First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 24

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Paul Devlin

T. Shypitka

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Business accomplishments by Jack Chow in Chinatown

T. Wat

Role of arts and culture during COVID-19

D. Routley

Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society

S. Cadieux

Ishtar Women’s Resource Society

M. Dykeman

Drive to Alaska by Gary Bath and family of Lynn Marchessault

D. Davies

Charan Gill and Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society

J. Brar

Oral Questions

COVID-19 vaccine booking system and Telus contract

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

Overdose deaths and decriminalization of simple possession of drugs

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Malcolmson

COVID-19 vaccine booking system and Telus contract

M. Lee

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Vancouver Community

College: Executive Compensation Disclosures Audit , March 2021

Petitions

S. Chant

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

B. Bailey

M. Lee

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

Tributes

PAUL DEVLIN

T. Shypitka: It gives me great sadness to announce today the passing of one of

B.C. curling’s great stars. Paul Devlin, from Fruitvale, was a curling

mainstay in B.C.’s interior and across western Canada for

decades.

[10:05 a.m.]

Paul was a fierce competitor, hailing from Manitoba. He traversed

the curling world, skipping in two Briers — one for Alberta and one in

B.C. — and losing numerous finals. As mentioned, he was a fierce

competitor to anyone he played against. He was also a great mentor for

anyone he played with.

My personal curling experience with Paul was that his team of

Deane Horning, Don Freschi and Grant Fines were my very first memories

of the Kootenay rivalry between the East and West Kootenays. Even in

opposition, Paul taught me a lot — mostly how to lose.

With his Manitoba tuck delivery and his old straw broom, Paul will

be remembered for his tenacity and extreme confidence. His confidence

was so strong that in the rare event that you would win a game, Paul

would quickly correct you in the lounge after the match on how you

actually lost. He simply was never defeated.

Paul’s passing during this week’s Brier event is complementary to

the life he was dedicated to and inspired others to follow.

On behalf of myself and the riding of Kootenay East, I extend my

sincere condolences to Marnie, Paul’s family and many friends. The

curling world has truly lost a legend.

Rest in peace, my friend.

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: I would just like to take a moment to introduce Dr. Madeleine De

Little from my riding. She is the recipient of the 2021 Canadian Counselling

and Psychotherapy Association’s Counsellor Practitioner Award. Would the

House please join me in congratulating her.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS

BY JACK CHOW IN

CHINATOWN

T. Wat: I hope that most, if not all, members of this House have visited

Vancouver’s historic Chinatown at one point or another in your careers.

Those of us that have will undoubtedly remember the colourful neon sign

by the Millennium Gate on Pender Street, a sign that is as synonymous

with our Chinatown community as any landmark in Chinatown: Jack Chow

Insurance.

Born in Cumberland, B.C., Jack Chow established his iconic place

of business more than 50 years ago, a business that stood as an example

of his sharp business mind, his ability to think outside the box and,

above all, his kindness, generosity and community spirit.

In 1962, Jack saw an opportunity to transform a slender strip of

commercial property into a welcoming business for Vancouver’s Chinese

community. At less than five feet wide on the inside, Jack’s unique

foresight and creative way to utilize space earned his new insurance

brokerage a spot in the Guinness Book of World Records as the

thinnest and shallowest commercial building in the world and earned it

the nickname the Slender on Pender.

Jack’s brokerage brought worldwide attention to Vancouver’s

vibrant Chinatown and, most importantly, helped Jack carry out his goal

of helping countless members of our Chinese community and helping to

preserve this landmark neighbourhood for generations to come.

My deepest sympathy goes out to his wife, children, family and

friends, who I hope find comfort in the life that Jack led as a

community leader and a man who positively impacted on many people’s

lives.

While I hope Jack’s business and his iconic sign will continue to

shine in Chinatown for decades to come, Vancouver has truly lost an

icon.

ROLE OF ARTS AND CULTURE

DURING

COVID-19

D. Routley: In these really difficult times we face, I’m reminded of my first

experiences with the history of the 1918 pandemic in the historical

photos in our museums — impressions by local artists of what that

experience was like. I think it’s so important that we remember, at this

very difficult time, that we will count on our artists to tell our story

of these times, and we will count on our museums and our historians to

record our history.

Our government has not forgotten the importance of supporting

these organizations and people. Grants that have gone to groups in my

riding and in the region from the Arts Council include the Gabriola Arts

Council, a $40,000 grant; the B.C. Forest Discovery Centre, $82,000; the

Arts Council of Ladysmith and District, $18,000; the Cowichan Valley

Arts Council, $17,000; the Gabriola Historical and Museum Society,

$7,000. It goes on.

[10:10 a.m.]

I wish I could read it all. I wish I had the five minutes it would

take. There are dozens and dozens of recipients. I think it’s so

important. I want to thank them for everything that they’re doing to

help us through this experience and how important they will be to the

healing of our communities after we recover.

I’m reminded now of the resiliency of our arts community. The

Ladysmith Arts Council recently did an online awards show, in which I

participated. I was honoured to witness their online art gallery that

they’ve created.

It is resilience and innovation and imagination that are

represented by our arts and culture community. All of us…. I know we

will never forget the importance of these people to our

lives.

FRASER VALLEY

HERITAGE RAILWAY

SOCIETY

S. Cadieux: The preservation of our heritage is imperative. It provides us

with insight into our past, as to how our society has evolved. Our

heritage allows us to understand our history and traditions. It helps us

to develop awareness about ourselves — helping us better understand why

we are the way we are.

Our heritage is also an integral part of culture, which plays an

essential role in our view of society, business, politics and the world.

Our heritage directly and indirectly informs, influences and inspires

public debate and policy.

The formation of the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society began

with Mr. Jim Wallace’s vision of reactivating the old B.C. Electric

Railway line in the Fraser Valley for passenger service. To execute his

vision, Mr. Wallace used his personal savings to fund a feasibility

study in the late 1990s. Then in 2001, the Fraser Valley Heritage

Railway Society was established.

Since then, the organization has worked both to restore and

operate heritage Interurban cars on the original B.C. Electric Railway

route, through Surrey, with a view to bringing a mechanism to connect

our heritage tourism destinations. The Fraser Valley Heritage Railway

Society hosts several events throughout the year, be it the

Halloween-themed experience in October or the Electric Express, which is

a journey through time to experience Christmas over 100 years ago. While

the pandemic has restricted these activities, the spirit of the

organization can’t be sidelined.

This year the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society celebrates

its 20th anniversary. Over the years, the organization’s volunteers have

worked hard to beautifully restore the Interurbans to operational

condition. They are preserving the community’s important transportation

heritage so it can be transformed to a legacy for the community to

enjoy.

When you have the chance, ride the rails with them. It’s a great

experience.

ISHTAR WOMEN’S RESOURCE SOCIETY

M. Dykeman: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour today to rise in this House to share

with you an organization which does so much for those who often have no

place to turn. An organization that helps countless women in our

community who are faced with what feel like hopeless circumstances, who

feel as if they have to choose between their life and personal safety or

a roof over their head and being able to provide security and shelter

for their children — something that, unfortunately, far too many women

have faced.

Under the leadership of executive director Pany Aghili, Ishtar

Women’s Resource Society is committed to preventing, breaking and ending

the cycle of abuse. The mission of the Ishtar Women’s Resource Society

is to honour, embrace and celebrate the power, resilience, courage and

knowledge of all women. To fulfil its mission, Ishtar offers a wide

range of programs for women and their children who are or have

experienced domestic violence, including counselling, outreach services,

community-based victim services and affordable, secure transition

housing.

Children and youth experiencing violence of a parent or caregiver

live in fear and anxiety for the next violent episode to occur. As a

result of being exposed to family violence and/or conflict, some

children will show overt signs such as aggression or depression.

Ishtar’s program for children and youth experiencing violence is open to

children and youth ages three to 18 years old and their non-offending

parent or caregiver.

