m.] Because of that possibility of a gap in the limitation peri- od, and the claim only being considered as being filed with the initiating document, we wanted to say: “If you show up at the civil resolution tribunal…. ” I say “show up” metaphor- ically, because some people might do this all on line.

If you show up there and you say, “Okay, I have this claim, ” and you request resolution of your claim, that is the date that should be considered for the limitation period, not when the civil resolution tribunal issues the initiating document. That is exclusively within the control of the claimant, and everything after that is not. We want to say that because of the limitation period policy, this is the responsibility of the claimant, so it should be in the control of the claimant when the claim is con- sidered to be received. I hope that is clear. If not, I can try to explain it, take another run at it. M.

Lee: I appreciate that response as well. Just in terms of the 28-day period, the Attorney General just characterized that or described that as being the wrong forum perhaps. But is it also not applicable where perhaps there’s a determina- tion that this is a matter that should go to the next level in terms of a court? Is that the case in terms of continuing the claim in a different court level? Hon. D. Eby:The member is correct, yes. M. Lee: In circumstances where that’s determined…. It may be because it’s beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal, or some other provision is triggered within this bill.

Has the period of 28 days, that period of time, been reviewed from a point of view that that would be a sufficient period of time to enable a claimant to regroup and move to the next level? Hon. D. Eby:The 28 days was chosen for a couple of reas- ons. First, our statutory drafters prefer multiples of weeks because people using the laws find it easier to calculate timelines when it’s four weeks versus 30 days. It can be more confusing to have an uneven number of weeks. That’s sort of a statutory

interpretation and statutory use kind of policy that the government has. That is not unique to our govern- ment, but it started a while ago. The second is that, currently, appeals have 30-day time periods. So it’s not unusual in terms of asking somebody to regroup, as the member says, and get themselves into the proper venue. The third policy piece is that the person has had two years to get themselves to the civil resolution tribunal in the first place. We do really want disputes to be resolved quickly. We want them to be resolved, ideally, with- in 60 to 90 days.

This is also trying to feed into that goal of getting disputes resolved as quickly as possible. M. Lee: Are there any circumstances under which that period might be extended for reasons of the claimant’s situ- ation — financial, emotional or otherwise? I’m just won- dering if there’s any consideration of any exceptions to that 28-day period. Hon. D. Eby: These types of limitation periods in this bill are no exception.

They’re typically prefaced by “unless the court otherwise orders. ” It makes it possible for the person to appear in front of the court with their evidence about why they took longer than the limitation period and for the court to make a determination about whether that was reasonable or not. 4300 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved. On

section 15. M. Lee: Under

section 15 of the bill, there are certain criteria to determine, for the tribunal to consider, where there’s a substantial likelihood that damages will exceed the tribunal limit amount. If the Attorney General could please take us through what that criteria might be to deter- mine that. [2:55 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The criteria are justice and fairness. The court is asked to evaluate whether it is just and fair in all of the circumstances to continue with the course of action that’s recommended in the statute.

It was difficult for us to imagine the different scenarios that a court might face, in terms of a scenario where it might be unjust or unfair to refer somebody back to the tribunal or not to resolve it at the trial level. There’s an infinite num- ber of possible scenarios that a court might face in this situ- ation. We thought it better to, instead of trying to prescribe the situation — ill health, a particular need for urgency…. It’s hard to articulate these kinds of principles.

What we say is: “We have confidence that the court can make a determination in the judicial exercise of discretion that it is just and fair in this particular circumstance for us to proceed. ” Now, with that said, the intent of this

section is to say to the court: “Listen. We’ve set up this tribunal. We set up the tribunal because we have these values around resolving claims quickly, around having a proportionate response for minor injuries and for smaller disputes, not spending a huge amount of time and money on elaborate court processes that are set up with protections that are far beyond what’s neces- sary to resolve a minor injury dispute. For those reasons, we think you should decline to exercise the authority to hear these disputes.

We think you should send them back to the tribunal. ” But there might be the odd case where the court goes: “Y ou know what? In the interest of justice and fairness, we just need to resolve this now. ” It’s hard to say what exactly that would be, but we have confidence that the courts can exercise that authority and also recognize the legislative intent here, which is to have a proportionate response in the interests of ratepayers and in the interests of the public to have certainty, if they’re involved in a collision, around what their claim might be. M.

