Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, July 13, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 338

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Nick Volkow

Hon. A. Kang

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Surrey community response to COVID-19

J. Sims

Community Achievement Award recipient Myles Mattila

S. Thomson

Active transportation and cycling

S. Chandra Herbert

Volunteer first responders in Cariboo North area

C. Oakes

Affordable housing and Canadian Mental Health Association programs in Nanaimo

S. Malcolmson

Safer Vancouver initiative in Vancouver–False Creek area

S. Sullivan

Oral Questions

Government purchase of hotels for supportive housing and

impact on businesses

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Johal

Groundwater use licensing and registration process

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Donaldson

M. Polak

Staffing and services at supportive housing facilities

J. Isaacs

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Thornthwaite

P. Milobar

Government support for tourism industry

M. Stilwell

Hon. L. Beare

Tabling Documents

Legislative Library of B.C., annual report, 2017-18

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

S. Furstenau

S. Cadieux

MONDAY, JULY 13, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to introduce into this House two wonderful ladies.

Allegra Alina Alice joined us on April 28, while the House was on COVID

recess. This past Friday, July 10, she was joined by her sister-cousin Emma

Grace. Would the House please join me in welcoming these two lovely

ladies.

Tributes

NICK VOLKOW

Hon. A. Kang: I rise today to ask the House to join me in commemorating the

legacy and the memory of Nick Volkow, my close friend, my neighbour and

a Burnaby city councillor. Nick fought for our city, the city of

Burnaby, all his life, serving eight consecutive terms on Burnaby city

council and to his very last breath.

Nick married Shirley in 1975. They raised their three children in

Burnaby. Nick drove a truck for Safeway for almost 40 years. Nick served

on Burnaby Parks, Recreation and Cultural Commission and the Burnaby

library board. He was such an insatiable reader. He served on many other

committees. One of Nick’s many hobbies was calling into radio programs

to colourfully share his point of view.

Words cannot express the sadness that comes with Nick’s passing,

to myself and to everyone who knew him. Nick and I served together on

Burnaby city council, and he was my seat partner for the past ten years.

We supported each other through our decade of service together on

council. Or more so, he supported me.

When I was elected to serve Burnaby as a member of the Legislative

Assembly, he would tune in to Monday morning sessions and watch private

members’ statements. When I left this chamber, I would find an email in

my inbox with the words: “Good job, Annie.”

There’s an emptiness inside me, knowing that when I leave this

chamber today, I won’t see Nick again. But it brings me comfort to know

that Nick is probably watching us from above somewhere, cheering all of

us on.

If you’re watching us, Nick, I miss you, my friend.

My condolences to Nick’s family and all those who loved

him.

Introductions by Members

R. Glumac: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my kids, who are

here today. Xylia and Nico are up there watching, for the very first time,

question period. Usually they’re in school at this time. But with what’s

happened with the pandemic, they have this opportunity today. I would ask

that we try to do our best to be respectful. I know I’ve made that request

many times. But this time, maybe we can all ask good questions and give good

answers in a respectful way. What do you think? All right. Thank

you.

R. Leonard: Today I want to extend my congratulations to Doug Cox and the crew for

the Vancouver Island Music Fest. Friday would have been the opening night of

an incredible weekend of performers, both well-known and some new faces.

It’s such a community-building event.

They’ve called it the missing year, but they took the time to put

together a virtual event and bring people together to celebrate in a

different way during a pandemic. He expressed his gratitude to all of the

loyal supporters of the music fest, who continue to hold their tickets,

knowing that there will be a return next year. This has been a very

difficult time for performers and festivals. To see that commitment to

continuing to be together is just so wonderful.

I hope the House will congratulate Doug Cox and the whole crew, who

made such an enjoyable Friday night, so it wasn’t quite so sad.

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY COMMUNITY RESPONSE

COVID-19

J. Sims: Back in March, no one imagined today’s impact of COVID-19. There

were not many individuals or organizations that could foresee how things

would change for them. Now we pivot to the new normal. How does that

look?

Every individual, every business, every team and every

organization has had to examine how things were done and how to move

forward in our new normal for the foreseeable future. Adaptations have

been made all around, and now we are watching as everyone is playing

their part to restart the economy and our new normal lives. I’m

encouraged, watching clubs and societies in Surrey roll out programs

both allowing themselves to be operational and safely offering their

services.

Surrey United, Guildford Athletic, B.C. Tigers and Surrey FC

soccer clubs have all returned to the turf. The groups are smaller and

the spaces are larger, but I am sure that a lot of kids and parents are

relieved to have this outlet after so many months of being inside.

Fitness classes that would traditionally be offered inside are being

offered outside. From Zumba to yoga boot camp and Pilates, our parks

have been busy places in recent weeks.

Surrey Arts Centre is offering art takeout classes and packages

ready for pickup, video art lessons and live, online lessons where

artists can share their creations. Semiahmoo Arts Society recently

offered a virtual week of creativity featuring different artists sharing

their gifts.

This is not the summer everyone wanted or the summer that

everybody imagined. But I am encouraged, watching how people are

pivoting and paving the way for a new normal while we are navigating

through the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic.

COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT

AWARD RECIPIENT MYLES

MATTILA

S. Thomson: In our work, we get to meet some very inspiring young people who

have such a great passion for our communities and for our province. I’m

pleased to speak today about and recognize just such a

person.

Myles Mattila was recently recognized, for his dedication and

service, as one of the recipients of the B.C. Community Achievement

Award. Myles founded Mind­Right for Athletes Society and has been

a tireless advocate for mental health, supporting young athletes with

mental health challenges and promoting programs and projects that

transform the way mental health is perceived. His efforts have set a

standard for the growth of awareness and reduced stigma at the

community, provincial and national level.