[10:15 a.m.]

Shockingly, every six days a woman in Canada is killed by her

intimate partner. My community values highly the important work of the

Ishtar Women’s Resource Society in preventing the tragedy of

violence.

Ishtar works collaboratively for systemic change towards a world

where all women and girls are safe — emotionally, mentally, financially,

physically, sexually, spiritually and culturally — and where equality

DRIVE TO ALASKA BY GARY BATH

AND FAMILY OF LYNN

MARCHESSAULT

D. Davies: I’m going to tell a great feel-good story about good people and

humanity. This past November Lynn Marchessault and her two children were

driving from Georgia to Alaska to reunite with their husband and father

when they experienced a Christmas miracle of sorts.

The family had been away from staff sergeant Tim Marchessault

through most of the pandemic. He is stationed in the United States Army

at Fort Wainwright near Fairbanks. The Marchessaults had been on the

road for six days when they were caught in a snowstorm at Pink Mountain,

just north of Fort St. John. In a recent interview with the Alaska

Highway News , Lynn said the roads were awful. She’d never seen

anything like it, with lots of big trucks on the highway. In fact, she

didn’t know how they did it.

Unfortunately, road conditions were worsening. So they decided to

stop at Pink Mountain. While her kids were using the restroom, Lynn

became quite emotional at the gas station, when Teena Seu noticed her in

distress. Eventually, Lynn asked Teena if there was anyone she knew,

possibly with military experience, that might be able to help take the

family the rest of the way.

Teena reached out to Canadian Forces member Tanya Hunt, whose

Facebook page caught the eye of Joe Elliott in Prince George. Joe shared

the post, and through a series of coincidences and mutual connections,

it got to Fort St. John’s Gary Bath, who is also a Canadian Ranger. He

came to the rescue and drove the family to the Alaska border, 1,800

kilometres away. Gary said that he saw lots of people saying that they

wished they were able to help if they could. He talked to his wife,

Selena, and they decided that he would help them get the rest of the

way.

After hitting the road, they arrived at the Alaska border three

days later. As you can imagine, there are lots of incredible little

pieces of this trip that I don’t have time to cover here.

Since then, Gary has become quite the star from his story being

covered on many Canadian news outlets, CNN, New York Times ,

BBC, many commendations from different commanders throughout the United

States military and, most recently, a free car from Planters

Peanuts.

Congratulations to Gary. Thank you for your service to

humanity.

CHARAN GILL AND PROGRESSIVE

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNITY

SERVICES SOCIETY

J. Brar: Charan Pal Gill is no more. The labour and antiracism activist

Charan Gill, sadly, passed away on February 2, 2021. He was 84 years

old. He took his last breath at Langley Memorial Hospital, surrounded by

his family members.

Charan moved to Canada in 1967 and went on to earn a BSW and MSW

from UBC. He worked in a sawmill in Williams Lake in the early days and

later served as a social worker in Prince Rupert and other parts of the

province. He moved to Surrey in 1973, where he lived the rest of his

life with his family.

In 1980, he co-founded the Canadian Farmworkers Union and

organized labour on farms, working with others — including with you,

hon. Speaker — which led to significant improvements in the wages and

working conditions of British Columbia’s farm workers.

In 1987, he started the Progressive Intercultural Community

Services Society, known as PICS, to serve the multicultural community in

B.C. PICS became a premier community organization under his leadership

as the CEO from 1987 to 2017. The organization provides programs to

newcomers, operates two senior housing complexes, adult day centre and

Harmony House for women who are victims of domestic abuse. Charan also

secured 2.5 acres of land in Cloverdale to build a modern long-term care

home for seniors, the Diversity Village.

[10:20 a.m.]

Charan spent over three decades fighting against racism and for

the rights of others, be they farmworkers facing unfair labour

practices, skilled immigrants facing employment barriers, seniors

looking for affordable housing and women who are victims of domestic

abuse. He made anonymous contributions to make British Columbia a better

place for everyone. For all of his efforts, Charan received the Order of

B.C. and the B.C. Human Rights Award, among many other

honours.

He leaves behind a powerful legacy that will inspire our new

generation to carry on the struggle to build a better and more inclusive

society. He was a good friend and a good mentor to me during my early

days in Canada when I worked at PICS under his leadership.

I, along with countless others, will miss him dearly.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM

AND TELUS

CONTRACT

S. Bond: Yesterday British Columbians demonstrated how concerned they were

about getting their vaccinations. Whether it was for themselves or they

were calling for a frail, elderly loved one, they were

concerned.

It quickly became clear that the province was not prepared to

handle the demand, as thousands of British Columbians spent hours

waiting on the phone. Many simply gave up. In fact, we saw the

second-largest health authority in our province, which serves a quarter

of our population, manage to register only 369 people.

It is not like this could not have been predicted. This is the

most important public health effort in our lifetime. It’s clear that the

government was not prepared for it, despite having a year to get ready.

Instead, it descended into chaos.

Can the Premier explain why his government was so unprepared for a

vaccination rollout, when they had over a year to prepare for

it?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question.

I want to thank everyone in B.C. for their commitment to our

immunization program, which was demonstrated, as the Leader of the

Opposition says, by the response yesterday. Yesterday we opened up

bookings for those over 90 in B.C. and Indigenous people over 65. We

have already provided, or will have by the end of the week, about 30,000

immunizations in these categories of people. So that’s roughly 50,000

people. Yesterday 15,000 people got their appointments.

However, there were serious problems everywhere in B.C. and, as

the member says, particularly in Vancouver Coastal Health. In four of

the five health authorities, those problems were responded to by call

centres that were in place for backup by those health

authorities.

Vancouver Coastal Health was fully dependent on our call centre

provider to provide services based on the contract they had signed with

us and the promises they’d repeatedly made about being prepared. That

contractor, the provider, Telus, failed us yesterday. For that failure,

a lot of people wasted time and, I think, lost some confidence in the

system — confidence that we’ll have to work hard to rebuild at every

level in terms of both technical issues, which affected all health

authorities, and staffing issues.

The contractor, the provider, Telus, did not meet its contractual

obligations and let down people over 90 and let down Indigenous people

over 65. It is unacceptable. We are taking steps, of course, to beef up

our ability to work and to support independently of Telus, and Telus has

made commitments that these questions will be resolved — the technical

questions and the staffing questions — a.s.a.p. But we are not simply

counting on that. If they are not resolved, other actions will have to

be taken.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answer, but let’s be clear. The

Premier, the minister and anyone on the other side can blame everyone

they want. They can blame the provider; they can blame the health

authorities. But ultimately, this government had oversight over the

preparation of a vaccination rollout program for more than a year.

Yesterday, even in the minister’s own words, it failed.

The Premier and the minister need to look in the mirror, because

this was not unexpected. In fact, this is the beginning of the process.

These are a small number of registrants. The minister is right. British

Columbians have lost confidence in this process.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let’s talk about Gail Helmcken and her 93-year-old parents, who

spent much of yesterday trying to register, starting at 7 a.m., just

like they were told to do. They eventually gave up. Gail says:

“Sometimes the message is, ‘Thank you for calling; please call back.’

Sometimes you get a busy signal. Sometimes there’s no connection at all.

It is frustrating. I am very envious of Fraser Health, which has an

online booking system. I was disappointed that Coastal Health hasn’t

implemented that.”

What does the Premier or the minister have to say to the Helmckens

today? It should certainly start with an apology and a recognition that

this government has had over a year to put this process in

place.

What steps have been taken overnight to ensure that people like

the Helmckens can register successfully today?

Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate the frustration that people feel, including the

Helmckens. It was, obviously, a frustrating situation for everyone,

including the health authorities, including our staff, who have worked,

I think everyone would agree, in an extraordinarily dedicated way to

address the COVID-19 pandemic. This is particularly true, I think, of

the staff of Vancouver Coastal Health, who have been courageous and

dedicated, have had some extraordinary successes in this pandemic, in

very difficult times, and have provided support and comfort for

people.