Lee: The test of substantial likelihood is going to be as determined by the tribunal. That’s the test for the tribunal to work through. Is there any guidance on that test? [3:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: I thought I provided a pretty fantastic answer on the last one, hon. Chair. The problem with that is that sometimes you can provide a great answer and it might not be right. I’ll direct the member to

section 16.3. Actually, 16.3(1) sets out some of the criteria that a court can consider in determining whether it’s in the interest of justice and fairness to make a determination. These include: “(

a) whether an issue raised by the claim or dispute is of such importance that the claim or dispute would benefit from being adjudicated by that court to establish a precedent; “(

b) whether an issue raised by the claim or dispute relates to a constitutional question or the Human Rights Code; “(

c) whether an issue raised by the claim or dispute is sufficiently complex to benefit from being adjudicated by that court; “(

d) whether all of the parties to the claim or dispute agree that the claim or dispute should not be adjudicated by the tribunal; “(

e) whether the claim or dispute should be heard together with a claim or dispute currently before that court; “(

f) whether the use of electronic communication tools in the adjudication process of the tribunal would be unfair to a party in a way that cannot be accommodated by the tribunal. ” That’s a better answer because it actually is correct. I’m going to have to ask the member…. Because we got sucked into a discussion around justice and fairness, I lost the plot of his most recent question. So if he could repeat his question now that I’ve corrected the last answer. M. Lee: I appreciate that clarification and thank you for that. I was just referring back to the first part of that, in the line….

Obviously, the term “substantial likelihood” that’s used in the third-to-last line of sub (2) is really the test that’s being utilized there. Where “a party has established that there is a substantial likelihood that damages would exceed the tribunal limit amount, ” I’m just wondering what the test is that a party is trying to get over when we’re talking about substantial likelihood. Hon. D. Eby: The member has articulated the test, which is a substantial likelihood. This is like the test of reasonableness or other administrative law tests that tie people up in knots sometimes.

But in any event, substan- tial likelihood is different from likelihood. It’s a higher standard than a simple likelihood. It’s a signal to say that it needs to be pretty clear that this amount is in excess of the jurisdiction of the tribunal. We want the tribunal to hear the majority of disputes. I don’t want to import into the statute a bunch of language that isn’t there. The test is a substantial likelihood, and the tribunal and the courts will be determining it within that framework that’s set out in the language of the statute. But the word “substantial” is an important one. M.

Lee: Thank you for that response as well. Not to bela- bour the point, but in terms of when we talk about damages, particularly with respect to accident claims, that determina- tion of whether there’s a substantial likelihood that the dam- ages itself will exceed the tribunal limit amount presumes, Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4301

I suppose…. This is what I would like to confirm with the Attorney General. We’re talking when we’re going through this dispute resolution process, there’s some determination by the court that, other than in the interest of justice and fairness and those considerations not being triggered, really the tribunal should consider whether they have jurisdiction in this matter or they don’t. So that substantial likelihood is not a time-based question, then. That is really what I would like confirmation of. [3:05 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:I think the member’s question is an import- ant one.

For this section, the intent is that it’s at the time the court is making the determination — so at that fixed moment in time when the court has the evidence in front of them about what the anticipated damages are, and they’re making that determination: is it a substantial likelihood that it’s in excess of the jurisdiction of the tribunal? It’s at that time. So that is a point in time. The tribunal itself can make a determination at any time in the process that: “Oh, this has gone beyond our jurisdic- tion. We’re going to kick it up to the Supreme Court. ” I think that is getting at what the member was asking.

I invite the member to clarify if it isn’t. The Chair:Shall

section 15 pass? Some Hon. Members:Aye. M. Lee: Sorry. Just tracking through. Just back on

section 15, on sub 16.3(2). The Chair:Back to

section 15? M. Lee:Y es, which is an amendment to sub 16.3(2). Sorry, sub 16.3(1)(f) — the question around electronic commu- nication tools. As I understand it, much of the CRT’s work can be on line or through electronic communication. Is that something that, in the case of accident claims, the Attorney General and the ministry see as a viable form for which acci- dent claims will continue to be heard, or will electronic com- munication not be as effective or as fair to the claimant? Hon. D.

Eby: It’s always open to the civil resolution tribunal to have an in-person hearing, but for the vast major- ity of disputes, the medical evidence is going to speak for itself. The records provided by the claimant and the respond- ent — I’m not sure what terms, actually, the CRT uses, but by the two parties to the matter — will be largely paper-based. If it’s necessary, maybe to evaluate credibility or something like that, they can meet in person. I think that sub 16.3(1)(

f) was really aimed at the pos- sibility that the person who’s making the claim has some sort of a disability, perhaps, that makes it difficult for them to use an electronic device, and it would be unfair to ask them to appear that way. We can probably think of oth- er scenarios. It’s meant to anticipate that it might be more just or fair, in a particular situation, to have a person appear through the court.