You bet I’m disappointed. You bet I understand the disappointment

of the Helmckens, and lots of people around B.C., that our system did

not work adequately yesterday. Some 15,000 people got appointments. It

was okay, and not great, in several health authorities. It was a total

disappointment in Vancouver Coastal Health.

Overnight we were training people to supplement the provider,

because that’s necessary. Overnight we were reaching out to doctors in

Vancouver Coastal Health to ensure, and to work to make sure, that

people over 90 get registered this week.

Of course, we have expectations that the provider will fulfil

their contractual obligations. They’re in the call centre business. They

have a responsibility to deliver on contracts they’ve signed, to deliver

adequate staff to make appointments. They did not do that yesterday.

Should that situation continue, we will be taking action.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the minister.

This isn’t a criticism of the staff. The fact of the matter is

that we have been in a pandemic for more than a year, and the hope that

this government held out for British Columbians was that the vaccine was

coming. The minister can continue to talk about being disappointed, and

now we’re going to take some action. The time for that action was long

before yesterday.

We’ve seen these same kinds of challenges, the same kind of

botched technology response, with the COVID relief payments. It’s déjà

vu all over again. People want and need to have confidence in the

system. Yesterday this government failed British Columbians

miserably.

To the Premier, can he explain why, despite the fact that other

jurisdictions in this country have put in place an online booking

system, there is not a provincewide online booking system that was ready

to go on day one, and will he commit today to expediting the process to

ensure that there are adequate resources in place to put an online

booking system in place that will work for British

Columbians?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. I agree with her that an

online booking system will help. As noted in our immunization plan, one

will be in place provincewide for April 12, when we go wider with this

effort. That online booking system will be helpful.

There will still be the requirement for call centres, for those

people who either do not wish to book online or have difficulty booking

online. We will continue to need call centre capacity.

In this case, we were repeatedly, repeatedly promised by Telus —

in any event, it’s in their contractual obligations — that they would

deliver the services necessary yesterday, through this week and through

the coming weeks. They did not meet their contractual

obligations.

[10:30 a.m.]

We are taking steps, of course, to beef up resources so that we

can get through the appointment bookings this week — 15,000, out of the

roughly 50,000 people we need to book, on the first day. We have four

more days to do it. Again, I acknowledge and apologize to people who

were so frustrated yesterday. I can tell them, having spoken to a number

of them, that I share their frustration, and we’re going to be taking

steps to improve the situation in the coming days.

T. Stone: Well, the minister has gone to great lengths today and in days

leading up to the fiasco that happened yesterday to blame everyone

around the situation here as opposed to simply looking in the mirror and

acknowledging that the ultimate responsibility to ensure there is an

appointment booking system that works for British

Columbians….

That’s the responsibility of his government. That’s the

responsibility of the Minister of Health. It’s the responsibility of the

Premier. On that responsibility, they failed miserably

yesterday.

The minister has also gone out of his way to specifically

highlight failings on the part of the service provider,

Telus.

I would like to ask the Premier today, in light of those comments,

if he would be willing to table the Telus contract in the House and tell

us specifically what services the government required Telus to provide.

Were online services a part of that contract, and how much was Telus

contracted to provide these services to British Columbians

yesterday?

Hon. A. Dix: The contract in question was for call centre services with Telus.

That is their business. It’s not the primary business of Vancouver

Coastal Health, for example. They were contracted to provide specific

numbers of agents and to ensure that the system worked well. We did have

an overwhelming response from people, not unexpectedly but an

overwhelming response.

In many health authorities, they were able to adapt, in spite of

the challenges of our providers, in booking a significant number of

appointments — 15,000 provincewide out of the group of 50,000 who are

eligible for appointments. That was not the case, of course, in

Vancouver Coastal Health.

The contract that the member refers to is for call centre

services. Simply put, the responsibility for that, the problem there….

It was the responsibility of the provider. They signed a contract. They

made commitments. They made promises, and they did not deliver

yesterday. They have committed to me and to the people of B.C. that they

will do better, but we are not waiting for that.

We’re going to be adding staffing to ensure that seniors over 90

and that Indigenous seniors over 65 get the services they deserve this

week, get the appointments booked, so that we can get those

immunizations done next week. We have a few more days.

I appreciate that the patience of people in B.C. was tried

yesterday — people seeking appointments. I share their frustration, and

we will be taking steps to improve the situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental

question.

T. Stone: Well, the government’s lack of preparedness, frankly, betrays a

level of incompetence which is shocking.

To suggest that it’s acceptable, in today’s day and age in British

Columbia, that Fraser Health was able to arrange for over 8,700 bookings

yesterday but Vancouver Coastal was only able to arrange for 369

bookings is beyond the total disappointment that the minister has cited

in his previous answers today. It’s completely and totally

unacceptable.

Now, it drives the question: what accounts for such a wide

disparity in different parts of the province? The answer is that Fraser

Health was the one health authority that provided for both phone

bookings and online bookings. Apparently, that was left up to health

authorities to determine. There was no provincewide standard.

[10:35 a.m.]

It’s the minister’s responsibility. It’s the government’s and the

Premier’s responsibility to make sure that all British Columbians have

access to this booking system, that they have access both from a phone

and an online perspective and that it should not matter where in the

province you actually live.

The question to the Premier again: will he commit to tabling this

Telus contract in the House today? Can he explain why his government, to

this point, has allowed for a process of different service levels to be

provided in different parts of the province instead of ensuring all

British Columbians are treated equally, all British Columbians have

access to both online and phone appointments so that they can arrange

for their important vaccinations?

Hon. A. Dix: All British Columbians will have access to an online platform

starting April 12, as we said last week.

As the member will be aware — this is not new in B.C.; it

certainly was the case when I became Minister of Health — many of the

health authorities have different platforms, online platforms, and

health records systems in our province. That’s the reality of the

situation. Improvements have been made. But this question today was not

a question of that. It was a question of a call centre

process.

I think it’s fair to say that using a leading call centre provider

to assist in this effort is a good decision and that they did not follow

through on their contractual obligation yesterday. If the member thinks

that I think that’s acceptable, he’s incorrect. I think it is completely

unacceptable.

In four of the five health authorities, including Fraser but also

Interior Health, where the member lives, for example, they were able,

because we had a backup health authority call centre, to support our

provider. We were able to complete six times as many appointments in

Vancouver Coastal Health.

In Interior Health and in Northern Health and in Vancouver Island

Health and in Fraser Health, there were also problems. Some of the

technical problems existed partly because of the overwhelming response

and partly because there were technical issues which are, again, the

responsibility of the provider. There were significant problems, but

they met their goals and will, I think, if they continue at that level,

do that this week for their populations over 90 and over 65.

Vancouver Coastal Health requires change, and change is happening.

It’s our expectation that Telus will, one, take responsibility and, two,

take the steps necessary to fulfil their contract, not just with the

government and the province but with the people of B.C. at this

important time in the pandemic and in our history.

OVERDOSE DEATHS AND

DECRIMINALIZATION OF SIMPLE

POSSESSION OF DRUGS

S. Furstenau: We lost 1,716 people to drug toxicity in 2020. We’ve already lost

165 people in the first month of 2021. People are dying every single

day.

We are in the middle of two health crises, and we need to start

acting like it. We must prioritize the development of systemic policy

responses that are immediate, evidence-based and accessible. This is not

about drugs. People are dying from drug policy.

Decriminalizing possession of small amounts of illicit drugs is a

fundamental part of supporting those who use drugs in B.C., and to our

most vulnerable, to death from the toxic supply. Dr. Henry called the

decriminalization of drugs a necessary step in addressing this crisis.

The city of Vancouver has submitted a request to the federal government

to embrace decriminalization municipally. We can take direct action here

in British Columbia, and we need to do it now to save lives.