Section 15 approved. On

section 16. M. Lee:

Section 16 proposes an addition to the act to provide for lawyer representation. Just to ask: under the cur- rent act and regime, how many lawyers would typically appear, if any, before the tribunal in any given year? Hon. D. Eby:We don’t have that information. I’m sure we could track it down for the member.

Under the existing act, there was an intent, when the civil resolution tribunal was set up, that people could appear in front of it without coun- sel — in fact, that it was less desirable to have counsel at the tribunal, to the point that the government at the time passed a provision that said you can’t actually, for many disputes, have a lawyer, unless you get special permission to appear in front of the tribunal with a lawyer. [3:10 p.m.] This section, for claims under $50,000 for the issue of whether or not someone has a minor injury, recognizes that these are more substantial claims than the tribunal has pre- viously heard.

Currently they hear disputes under $5,000 for small claims, and they hear strata disputes and so on. So the intention of this is to give the person the ability to appear with a lawyer in this dispute. Let’s say there’s a dispute around whether or not they have a minor injury or simply to resolve the claim itself towards the higher end of $50,000. It’s very possible that some lawyers would find interest in assisting clients in these kinds of matters.

But our intent is the same as the original intent was in front of the tribunal — that people should be able to show up on their own, have the dispute resolved with the active assistance of the tribunal and do it without having to pay legal fees, so that the major- ity of the claim amount goes to the claimant. That’s the inten- tion. We also wanted to say: “If you want to show up with a lawyer, if you want to pay a lawyer to come, you can do that here as well, if you wish. ” M.

Lee: I understand that it is contemplated that in a tribunal proceeding in respect of an accident claim, which is what this provision would speak to, ICBC may also be attending the tribunal hearing with an adjuster. Is that cor- rect? Hon. D. Eby:I see that we’re joined by another class in the gallery. I’ll just refresh, for our committee, that what we’re doing here is reviewing the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. This is a tribunal in the province that hears disputes of a smaller nature, under $5,000, currently strata disputes.

We’re amending it to allow them to hear motor vehicle accident claim amounts up to $50,000 and co-op disputes as well. 4302 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

We’re going

section by

section through the bill. The mem- ber of the opposition is asking me questions. I’m doing my best to answer them. And at the end of each section, we vote whether or not it should pass, before third reading of the bill. The member’s question was about ICBC’s appearance. The intention is currently that an ICBC adjuster would attend. ICBC would be the respondent to the claim.

So when someone who has been in an accident doesn’t agree with what the adjuster has said their claim is worth — if they say no, it’s not worth $10,000; it’s worth $20,000 — they can go to the civil resolution tribunal to have that dispute heard. There has to be someone on the other side saying here’s what we think the claim is worth. Currently, ICBC’s thinking is…. We don’t have a system like this right now, but currently, their thinking is that that person would be an adjuster. ICBC adjusters are not lawyers. They are specialists in determining the value of claims.

So those people would be attending the hearing, making representations to the tribunal about what their position is — what the claim is worth. The person who was in the acci- dent makes representation, with their medical records and their costs and so on, to the tribunal about what they think the claim is worth. Then the tribunal would make a decision. It is possible that there are complicated legal disputes that would show up in front of the tribunal — even though it’s hearing smaller matters — and someone might show up with a lawyer. In that case, ICBC might show up with a lawyer too.

But the intent is to help get costs down at ICBC and that they wouldn’t be sending lawyers. They don’t want to be spending money on lawyers. That’s why we’re setting this system up — to get the administrative cost down around these claims, to have them resolved more quickly and to have them resolved without a bunch of legal expenses on both sides so that the money actually goes to accident victims. M. Lee:Well, thank you for that response.

I would just like to ask further, in terms of that process, whether a claimant or individual appearing before the tribunal would get notice of the fact that an adjuster would be at the tribunal hearing. [3:15 p.m.] Secondly, if for some reason…. What would trigger an adjuster to bring along legal counsel to that hearing? Is it the case where it appears that the claimant decides to exer- cise their right under this

section to be represented in the tribunal proceeding? What are the notice provisions that might relate to this? Hon. D. Eby: Given the size of the claims that would be appearing in front of the tribunal, it doesn’t make a lot of financial sense. The size of the disputed amounts between what ICBC is prepared to pay and what the person is claim- ing, that gap…. These are relatively — and it sounds strange, because it’s maybe $10,000 or $15,000 — small amounts when it comes to paying a lawyer to show up to argue this file on behalf of ICBC.

It wouldn’t simply be that someone on the other side shows up with their lawyer, and therefore ICBC sends a law- yer, because the costs wouldn’t make sense. What we’re more concerned about is that in the early days of the tribunal, there will be a bunch of decisions made by the tribunal. And then there will be appeals where the case law is set down around: what are the ground rules for the tribunal, what are the processes, what is the court’s oversight of the tribunal and so on. These precedents are really import- ant in ensuring that the tribunal works as intended.