My question is to the Premier. Can he outline exactly what powers

his government has available in order to move forward with

decriminalization of simple possession of drugs in B.C.?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. Decriminalization is a

priority for our government.

[10:40 a.m.]

In addition to the work that we are doing to build a full system

of care to address people’s addiction challenges, whether that’s

building more beds, whether that’s standing up more supervised

consumption sites, whether working on safe supply, decriminalization is

part of that, particularly because if we treat addiction and simple

possession of small amounts of illicit drugs as a criminal matter

instead of a health care matter, it presents a barrier to treatment,

particularly the kind of stigma that makes people use drugs alone. And

when they use alone, tragically, they die alone.

Last year the Solicitor General asked the police force to address

possession — small amounts of personal possession of illicit drugs — as

a health care matter, not as a criminal priority. Last summer the

Premier wrote to the Prime Minister asking the Prime Minister, because

this is a federal matter, to adopt a nationwide approach to

decriminalization.

The Premier put it in my mandate letter, asking me to fast-track

decriminalization as a way to combat the overdose crisis and further

separate people from the toxic drug supply. I’m in active conversations

with the federal Health Minister now. As one of many approaches our

government is bringing to combat the overdose crisis, we are optimistic

that that can remove a barrier to people accessing the treatment they

need.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Decriminalization is regularly painted as a federal issue,

something this government likes to deflect their responsibility from.

The federal government is an important leader in moving towards

decriminalization of simple possession, but they are not the only ones

responsible. It is a move that we can make as a province instead of

always going back to the federal government.

Dr. Henry outlined in 2019 how the province can decriminalize

people who use drugs, not drugs themselves, on our own. Options have

been on the table for years, and government has decided not to pursue

them with the urgency that this health emergency requires. Since then,

we have seen hundreds of lives lost at an increasing rate. We can take

measures to decriminalize drug users in this province on our own, and we

have not done so.

My question again is to the Premier. There are options here

in-house to stop criminalizing drug users. Why has he not used these

powers to save lives since 2019?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: This is a national overdose crisis. People are dying across the

entire country, tragically, particularly with the confluence of the

pandemic — both the COVID public health emergency and the overdose

health emergency. We have seen a tragic loss of life due to increases in

drug toxicity.

We have taken action in advance. The Solicitor General has sent

letters to police departments asking them to not pursue matters of

personal possession as a matter of criminal priority, asking police

instead to focus on true crime. We have pilot projects with three police

forces where people are being connected with health care instead of with

the criminal justice system.

The Premier wrote to the Prime Minister and did not receive a

reply last summer. Nevertheless, conversations with the federal Health

Minister…. Because this is a federal matter, this is where the

responsibility sits. We are asking the federal government to take up its

priority and responsibility.

As my mandate letter spells out, if we do not have prompt action

from the federal government, then I am, along with some of my colleagues

in government, to pursue a made-in-B.C. solution. That will be our

fallback if the federal government fails to take its place and its power

to lead.

COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM

AND TELUS

CONTRACT

M. Lee: We hear today from the Premier and the Minister of Health, in

response to my colleagues, in terms of the challenges with the

vaccination rollout…. British Columbians deserve better.

This is such a critical time for the entire province. Many elderly

and family members are all stressed, trying to get through to the call

centres. In Vancouver Coastal Health, I know that many of my

constituents have had that challenge. Yet all we hear today from this

government is: blame the service provider; blame the staff.

We need leadership from this government. This is the most critical

time for this province that we can give to British Columbians. We know

it’s been a long period of time — for a year. We know we’ve all made

sacrifices, including in this House. We need better answers.

[10:45 a.m.]

If we look at the Telus contract…. We understand that the

government, of course, has procurement processes. You would expect that

through the Minister of Citizens’ Services, there would be a detailed

scoping-out of the expectations that the government would have for these

call centres. We are asking for transparency. We’re asking for

accountability. We’re asking for this government to step up and show the

leadership that this province needs at this critical time. Not to blame

others. Not to continue to bungle what is the most critical vaccination

rollout for all British Columbians.

The reason why we’re asking for the contract, of course…. If

they’re deflecting to the contract service provider, Telus, it raises

questions. Has the Premier talked to and communicated his concerns to

the leadership team at Telus? What expectations did the government have

about these call centres? What penalties…? What measures can be taken by

this government if the service provider is not meeting those

requirements?

To the Premier again: will you do a service to the government and

to our province by sharing that contract so that we can see what the

penalties and ramifications are when the service provider does not

perform?

Hon. A. Dix: The reason I’m holding the service provider accountable is because

they represent the people of Vancouver-Kingsway and the people of B.C.

In this case, they need to be held accountable. They need to deliver on

what they promised to deliver and yesterday did not deliver in any

acceptable way.

We did book 15,000 appointments yesterday, often because of the

very dedicated work of people working in health authorities themselves,

and their efforts. I, of course, very much appreciate 15,000. A group of

15,000 means that we can succeed in booking the appointments for this

week that we need to book. That said, we have a contract for Telus to

provide call centre services, and those call centre services were

inadequate yesterday, in spite of repeated promises to us and a contract

that said they would be in place.

We’re taking the two steps we need to take: hold the service

provider accountable and demand that staffing levels be increased,

commensurate with the challenge, one, and commensurate with their

contractual commitments. Two, we are actively adding our own resources

so that people will not continue to have to face delays, especially in

Vancouver Coastal Health, where the situation was unacceptable

yesterday.

I do ask people for patience. This week it’s going to be people

over 90 and Indigenous people over 65 who are able to book appointments.

We believe that through the week, we’re going to be able to succeed in

that. That doesn’t mean that we think yesterday was in any way

acceptable. It was not, and we are taking the steps now to ensure that

the situation is improved today and in the coming days.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: The reason why we are taking the time here to ask these questions

at this juncture is because we’re hearing from the government, as well,

that the online service will be up by April 12. Presumably, there’s

another contract for that service, with service expectations. We need to

know what those expectations and requirements are. Otherwise, the

government can just continue to deflect, to say: “Well, the service

provider didn’t perform.”

We need, clearly, transparency. We need to see the contract, as

well, for the online service provider. We need to have confidence that

this government can actually meet the requirements to get the

vaccination rollout done in terms of the scheduling and the actual

procedures themselves.

Again, I would ask the Premier to answer this question. The

contract with Telus presumably has set out the requirements for those

call centres. The government is saying that Telus effectively has not

met those requirements.

[10:50 a.m.]

Is the government, then, taking the position that Telus has

breached its contract with the government?

Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday 8,722 people booked appointments in the Fraser Health

Authority, 2,456 in the Interior Health Authority, 2,345 in the

Vancouver Island Health Authority, 1,007 in the Northern Health

Authority — all of which had issues, in part related to the

extraordinary response we saw. In Vancouver Coastal Health, which was

solely dependent on our service provider, who is Telus, they booked 369.

So I think it is fair to hold Telus accountable.

What I want to do today is to hold them accountable and ensure

that the situation improves right now for people over 90, right now for

Indigenous people over 65. That’s what we’re doing by supporting our

service provider in training and ensuring that staff are in place to

support those efforts so that we get those appointments booked this week

and that people can do that with less frustration than they’ve seen so

far. That’s one.

And two, hold the service provider accountable. We need them to

deliver what they said they would deliver to us and to the people of

B.C. The members have said it themselves. And 369 doesn’t cut it when

other health authorities did more, only because, really, they had backup

call centres in those health authorities.

Those are the steps we’re taking now — action to make sure things

get better, accountability for our service provider. I think those are

the two steps that we all need to take.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

Vancouver Community College: Executive Compensation Disclosures

Audit from the Office of the Auditor General.

Petitions

S. Chant: I rise before the House today to bring forth a petition from a member

of my constituency.

A year ago Yasmin Abidi of North Vancouver–Seymour found Lucky, an owl

that was on the ground and dying. It was determined that the toxin ingested

was a rodenticide, carried by a rat or mouse that had been attracted and

eaten at a bait box that had been put out commercially. These insecticide

bait boxes are used commercially for vermin control.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

S. Chant: This whole process interferes with the food chain of the…. Oh, I’m

sorry. Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker: You don’t have to explain the entire petition. Just succinctly tell us

what it is about, and then we will just present it.

S. Chant: My apologies, Mr. Speaker — learning. Thank you.

Okay, so the petition is asking for a ban on rodenticide because of

its impact on the food chain. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections)

Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Deputy Speaker: If I could ask members who are having conversations to take it

outside so we can get on with the business of today, I would appreciate

it. I would rather not use the gavel. Thank you.

[10:55 a.m.]

I would like to acknowledge the Minister Responsible for Housing —

but for today, the Attorney General — for very exciting

legislation.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know members have been looking forward

to this bill. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 12 makes minor corrections and housekeeping amendments to

various statutes. They’re all intended to be straightforward,

non-controversial corrections and are all minor in nature. The contents

of the bill, I think, when read, members will see, reflect

that.

The office of legislative counsel gathers minor corrections as

part of the routine revision process. The result of that work is what we

have in this bill. I think it’s important to note — and a good

opportunity to note, in relation to this bill — the role of the office

of legislative counsel. They take great pride in the work that they do

on behalf of all of us in this House.

The changes in this bill are presented before the Legislature so

that we, as members, can approve all changes to statutes, no matter how

small or minor those changes may appear. In other words, this is a

reminder to everybody, as well, about the critically important principle

that editors can’t just go in and change the law. They have to have the

approval of our Legislature before any changes may be made, no matter

how minor the change.

I want to thank the office of legislative counsel and all staff

members there for their work in preparing statutes for us in this House

and to do so with such accuracy that, happily, these corrections are so

minor in nature. The changes need to be done with the authority of this

House to ensure that our laws are orderly and correct.

I will take this moment to note that we do not have the former

leader of the Green Party, Andrew Weaver, in the House. He took great

delight in these bills and often went into some significant detail. I

wanted to recognize his contribution to bills in the past, although I am

glad to see a member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head from our party, of

course.

With that said, I’ll take my place. I look forward to hearing the

debate on this bill.

M. de Jong: As the Attorney has mentioned, these bills have become a regular

feature of the parliamentary agenda, at least on an annual basis. I,

too, wish to pay tribute to the work of legislative counsel, the

excellence of which transcends the various governments that are sworn in

from time to time through the history of the province.

I do not wish to belabour the debate in second reading, but what I

will do is highlight to the Attorney, when we get to committee stage,

the following sections that I will propose short questions about. They

are

section 3,

section 8,

section 15 and sections 20, 33, 40, 42 and 44.

Those are the sections I anticipate having very brief questions

about.

Thank you for the opportunity to make submissions at this stage of

the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I note with appreciation the bipartisan and, I’m

sure, tripartisan consensus about the role of our talented legislative

counsel. I appreciate the member providing a heads-up about the sections

of particular interest and will be prepared to answer his questions in

committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 5, intituled Insurance

Corporation Amendment Act, 2021.

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[11:00 a.m.]

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 5, the

Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021. The Insurance Corporation Act

of British Columbia will implement enhanced care coverage, a

fundamentally different auto insurance model, beginning May 1, 2021.

Enhanced care will result in more affordable premiums for drivers and

provide enhanced benefits to British Columbians recovering from a

vehicle crash, all delivered by a public insurer that British Columbians

can trust and have confidence in.

As a companion to the move to the new insurance model, we

committed to establishing a new fairness officer with a legislated

mandate to review and make recommendations to ICBC to resolve individual

customer complaints, as well as with respect to policy and process

related to customer fairness.

This amendment to the Insurance Corporation Act advances the

building of trust and confidence in ICBC by providing the authority for

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint an ICBC fairness officer

for a three-year renewable term.

The fairness officer will be mandated to hear a complaint from a

person who believes that the ICBC process that led to a decision was

unfair. In addition, the officer will, on their own initiative, be able

to identify processes that may lead to an unfair decision in the future.

The officer will be empowered to make recommendations to the ICBC board

when warranted. Further, the fairness officer may provide advice and

assistance to a person with respect to ICBC processes.

be set by the corporation, subject to the approval of the minister

responsible for ICBC, and the necessary expenses for the fairness

officer and their staff will be paid by the corporation.

Transparency is a foundational pillar in building trust and

confidence. That’s why the fairness officer will be required to report

on their activities to the ICBC board and to publish those reports on a

publicly accessible website. In addition, the ICBC board will be

required to prepare an annual report for the minister outlining ICBC’s

responses to any recommendations submitted by the officer and to make

that report public as well.

We have been mindful of the requirements of the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we have developed this legislation.

We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to the

aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Establishing a new fairness officer, as Bill 5 proposes, does not

uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN

declaration.

The changes introduced in Bill 5 will provide British Columbians

with confidence in knowing that they will be treated fairly when they

deal with ICBC, and that when they speak up to raise concerns, ICBC will

be listening and will be accountable to them.

This legislation is a continuing part of our commitment to make

the changes necessary to ensure that ICBC has the long-term viability

necessary to continue to provide public insurance to British Columbians,

to ensure that rates are affordable and to ensure that care is there

when they need it for as long as they need it. I look forward to the

debate from members from both sides of the House on this important step

forward as we ensure that ICBC continues to deliver value, safety and

quality care to the motorists of this province.

M. Morris: As I speak to this bill, and I listen to the member outlining his

rationale and reasons for this, it’s reflective of what we have in place

already. I went online and had a look. We’ve had an ICBC fairness

commissioner in place in this province for decades — the same

individual, actually, since 2005. I’m just going to review, for the

House, the roles and authority that the current fairness commissioner

has.

[11:05 a.m.]

His role is to “investigate, conduct reviews and make findings and

recommendations to ICBC management and/or the board of directors,”

similar to what the minister has just reflected that this new bill

addresses.

The office of the fairness commissioner’s jurisdiction deals with

fairness of process or administration…. He “does not have jurisdiction

to deal with disputes that relate solely to the amount of a final

payment or the assessment of liability.” Same as the new legislation is

addressing.

“The fairness commissioner has the power to insist on the

production of any documents or other information from ICBC…and, if

necessary, take evidence under oath or otherwise from the customer or a

representative of ICBC.” Again, very similar processes are currently in

place.

The fairness commissioner must be totally independent. In

particular, the commissioner is independent of ICBC and any prior

decisions that may have been made by ICBC. It says that he or she must

be impartial in all respects and accessible to the public, either in

writing or online, and responsive to those who write — very similar to

the legislation that’s before the House here today.

Upon completion of the review, the fairness commissioner can refer

the matter back to ICBC for reconsideration, can make recommendations to

ICBC or can dismiss the complaint if the commissioner finds no

unfairness on the part of ICBC or its employees. Again, I see two paths

here, so I have to question this.

What was or what is the problem that government sees with the

current fairness commissioner, with the current structure? I reviewed

the reports, and again, this bill suggests that the new fairness officer

will be reporting on an annual basis of what they find and the number of

complaints that they have. That’s already been in place. There is a

number of historical reports that are on file already under the ICBC

website, under the fairness commissioner’s website.

For 2019-2020, the fairness commissioner reported that it received

411 complaints in total. We have to remember that of the 411 complaints

that they’ve received…. ICBC has over three million customers. So we

have 411 complaints in total, with three million customers. But out of

those 411 complaints, 90 percent of them were referred back to ICBC

customer services and resolved. So less than 10 percent were referred to

the fairness commissioner for resolution. Out of those 44 that were

reviewed by the fairness commissioner, 95 percent received the

determination that there was no unfairness in the process.