There may be a case where, although it doesn’t make fin- ancial sense, necessarily, given the amount that is in dispute with ICBC, someone shows up with a lawyer, and we know that the intent is to try to set a precedent in the matter. Then ICBC might choose to send a lawyer. It wouldn’t strictly be financial. It wouldn’t simply be that the other party showed up with a lawyer. It would really be: is this a complex legal argument that has the possibility of setting some kind of a precedent that ICBC needs to make an appearance with a lawyer?

In fact, it’s very likely that in the majority of cases where someone would show up with a lawyer, an ICBC adjustor would show up on the other side just for the simple financial reason of it not making financial sense for the corporation to be sending a lawyer to every single hearing. M. Lee:Well, thank you for that response as well. I guess that I appreciate that we’re trying to reduce the administrative burden here. Just under the current situation and with ICBC adjustors appearing in a tribunal hearing, obviously there’s a bit of an unlevel field there.

I appreciate the tribunal plays a role to help facilitate the dispute itself, but in terms of understanding the nature of a minor injury and any complexity that might be around the recovery of any claims in respect of that, particularly if it goes beyond the $5,500 limit up to the $50,000 limit…. What the question and the concern would be around whether this provision is going to lead to…. At least in the initial period of time, as the Attorney General just men- tioned, I do expect, and I understand, that a lot of precedents may be set as to how certain types of claims will be dealt with by this tribunal.

Is there a concern, in terms of fairness for the actual indi- viduals, that they may not have the ability to retain legal counsel because of the limits involved? Is there a concern here that the Attorney General might see in this being an unlevel playing field in the way that this is being structured? Hon. D. Eby: The intent is to have this tribunal operate in most cases without counsel. Y ou’ll see, in this

section that we’re talking about, that we’re making an exception, saying: “Look, if you really want to bring a lawyer here, given the amount of money that you’re going to pay in legal fees and the amount that’s under dispute, which by definition under this act, is less than $50,000…. If you really want to bring a lawyer, you can bring a lawyer. But the amount of money that you’re going to spend on your lawyer is going to eat up Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4303

a lot of your award, so it’s probably not to your interest. ” We wanted to provide people with the right to do that. For ICBC, it’s the exact same thing. The amount of money involved in these disputes will not justify, in the vast majority of cases, showing up with a lawyer. [3:20 p.m.] The concern that may cause the corporation to send a law- yer to a hearing, especially in the early days, might be that this case, for some reason, might set a precedent that could undermine the intention of how this thing is intended to operate. So they may, in that scenario, be sending a lawyer.

ICBC spends somewhere between $120 to $300 an hour for the lawyers that it has on contract. It does not take many hours of getting familiar with the background on the file, going to the hearing, and then the hearing is adjourned, and then you’ve got to appear in front of the…. It doesn’t take long to eat up a lot of money appearing with a lawyer instead of just sending the adjustor, who is an expert in claims who can provide the tribunal with the information that they need. That will be ICBC’s approach. That’s the intention here.

It’s not different for ICBC than it is for a claimant, in that, giv- en the value of the claims here, it just doesn’t tend to make sense for counsel to appear. M. Lee: I appreciate, again, that in the early stages of this tribunal, as it might move forward if it’s passed in this House, is the movement towards being based on what might be the adjustor’s understanding of similar minor injuries or acci- dent claims of a similar nature. Presumably, of course, ICBC has that data bank today. That data bank is utilized by the adjustor to go into a pro- ceeding.

Of course, every claimant, presumably, under a new regime — particularly with the limits that are being set, potentially, under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and in this tribunal proceeding…. Every claimant, I presume, will feel like: “My situation justifies more recovery than what might be presented. ” Y ou could see that there will be scenarios where a claimant might want to bring legal counsel in order to test this tribunal’s view on the recovery. I think that that is the concern.

I’ll just say that where these limits are applying, the ques- tion would be: is it as simple for the tribunal and the adjus- tors to determine what the value of a minor injury would be in the case of this tribunal versus something that might be prejudicial to the claimant going forward? This a determina- tion that’s being made in the current context when there’s the initial diagnosis and what’s being presented to the tribunal.

Would the Attorney General at least see that there’s a possibility that this might be prejudicial to the claimant as they’re appearing before the tribunal, in terms of unrepres- ented or represented, the way this is structured? Hon. D. Eby: I’ d argue, actually, that this situation could provide a claimant with a significant benefit that’s not avail- able currently. That is, if you’re not sure about the nature of the injury that you’ve received currently — you’re not sure about what your claim is worth — there’s no option. Y ou cannot do anything, really, in my opinion. Y ou can.

I mean, logistically you can go to B.C. Supreme Court by yourself. Y ou can file your own claim. Y ou can appear on your own account. It’s really difficult. It’s really hard to do. Practically, you have to hire a lawyer to have your claim independently reviewed and assessed. This process that we’re setting out allows somebody to go and have their claim inde- pendently assessed without a lawyer. It’s set up in that way, and the tribunal provides a great deal of assistance currently to people who appear in front of it, to help them to get through the process without counsel.

Y ou can go, and you might have the tribunal review your claim and say: “This is in excess of our jurisdiction. Y ou have to go to the B.C. Supreme Court. ” Then you would know: “Okay, now is the time when I need to go and to hire a lawyer and go ahead. ” But you can’t do that currently; you’re on your own, unless you go and hire counsel to assist you through the B.C.

Supreme Court system. [3:25 p.m.] So in some ways, certainly, I would argue that this provides a benefit to people in determining their claims with an independent assessor — somebody independent of ICBC; is the adjudicator giving me a fair deal here? — in a way that currently they can’t do. M. Lee:Thank you for that response. I guess that this goes back to, then, in terms of the independent adjudicator, the kind of expertise that the tribunal will have.

We’ve talked earlier that, of course, the core competence would be dispute resolution, but in terms of assisting both parties to come to resolution on the right claim amount…. I’ d like to come back to the Attorney General in terms of the kind of expertise that will be employed in terms of med- ical understanding of personal injury and the complexity of what is currently in the proposed definition of minor injury, including psychological, psychiatric, chronic conditions, as well as pain syndromes. Will the expertise of the tribunal be there to assist in this?

And to what degree do they have the capabilities of assessing the amounts that would be appropri- ate for recovery purposes? Hon. D. Eby: I’m speculating here, but I think that it’s not unreasonable to expect that there are going to be a sig- nificant number of personal injury lawyers who are going to be taking these jobs — people who have knowledge and expertise in assessing claims and that have knowledge about the law, people with experience in personal injury law. I think there’s a distinct possibility we’ll see a num- ber of lawyers with personal injury experience applying for these jobs at the tribunal.

There are a number of different categories of expertise that we could anticipate that the tribunal might draw on, but cer- tainly, lawyers are one obvious group — people with legal training and experience in personal injury. 4304 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

Sections 16 and 17 approved. On

section 18. M. Lee: This provision is an amendment in terms of the area around experts. So I’ d ask, first of all, of the Attorney General what the intent is. It seems, under (e)(ii), that there would be a desire to limit the number of experts that a party may call. So what, overall, is the plan here in terms of experts? I know that there’s obviously a requirement that expert evidence be done jointly. What’s the overall rationale and plan for this provision? Hon. D. Eby: ICBC currently, for claims under $50,000, pays about $25 million a year for expert reports. Obvi- ously, that is a very significant cost.

It’s arguable, in my opinion, whether it provides a great benefit to people appearing in front of court. To have two experts or three experts on each side, each saying the opposite of the other expert, doesn’t particularly help the court in determining the value of the claim. So for minor injuries, for claims under $50,000, we want a process that is proportionate to the injury and the value of the claim. It means that the tribunal could say, “We don’t need a whole bunch of experts here.

We would like for you, for example, to work together and find an expert that you can both agree on to do the assessment, and that’s that, ” or: “Y ou know what? We need a little bit more expertise here. This is a complicated factual matter, so we’re going to allow more experts here, but we’re going to limit it within this range. ” We want the tribunal to be able to hear expert evidence, but we want them to maintain control over it, because it’s a significant cost driver. [3:30 p.m.] M. Lee: I appreciate the concern around understanding the context and the limits and the proportionate nature.

In terms of a single expert, in theory, being able to take on this retainer, is the thinking that…? Where do we source these single experts in the sense of whether they’ve tradition- ally been on the plaintiff side or whether they’ve been on the ICBC side? Just a concern around how an expert can jointly advise both sides to this dispute. Hon. D.

Eby: Given the adversarial nature of a litigation process, it has been the experience of ICBC, and I expect on the claimant’s side as well, that doctors are reluctant to participate, because they have to sit on the stand and have their CV taken apart and be accused of interpreting records improperly and not understanding their profession. People are reluctant to do it. [L. Reid in the chair.] The hope is that this may actually significantly expand the expert pool if the understanding is that both parties are ask- ing the doctor to provide their best medical opinion about what the state of the evidence is.