Here we have just a small fragment of the three million customers

of ICBC submitting complaints to the fairness commissioner’s office and

just a small segment of that being looked at by the fairness

commissioner. What was the factor that this government looked at to

suggest that a fairness officer needs to be legislated into the process

here? The Attorney General made a statement about a year ago that

British Columbians should have peace of mind that they will be treated

fairly after they have been injured in a crash. To suggest they haven’t

been treated fairly by ICBC after they’ve been in a crash….

I reference the recent Supreme Court decision, where the court has

assured that British Columbians can still rely on the courts to hear

their issues if they decide to take them to B.C. Supreme Court to hear

their arguments. Is it worth establishing a new office and government

infrastructure to simply replace a process that already exists? The old

saying is: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

[11:10 a.m.]

Again, I have to question the reasonableness of establishing

something in legislation that is already working very well in policy

with ICBC and the fairness commissioner.

The other aspect of this is if people aren’t satisfied with the

results of the fairness commissioner, they have the full right to go and

file a complaint with the Ombudsperson’s office. The Ombudsperson’s

office has released one report regarding ICBC, and that report was dated

back in 2005. Obviously, there have been no systemic issues within the

current system that give rise to the fact that the current system is not

working properly.

I reviewed recent activity within the Ombudsperson’s office with

respect to complaints about ICBC. Again, there is minimal activity,

minimal complaints, going to the Ombudsperson’s office that haven’t been

resolved. Out of the over three million customers that ICBC has in

British Columbia, it’s just a fraction — 0.006 percent, I believe it

was, with the math that I did on that — that have had complaints

submitted to the Ombudsperson’s office or to the fairness commissioner’s

office.

Again, this legislation, I think, is trying to do something to

replace a very effective process that is already in place. I don’t

really see the need for this to be implemented. But we’ll pop the hood

open on it during the third reading and see where that takes us. I’ll be

curious to find out some of the rationale behind government at that

time.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Vancouver–False Creek.

B. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do want to acknowledge that there is

some work being done on the condo above mine. If it becomes too

distracting, Mr. Speaker, please do let me know, and we’ll pass to a

colleague.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Please proceed.

B. Bailey: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation

Amendment Act, 2021.

Being involved in a motor vehicle accident is traumatic, and it’s

stressful. Even in situations where you’re not at fault or the injury or

damage is not profoundly life-altering, the experience is tough, and

feeling that you can’t trust your insurer serves to add stress to the

accident.

People deserve to know that they’re going to be treated fairly

after they’ve been in a crash, and Bill 5 provides for the appointment

of a fairness officer. It sets out the fairness officer’s powers and

duties in relation to fairness complaints, and it sets out

regulation-making powers of the fairness officer as well. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will appoint a fairness officer for a

three-year term, and an individual can serve in this role for two such

terms.

The fairness officer may, on their own initiative or in response

to a complaint, investigate a decision or recommendation made,

an act

done or omitted, a procedure used. The fairness officer, in addition,

may make recommendations to the corporation to resolve fairness

complaints; make recommendations about systemic problems with the

fairness of corporation process; provide advice and assistance to

members of the public and other duties; and may not comment or make

recommendations respecting an amount payable to the corp or the extent a

person is responsible for an accident.

Section 56 does not allow the fairness officer to investigate a

fairness complaint in respect of matters subject to a proceeding of a

court or tribunal or a matter that was the subject of arbitration or an

arbitral award.

Something that I want to highlight, because of its extreme

importance in this bill, is the transparency that’s incorporated into

this role and the proposed act. Specifically,

section 60 ensures the

publication of information both to the corporation but also to the

public.

[11:15 a.m.]

The fairness officer will be required to report the number of

fairness complaints they receive and the number of fairness complaints

they elect to hear, not dissimilar to the prior fairness commission. The

fairness officer must publish on an publicly accessible website the

rules made under

section 58 and the report submitted to the corporation

under

section 59 and, by August 31 of each year, submit an annual report

that first summarizes the corporation’s responses in the previous fiscal

year to the fairness officer’s recommendations. The corporation must

publish the annual report to the minister but, again, also on a public

website.

I’m highlighting this because it’s a reflection of this

government’s commitment to ensuring that ICBC decisions, actions and

practices are transparent and they are fair. Having a new independent

fairness officer position will ensure that complaints, disputes and

procedural matters will be fairly addressed. Ensuring the independence

from ICBC of the officer is important. In Bill 5, note that the fairness

officer is not appointed by the corporation but by

government.

All of this will improve the transparency and accountability at

ICBC. People deserve to know that they will be treated fairly after

they’ve been injured in a crash. The establishment of an impartial

authority with transparent reporting requirements will help to rebuild

trust in ICBC. The fairness officer role is being enhanced so it can

settle disputes and also watch for trends in the way that ICBC is

treating motorists.

These changes to the role of the prior fairness commissioner

bolster flagging public trust in the Crown corp. More independence, more

public accountability. This dovetails with other important changes to

ICBC this government has moved on, moving to an enhanced care model and

the resulting savings and refunds to B.C. drivers, putting financial

information into plain language reports so that ratepayers can see where

their dollars are going.

All of this is leading to an insurance system that works for all

British Columbians, insurance that is more affordable and provides the

care and coverage needed if the consumer is involved in a crash. It

really comes from a commitment to fairness, fairness that is reflected

in the move to a driver-based system where at-fault crashes will be tied

to the driver rather than the individual who owns the vehicle, fairness

that ensures that good drivers are no longer paying more to cover costs

for those who cause crashes or present higher risks on our roads. Each

driver’s experience and crash history will play a bigger role in

determining premiums, as has previously been discussed.

Another area that’s been reviewed and changed through a fairness

lens is the ability to pay privately for the cost of an at-fault claim,

which is a unique feature that many insurance companies do not offer.

The problem was it masked the driver’s risk to the public. Keeping the

repairs out of the ICBC system, to a limit of $2,000, allows for this to

occur only in relatively minor claims and stops the ability for wealthy

drivers who can afford to pay for repairs privately to dodge the

implications to their insurer. Bad drivers should pay more than good

drivers. Fairness.

In addition, there are now new discounts for safer drivers

graduated over a longer period of time. There are discounts for vehicles

with automatic emergency braking, AEB, and for vehicles driven less than

5,000 a year as well. This transition to enhanced care coverage is

coming this spring.

In sum, the new fairness officer is part of a more fair insurance

system that works for everyone. The new fairness officer introduced in

this bill, Bill 5, is more independent and will provide increased

transparency. This, along with a number of other changes, some of which

I’ve outlined here, will give British Columbians the confidence of

knowing that ICBC is accountable and that they will be treated

fairly.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation

Amendment Act.

[11:20 a.m.]

I would say, listening to the comments from the member for

Vancouver–False Creek…. I welcome her to this House in that manner. We

are close in proximity in terms of our Vancouver ridings.

I will say that my remarks this morning about Bill 5, I hope, will

be helpful to the members of the House so that they can put in

perspective this so-called fairness officer under ICBC’s thumb. As the

member for Prince George– Mackenzie went through in great detail,

we have concerns and questions about that role — the jurisdiction, the

duties, the responsibilities and, indeed, the lack of independence of

this fairness officer.

I would say to my colleague across the aisle, the member for

Vancouver–False Creek…. I would invite her and other members of the

House to closely look at this bill in the context of the Insurance

Corporation Act and the no-fault regime that the government brought

forward, which we debated at length last summer in this House, so that

she can better inform herself in terms of the lack of fairness that we

are going to be seeing under this new regime that’s to be implemented on

May 1.

Like many things that the government has brought forward in this

COVID-challenging time…. There are many priorities of government. We

know, as we just talked about in question period, the importance of the

vaccination rollout and the continued challenges that this government

has had with that rollout. But I question what we’re going to see with

the no-fault rollout, as well, on May 1. This is the one bill that the

government has brought forward at this juncture to deal with a component

of the no-fault regime.