Our hope is that, actually, there will be more doctors available to do this kind of work and everyone will be less reliant on what are known as either plaintiff- or defence-side experts — that the pool of doctors willing to do this kind of work will actually increase. M. Lee: Well, I suppose that given the adversarial nature of this, it will be a situation where, with the tribunal adju- dicating and a single expert, there may, at times, be disagree- ments between the two parties in terms of the advice they’re receiving from the expert. Is it intended that this would pre- clude any second opinion in this regard?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s almost guaranteed when the expert renders his or her opinion that one of the two parties is not going to see what they had hoped to see. It’s possible that both parties will be unhappy. There is the possibility here for the tribunal to allow additional experts, certainly. It’s with- in their authority to allow additional experts. But I would think it would be highly unlikely that the tribunal would allow additional experts simply because one or the other of the parties — or perhaps both of the parties — was unhappy with the findings of the expert about the extent of the injury.

Y ou’ll see, in subsection 32(1)(e), the ability for the tribunal to either require a joint expert or limit the number of experts a party may call, which contemplates, of course, that there may be more than one joint expert, or “by limiting the giving of expert evidence in respect of one or more issues in a claim to an expert appointed by the tribunal. ” So the tribunal, as an independent tribunal, could also potentially appoint an expert in order to provide evidence on a conten- tious matter. M. Lee: One other question about experts would be: what criteria would the tribunal be using in order to select experts?

Hon. D. Eby: The question of which expert to call would really depend on the area of expertise that’s required. We’ve been talking a lot about medical experts, but that’s just one category of expert. In matters like this, you might have someone with an expertise in reconstruction of a collision, in understanding how fast a vehicle may have been travelling or any kind of expertise that the tribunal might need. It’s not a closed category. The tribunal might need expert evidence on any number of topics. [3:35 p.m.]

Section 18 approved. On

section 19. M. Lee: In respect of this provision, if I could ask the Attorney General to comment on what the current applic- Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4305

able time periods are for the tribunal to render a decision. Hon. D. Eby: Currently there’s no time period prescribed by the rules. The section, as it reads currently, implied that there was one. There isn’t one. So the tribunal wanted the law to reflect the reality. They are resolving most matters within 60 to 90 days and have a very good track record of resolving disputes in a timely manner. It may be that at some point in the future they would see fit to have a time limit on resolving matters. In that case, there might be a rule, but currently there isn’t.

Putting in the words “if any” just ensures that the law better reflects the practice. M. Lee: I understand from my colleagues that, at this point, I should ask for a recess from this committee stage on Bill 22. Hon. D. Eby:I move that we rise and report progress. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:36 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 20, the Insur- ance (Vehicle) Amendment Act. [L.

Reid in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 20 now be read a second time. The amendments in this bill set the foundation to put the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia on a stable and sustainable financial footing while keeping insurance rates fair and affordable for drivers in British Columbia.

It will also ensure a framework is in place for an enhanced care–based system that makes taking care of people injured in a vehicle accident ICBC’s top priority, with increased benefits for the treatments and support they need to get better. [3:40 p.m.] The amendments will allow for a retroactive increase in the maximum limit payable as accident benefits for med- ical and rehabilitation costs for accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2018. This will support our February com- mitment to increase the limit of accident benefits payable from $150,000 to $300,000 for accidents occurring on or after that date.

The amendments also provide for an expanded list of health care providers that ICBC must pay as accident bene- fits — for example, including massage therapists, occupa- tional therapists, physical therapists and chiropractors — and allow government to set the amounts payable as accident benefits for those services. These changes would be effective for accidents occurring on or after April 1, 2019, and will ensure that every person involved in a vehicle accident is able to access the health services they need to get better. Specific increases to ICBC’s accident benefits will be defined in regulation.

The bill will also limit the amount recoverable in an acci- dent claim to the amount payable as health service accident benefits. To ensure the amounts payable reflect a fair rate for health care practitioners, the minister responsible will be required to initiate a review of the amounts payable for the provision of health care as accident benefits every five years.

The review must be conducted in consultation with ICBC and any other persons or organizations the minister con- siders appropriate, and a report on the results of the review, including any recommendations included in the review, must be tabled before the Legislative Assembly. This will ensure government is held to account on the accident bene- fits provided so that we don’t again see this current situation where accident benefits haven’t increased in 27 years, since 1991, and people must turn to litigation to recover their health care costs.

The bill will also provide that certain medical and wage- loss benefits must be deducted from a damage award in a vehicle claim and that a person who pays or provides a med- ical or wage benefit cannot recover from the at-fault driver or their insurer. To ensure that ICBC funds are directed towards helping people get better through improved accident benefits and in support of ICBC’s financial sustainability, this bill includes provisions to limit the amount a claimant can recover as damages for non-pecuniary pain and suffering resulting from a minor injury that occurs on or after April 1, 2019.

The supporting regulations will prescribe the maximum lim- it and allow for considerations such as contributory negli- gence and instances where a person sustains both a minor and non-minor injury. The bill will introduce a new legal definition of what con- stitutes a minor injury in B.C., which includes abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprains and strains, pain syndrome, psychological or psychiatric conditions or other prescribed injuries, whether or not chronic, where the injury doesn’t result in a serious impairment or a permanent serious disfig- urement.

This will be further defined in regulation to ensure that only minor injuries are captured in the legislation. Serious injuries, like broken bones, as well as more catastrophic injuries will not be captured under the definition. If a per- son’s symptoms persist beyond 12 months and have a signi- 4306 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 26, 2018

ficant impact on their activities of daily living, such as work or school, the injury would no longer be considered minor. The legislation will provide for prescribed medical and diagnostic treatment protocols for minor injuries. If a person follows these protocols and their minor injury still worsens to the point of becoming non-minor, then the limit on pain and suffering damages would no longer apply. If that person fails to follow the protocols, the limit on pain and suffering damages may still be applied in some circumstances.

Be assured that the diagnosis of an injury will be deter- mined by a medical professional and not ICBC, the same as today. Government is consulting with the medical and health care community in order to determine the most appropriate definition of “minor injury, ” protocols and fair rates for treatment.

The bill also includes appropriate regulation-making authority for future product and rate premium design changes, including announced enhancement tax and bene- fits and various housekeeping amendments for such pur- poses as clarifying the meaning of terms used in the legis- lation, such as the terms “accident” and “certificate, ” the authorization to collect personal information and to improve readability, as well as amendments consequential to the key changes discussed earlier. In

summary, these and other provisions that bring about ICBC insurance product reform are expected to save the cor- poration more than $1 billion annually at full implementa- tion and will also lay the foundation for a care-based system that focuses and invests primarily in helping people recover from vehicle accidents. J. Y ap:Everyone in this House understands that there are challenges at ICBC. There are challenges with auto insurers across North America. Crashes, injury and vehicle damage claims are all increasing dramatically.

These trends are not unique to British Columbia. [3:45 p.m.] In government, we took a series of actions to keep insur- ance rates affordable, including transferring $1.5 billion from optional to basic and increasing penalties for distracted driving, which now are among the most severe in Canada. We increased premiums for luxury cars. Procurement strategies in the Lower Mainland were brought in to improve the bottom line. We reduced overhead at ICBC, including 500 fewer managers and a 50 percent reduction in the exec- utive compensation. A new IT system saves $90 million per year.

Measures to combat fraud resulted in $44 million per year in savings. And a new windshield repair program. These measures helped, but as members know, the sudden and dramatic rise of collisions and injury claims has contin- ued. So I want to be very clear. We recognize that govern- ment had to take additional action to keep the rates down; government, however, has to strike a balance. Y es, we have to control costs, but we also have to ensure that British Colum- bians have affordable premiums and receive fair compensa- tion when injured. With that said, I have concerns with some of the specifics of this bill.

For instance, this bill will actually restrict options for victims of a traffic accident. Currently if you require physical therapy, chiropractic care or some other ongoing treatment for an injury suffered in an accident, it’s taken care of. But this bill says ICBC will determine market rates. In other words, if your chiropractor charges more than ICBC deems acceptable, you’re on the hook.

I recognize that the intent is to ensure that treatment pro- viders don’t charge more when they know insurance is pay- ing, but it assumes that claimants have easy access to a wide range of good treatment providers and ignores that treat- ment rates may vary from community to community. If the more expensive option is all that’s available or appropriate, claimants are either out of luck or out of pocket. This bill also appears to have holes and vague wording. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak to Bill 22, which is closely related to this bill and raises many of the same ques- tions.

I understand the intent is to control rising injury costs, but it’s difficult to understand the mechanism being put in place here. What’s attracted the most attention is the cap for minor injuries that don’t result in serious impairment. It’s not hard to understand why. I think most British Columbians are wary of caps on compensation. I appreciate that the cap is not intended to apply to lost wages or treatment, but con- cepts like minor injury and serious impairment are not necessarily clear and are left to regulation. Crucially, this bill does not address mental injury.

Often after a motor vehicle accident, a victim may experience men- tal or emotional trauma and suffer lost wages as a result. I’m concerned that the cap may lead to significant disparity between claimants who are members of benefit plans which provide them with long-term disability coverage, versus those claimants who are not. How fair is it that a claimant who does not enjoy coverage by a benefit plan, say, available through his or her employer may be forced to settle for the cap amount of $5,500 while another claimant with such a benefits plan would receive payments over an extended peri- od of time?