Before turning to the construction of Bill 5 — of the fairness

officer — I would say that if I need to, I’d like to take the time, as

the designated speaker on this bill, if I may, and take a brief moment

to talk about the road that has led us to this point. As I mentioned,

I’ve spoken to at length and raised my concerns in the past in this

House about the conflicting hats that our Attorney General was asked to

wear by the Premier with respect to his dual role as Attorney General

and, as he was formerly then, the minister responsible for

ICBC.

We just saw the new minister responsible for ICBC, of course,

speak to this bill in this House. Again, I dare say that that minister

needs to carefully consider how this fairness officer — the role, the

office itself — is positioned within the new regime that the government

has brought forward that took away the ability of injured British

Columbians to pursue their rights. What did they replace that with?

Well, in part, they replaced that with an enhanced fairness officer. So

they say, but we will look at that in more detail.

They replaced that with the civil resolution tribunal or greater

jurisdiction for the CRT. And as I, and many of my colleagues, have had

the opportunity over some years now…. We’ve had many debates about the

civil resolution tribunal, their jurisdiction, the setting of the minor

injury definition and the expansion of that minor injury definition by

regulation to include brain injury and concussion, even when the

Attorney General assured those who suffer and those families of members

who suffer from brain injury and concussions that the minor injury

definition would not be expanded. That definition was expanded by

regulation.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’d like to also speak to the context in which the government

brought forward 107 pages of regulation last Friday. This is important

to understand the context in which the fairness officer is operating.

That minor injury definition was expanded to include, as the Attorney

General has stated to myself and others in this House, 80 percent of all

motor vehicle injuries that one could seek recovery from.

Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The Premier put

the Attorney General in a dual role in 2017. The Attorney General, of

course, as the chief legal officer of this province, of this government,

must represent the interests of justice on the one hand and, as the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey, was asked to look out for the financial

interests of ICBC. That is the problem. We are seeing now, again, the

clear indications from our own judicial system that there is a

problem.

First our courts deemed the rule limiting the use of expert

reports to be unconstitutional. This is one of a series of court

decisions where the courts have had to beat back the Attorney General of

this province for taking decisions and coming up with policies that were

not constitutional. Now we see, just in this past week, our province’s

chief justice has ruled again that another set of laws is

unconstitutional.

How many defeats does it take? How many resources of our province

does it require for us to be in court for this government to be losing

court decision after court decision after court decision? Just this past

week, the chief justice ruled that parts of the civil resolution

tribunal are unconstitutional. Those are the main parts of that

jurisdiction. Quite simply, our chief justice said that the people have

a constitutional right to access the courts and that what our Attorney

General sought to have the CRT do eroded that constitutional

right.

The importance of this decision needs to be highlighted. It starts

with basic principles. The job of an Attorney General is to advise the

government on the constitutionality of laws that it wishes to pass. When

a law is vetted by the Attorney General and subsequently denied or

deemed unconstitutional by the courts, there is no clearer indication

that the Attorney General has failed to properly carry out his

duties.

This is the rub. The Attorney General either did not know that the

laws he was making were unconstitutional, or he knew, and he did them

anyways. I don’t know which is worse. When it happens twice, it’s even

more troubling. This is part of the continued pattern that we see from

this Attorney General and this government. When you consider the way in

which the Attorney General was allowed to operate in the last few years,

it becomes even more concerning.

When this NDP government came to power, they had a unique idea

that bucked tradition. For the first time in the history of British

Columbia, this government thought it would be a good idea to give the

Attorney General — who, again, is in charge of protecting the rights of

British Columbians, the legal rights — the power to also handle the

responsibility for ICBC, which, as we’ve discussed numerous times in

this House, is one of the primary litigants in our province.

He changed the rules of court, of evidence. That was ruled to be

unconstitutional. He shifted the jurisdiction to the CRT. That was ruled

to be unconstitutional. I do acknowledge that the government has

communicated its intention to appeal that decision, but the fact

remains. The chief justice of our courts here in this province has

repeatedly ruled the laws that this government has put forward to be

unconstitutional.

[11:30 a.m.]

Historically, there has been no other Attorney General that has

worn these two unique hats simultaneously. And as I said, there was

significant debate in this House about this. The Premier chose to

overlook those concerns.

I raised those concerns repeatedly. The last time I had that

opportunity, in the summer of 2020, the member from Point Grey seemed

puzzled as to why I was spending so much time discussing it. But make no

mistake, Mr. Speaker. This is not a side issue. It is the primary issue.

It is where we are going to start with every single piece of legislation

that this government brings forward to change the way in which ICBC

works, because every ICBC-related bill that our Attorney General has

touched has been tainted by the underlying conflict that has

existed.

When each bill was simultaneously being conceptualized…. And

again, we have a situation where the no-fault regime was being done in

parallel. We have an Attorney General that was trying to reform ICBC but

then doing this in the back, divided in the way that he was seeing the

rights of injured British Columbians.

Again, we cannot lose sight of the significance. Essentially, the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey was asked by the Premier to do two

things: get ICBC’s costs down, at least in the manufactured way that

they presented, and pass constitutional laws to protect the legal rights

of British Columbians.

As I mentioned, with his ICBC hat on, the Attorney General came up

with the unusual cost-saving plans that require sweeping legislative

changes. With his Attorney General hat on, he vetted the legal changes

that would be necessary to turn his innovative ideas into reality. Of

course, traditionally, those two hats, those two responsibilities, would

be worn by two different individuals, two different members of the

executive council.

The changes that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey put forward

may reduce ICBC’s costs, but they don’t protect the legal rights of

British Columbians. In fact, by design, they strip British Columbians of

their rights. He was asked by our Premier to do two objectives that are

diametrically opposed to one another. He was asked to do a job that is

normally, for good reason, done by two different people. It is no wonder

that his laws are now being found to be unconstitutional.

As I mentioned earlier, when you look at the wasted tax dollars….

Think about it. This government has created a new, state-of-the-art

system, in addition to the work that the Leader of the Official

Opposition did when she was the Attorney General of this province in

putting in place the civil resolution tribunal. That was for strata

disputes, societal-type disputes, not the kind of disputes of the

complex nature of brain injuries, concussions, chronic pain, motor

vehicle injuries. That was not the initial intention of that

CRT.

As I said, when you’re defending these constitutional losses and

these court challenges, it’s not cheap. It can be very expensive, these

mistakes that come forward from this government. Well, the member from

Point Grey doesn’t seem to care about the wasted tax dollars, though.

The first thing he had to say to the media about the recent court

decision, the loss, is that this will have no impact on ICBC rebates

that are coming because it wasn’t factored into the cost-savings formula

to begin with.

Let me just say, though, to pause, that the CRT was designed to

save on costs by diverting expensive court cases out of the litigation

court system and forcing those same cases into the cheaper online world

of the CRT. So one could wonder: how could this not possibly have been

factored into the cost-savings formula?

[11:35 a.m.]

In any event, when the member from Point Grey makes a statement

like that, isn’t he essentially saying: “Don’t worry. I predicted this

outcome, so I had the foresight not to include it in the formula for

calculating rebates”? It’s almost as if he predicted that the

legislation he championed would not withstand judicial scrutiny. The

wasted tax dollars are just collateral damage.

Well, our Attorney General seems to think that access to a quick

decision is more important than access to a fair decision. He has lost

sight of what access to justice truly means. In the words of Supreme

Court of Canada Justice Russell Brown, “access to justice is not merely

access to a resolution. After all, many resolutions are unjust. Where a

party seeks a rights-based resolution to a dispute, such resolution is

just only when it is determined, according to the law, as discerned and

applied by an independent arbitrator.”

This distinction may be subtle, but it is something that makes one

wonder: if the Attorney General wasn’t being pulled in two opposing

directions, would he have seen the issues more clearly?