I am suspicious that this bill is intended to lay the ground- work towards raising premiums for bad drivers. That sounds good. Who could disagree with asking bad drivers to pay more so that good drivers can pay less? But what constitutes a bad driver? Surveys show 99 percent of all drivers say that they are good drivers. Obviously, someone with a series of infractions for things such as texting while driving is a bad driver, but what about a single traffic violation? If a driver with a spotless record gets pulled over for a rolling stop, is that a bad driver?

If that person suddenly sees their premi- ums go up, is that fair? I would assume that, at a minimum, a bad driver would be defined as someone who demonstrates a consistent pat- tern of unsafe behaviour or breaking the law. That is not clear here. Does a single instance of merging without signalling make someone a bad driver? What about one rolling stop at Thursday, April 26, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4307

a stop sign or an improper lane change on an empty road or driving 90 kilometres per hour when the posted limit is 80 kilometres an hour? [3:50 p.m.] I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians, including the members of this House, have been guilty of one of these infractions at least once. I would also suggest that that does not necessarily mean that they are bad drivers. If that is the intention here, let’s have those dis- cussions — the earlier, the better. Overall, this bill seems to fit a pattern that is emerging. It turns over a lot of control to cabinet through regulation. Why?

There is obviously a great deal of public interest in public automobile insurance rates and injury compensation. Why not have the opportunity to debate future changes here in the Legislature? In fact, when government members were on this side of the House, they frequently and passionately argued against government by regulation, by cabinet order. Why has their tune changed? Finally, I have questions about the projected savings. The NDP government claims this bill will result in $1 bil- lion in savings.

After what happened in the Ministry of Finance and the so-called speculation tax, where revenue estimates remained the same even after the tax changed, it’s only fair to ask about the financial modelling. And $1 billion is a significant amount of money. This bill does not make it clear how those savings will be achieved. I believe the government should show us its math. I look forward to exploring these issues, and others, in more detail with the minister in committee. A. Weaver:I rise to take my place in the debates at second reading for Bill 20, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act.

I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for his com- ments and the minister for introducing this bill. Bill 20 is one of two bills, hon. Speaker, as you know. We’ve been debating Bill 22, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act. Collectively, these bills are designed to get a handle on price increases that are going forward in ICBC. Y ou know, British Columbia is the last jurisdiction in Canada for which victims can sue for any type of injury for any amount. This is known as the full tort system. These measures are attempts to get a handle on costs.

After quite a number of years, in the words of the Attorney General — in a press scrum, he noted that ICBC finances became a dumpster fire. I think, actually, that’s a quite appro- priate comment in light of the rather dramatic rate increases and budget overruns that are seen in ICBC due to financial negligence of its oversight through too many years of a gov- ernment that seemed to view it as a bank account from which to withdraw money rather than as an insurance agency and public good designed specifically to actually ensure value for British Columbians and safety for British Columbians on the road.

This bill provides for regulation on a few major aspects of ICBC — product reform including limiting payouts for pain and suffering and for minor injuries — and allowing for increased medical benefits to be established in regulation. These announcements that are put forward in this bill were actually pre-announced in February. For me, the important aspect of this bill is that it takes the onus off the legal system and puts the onus on getting a person healthy by increasing the availability of resources for them, whether they be expanded service…. The treat- ment, the whole focus, now is on the person.

That, to me, is important. We all know of litigative examples that one could describe as somewhat dodgy. There seems to have been an increased, growing number of these, whereby people go to courts and sue for every this, that and the other. Now, with this being put in place, it’s actually saying: “Y ou know what? We’re join- ing the rest of Canada. ” We no longer are going to be considered the Wild West here, in terms of insurance premiums. We’re going to follow the lead of every other jurisdiction in Canada and move away from the full tort system to one that actually recognizes that costs in ICBC are going up.

A substantial amount of those is associated with soft tissue injuries, and we will actu- ally take steps to limit that. [3:55 p.m.] There are a number of key changes in this bill. The most important one, as I outlined, is the focus on people and on getting better, rather than litigation. That, to me, is a critical reason why I support this.

Before I go on to the changes in the bill, I’ d like to sum- marize, again, some quick facts from ICBC to underscore just how serious the situation is in ICBC, which is ultimately reflected in the ever-increasing — despite having no acci- dents — premiums that we are paying in this province. Government had to do something. ICBC claims totalled $2.7 billion in 2016, which was an 80 percent increase in sev- en years — seven years where the B.C. Lib

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20180426pm-Hansard-n127
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20180426pm Hansard n127
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	27a574d8ffd6d041d36a46ae8fe736ca37af80da

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