I just want to turn to the set of regulations that was issued by

Order-in-Council 1/13 last Friday, March 5, 2021. As I mentioned, this

regulation, known as the Permanent Impairment Regulation, is to be

effective May 1, 2021.

The member from Point Grey has denied this before. There is a term

that is used, that others have used, which is that there is, within

ICBC, some form of internal meat chart system. This has been a concern

that has been raised for some years now. When I raised this term with

the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, he took great offence.

Well, when you look at the Permanent Impairment Regulation…. I do

invite all members of the House to do that. I think when you’re looking

at this Bill 5, short as it is, four pages, you should really consider

the companion document, the 107 pages of regulations that set out the

various forms of injuries, percentage of injuries, percentage of loss

and determine what a British Columbian is entitled to under this new

no-fault regime.

Well, when you look at this set of regulations, it really just

appears as a codified version of what is a corporate policy.

Essentially, how this works is you go to the schedule…. I don’t mean to

be insensitive with terminology here, but, literally, it’s set out very

clearly. You look at the schedule, you pick a body part, and you figure

out what it’s worth. It’s broken down into two main categories,

catastrophic and non-catastrophic injuries.

Let’s go to the worst of the worst type of catastrophic injury.

Again, I don’t want to be insensitive about the nature of these

injuries. But the fact of the matter is that when you set it out in the

manner in which this is set out in the regulation, this is what is

required under the no-fault regime. This is their version of enhanced

care.

If you’re rendered a complete quadriplegic, for example, you get

just over $264,000 from the meat chart. The most traumatic and severe

accident you can imagine will get you $264,000.

[11:40 a.m.]

Well, what is a complete loss of taste worth? I mean that in the

context of a motor vehicle accident. This one is a non-catastrophic

injury, so you start by taking the base rate of $167,465, and then you

apply it against the percentage value that the

schedule allots for this

type of injury. The

schedule says it’s worth 1 percent of the base rate,

so a complete loss of taste is worth $1,674.65.

Under this schedule, the loss of a toe is worth the same. A loss

of all five toes would get you just over $8,000. If you lost, instead,

your entire foot, you’d get just under $42,000. A lost hand would get

you $75,000. Again, I do not want to be insensitive in terms of the

nature of these types of injuries, but this the listing. This is what’s

listed in the 108 pages of the regulation.

The government — the Attorney General, the Premier — have been

characterizing this new system as an innovative enhanced care model, but

it doesn’t seem to be all that innovative when you look at it, when you

look at the details. Last summer myself and members of this House on the

opposition side quizzed the government — the former member for

Richmond-Queensborough, the member for Surrey South and myself — about

the nature of the no-fault bill. The answers that we got back were the

regulations. So much was to be determined by the regulation.

That is: “Let’s just pass this first.” This fundamentally changes

and takes away the rights of British Columbians and determines

everything to follow. At the time when we had that debate, we didn’t

have these details. What do we have now? We have a four-page bill that

purports to talk about fairness.

As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie just set out in his

speech to this bill, there is really no change in this. There’s no

greater authority and powers of this fairness officer. In fact, as I’ll

speak to in a moment in my comments, the independence of the fairness

officer is highly questionable, given the nature, the structure, of the

office; the reporting mechanism; the funding; and the budget

requirements. As well, the powers of the fairness officer itself are

quite limited.

As we come back to these regulations, this permanent impairment

regulation

schedule is very similar to the permanent disability

evaluation schedule. For those who know what the permanent disability

evaluation

schedule is, well, that’s a WorkSafeBC schedule. We’ve said

that when you look at this model, it’s very similar.

The WorkSafe

schedule is broken down in much the same way. There

are 21 categories. For instance, both documents start out the same, with

part 1 on the subject of upper limbs and

part 2 on the subject of lower

limbs. If you look at wrist and hand amputation, we can see that under

ICBC’s system, you get 45 percent of the base rate, where WorkSafeBC

pays you 54 percent for the same injury.

The loss of taste that we talked about earlier gets you 1 percent

under ICBC’s system. WorkSafe pays you between zero and 4 percent,

depending on the severity. The worst type of pelvis fracture gets you 2

percent under ICBC’s system. Under WorkSafe, it gets you 10 percent. An

above-knee amputation gets you 35 to 40 percent under ICBC’s system,

depending on the cut. Under WorkSafe, it gets you 50 percent.

[11:45 a.m.]

We know that there is a lot of trauma involved in injuries, so I

think it’s worth mentioning, as well…. What about a person with a milder

psychiatric condition who takes medication and attends counselling less

than once per month? That gets you a flat 5 percent from ICBC,

whereas

WorkSafe would pay you 0 to 25 percent, depending on the

severity.

Well, I could go on with other examples comparing the two

regulations between WorkSafe and this ICBC permanent impairment

regulation. But my point is that this is not a new and innovative system

at all. Quite frankly, it’s simply WorkSafe on wheels. If anyone wants

to know what life will be like under this new system with ICBC, they

should ask any British Columbian who has had to deal with WorkSafeBC

after an injury at work about what their experience was like. To expect

that this system will somehow yield a different feedback is

naive.

This is the overall context which we come to when we look at Bill

5. On the surface, as the member for Vancouver–False Creek spoke to,

it’s entitled a fairness officer. It talks about fairness. It talks

about fairness complaints. It talks about something that the minister

responsible for ICBC talked about in his second reading

speech.

You can make recommendations about systemic problems with the

fairness of the corporation’s processes. You can make recommendations to

the corporation to resolve fairness complaints. Well, the problem is

that this fairness officer is really just window dressing, for reasons

that I’ll get to in a moment.

When you look at this office, what is most concerning to British

Columbians is that this model will be run by the same adjusters who have

been working at ICBC for decades. This should be even more concerning

since the architect of no-fault in these regulations, the Attorney

General, stood before a press conference on January 29, 2020, and said:

“I think it is no secret that many British Columbians don’t trust

ICBC.”

He was right. That is the case. You talk to any British Columbian,

and they will tell you of their challenges in dealing with ICBC: being

denied treatment, being cut off disability benefits, ICBC putting them

under surveillance, the adjuster ignoring them, and so on. So why would

the NDP be giving ICBC over the complete control here? ICBC now, as of

May 1, will have complete control over the lives of injured British

Columbians. What re­course would these injured British Columbians

have if ICBC continues in its historical pattern of being unfair to

British Columbians?

In that same January 2020 press conference, the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey said: “British Columbians should have the peace of

mind they will be treated fairly after they’ve been injured in a crash.”

This is very true.

But what is that peace of mind? The NDP said: “Don’t worry. We’re

creating a fairness officer.” The member said: “With this change,

British Columbians can have the confidence that the fairness office has

greater independence” — greater independence from ICBC — “and has the

impartial authority to review the fairness of their situation and the

ability to make recommendations to ICBC.”

Well, that sounded like a promising initiative over a year ago,

that the NDP would create an independent officer that has the power to

make recommendations to ICBC to ensure fairness. Well, let’s just see

how this played out. A year ago the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said

that the fairness office will be independent from ICBC, which is

important. You don’t want ICBC overseeing ICBC.

[11:50 a.m.]

Well, you turn to subsection 55(3) of Bill 5, and it says that the

Lieutenant-Governor will appoint the fairness officer. It is the ICBC

board that may, subject to the approval of the minister, set the terms

and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment including

remuneration.

The Lieutenant-Governor will pick the fairness officer, but ICBC

appointment, meaning they will be able to tell the fairness officer what

to do. Even better, the ICBC board will be able to decide how much the

fairness officer gets paid.

Of course, when you’re talking about pay and compensation, you’re

talking about performance review. You’re talking about expectations — of

the board, the leadership team of ICBC — that they would have in the

nature of that corporation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Are we running up to time here?

Interjection.

M. Lee: Okay. Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate and move

adjournment of the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.