I know that Myles has met with members of the House who have all

supported and championed his efforts, including the member for Cariboo

North, where he was born, and the member for Prince George–Valemount,

where he developed his programs and honed his hockey skills. He

relocated to Kelowna in 2015 to continue to pursue his scholastic goals

and his hockey goals, playing for the Okanagan Rockets and the Kelowna

Chiefs. And he was a draft pick for the Vancouver Giants in the WHL

bantam draft.

The MindRight program, which Myles established, educates young

players and others involved about mental health, sports and services

available to them, to teach them to use the information for their

benefit and to promote community support. Myles has been the recipient

of the YMCA Youth Initiative Award and the Northern Health Community

Health Star Award. He was a guest speaker at the Balancing Our Minds

event and is an ambassador for the Canadian Mental Health Association.

He was also recognized by the Kelowna chamber as a Top 40 Under 40

leader and was a finalist in the Young Male Volunteer of the Year Award

— a very impressive young leader.

I know he will continue to contribute to young athletes,

supporting mental health initiatives and continuing great leadership on

and off the ice. We can look forward to great things from this young

man. I’d ask the House to join me in congratulating Myles on his

Community Achievement Award and in thanking him for all his

contributions to date and into the future.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND CYCLING

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve been wanting to ride bikes, run, walk and be active in how I

get around — probably since, of course, I was a toddler. My son is much

the same. Right now it has been really fun being able to teach him how

to ride a bike.

[1:45 p.m.]

Today I have the pleasure of sharing some exciting news — although

it shouldn’t be news — about active transportation. While COVID-19 has

devastated so many, it has also allowed people to change and think about

different ways to get around. We’ve seen an incredible, incredible

increase in the number of people walking or biking or rolling to get

around, whether that’s pushing a stroller or in a wheelchair or some

sort of mobility device.

Our communities across the province have been responding, as well,

making more routes safer for people to get around. So we’re at a really

exciting opportunity right now, and that’s to make those changes —

something that we have going on for people who have long wanted a safe

way to get around using their own power. More and more, we’re seeing

that happen.

I think the first time I ever did a media interview, I was 16. I

had been out riding my bike with other teens in Vancouver to say: “We

want safer places to ride our bikes.” A camera showed up and said: “Why

are you doing this?” I think my answer was pretty simple. “It’s fun. It

helps the environment, and we want other people to be able to do

that.”

I want to thank the hon. Minister of Transportation for giving me

the opportunity to work and advise her on changes we need to make. I

thank the cycling association and all of their members, planners and,

most of all, the people of B.C., who are looking for new and safer ways

to get around and are making the changes possible so that that can

happen.

VOLUNTEER FIRST RESPONDERS

IN CARIBOO NORTH

AREA

C. Oakes: Today I pay tribute and acknowledge the incredible work of our

volunteer first responders, fire departments and fire

brigades.

Cariboo North constituents are fortunate to have these incredible

volunteers in our communities. They are there for us when we need them,

often at our most difficult time. In the words of the McLeese Lake

volunteer fire department: “Volunteer fire departments in rural areas

supply so much in the way of service, including public information and

education, disaster response and emergency operations, in addition to

firefighting, wildland protection, first responder and traffic control

to the otherwise unprotected areas.” In other words, when an emergency

happens in our rural communities, we depend on these incredible

volunteers.

Many of these departments in small unincorporated areas raise

revenues through bottle drives, garage sales and grants. Like so many

other organizations, COVID-19 has had an impact on the revenue these

departments depend on to pay their insurance, purchase equipment for

training and ensure that all their members are trained according to the

requirements of the BCWS and to the training standards and protocols

established also by the BCEHS.

In the words of the Likely volunteer fire and rescue service, if

they did not exist, community members in rural areas could be waiting up

to two hours for any kind of response. I personally cannot imagine how

our communities would have managed without their assistance during the

devastating wildfires of 2017 and 2018 and now, over the last few years,

with the flooding that we’ve experienced.

At a time when experience in our region demonstrates how important

these volunteer organizations are, we are also experiencing a gradual

withdrawal of government support, as per the most recent decision by the

Cariboo regional district to withdraw grant support to independent fire

departments due to concerns of liability around a piece of provincial

legislation.

As the MLA for Cariboo North, I call on all levels of government

to recognize, acknowledge and support our volunteer first responders,

fire departments and fire brigades.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND

CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH

ASSOCIATION

PROGRAMS IN NANAIMO

S. Malcolmson: I come to you from Snuneymuxw territory today with good news that

the city of Nanaimo and the province have moved forward with an

agreement about affordable housing that will be provided in our

community — a testament to the deep need, the long-overdue need, the

crisis in affordable housing that we are so glad is now going to be

abated with hundreds of new supportive units on top of the hundreds of

affordable housing rental units that are already under

construction.

[1:50 p.m.]

One of the many front-line service organizations that has been

filling the gap, providing housing coaching, handholding with many

patient landlords in a real crisis and being able to find housing — a

wonderful navigator — has been Nanaimo’s Canadian Mental Health

Association. This is the mental health association for central Vancouver

Island. It’s base is in Nanaimo.

There’s been a great deal of learning on the ground. They operate

a supervised consumption site. They do a great deal of peer-supported

recovery, whether that is employment navigation, housing navigation,

working towards agency referrals for mental health and addictions

treatment or working in our community with employment opportunities

through the Clean Sweep program, making our downtown streets neater and

drug paraphernalia–free. Again, it’s something that is peer-led,

peer-supported, creates a connection to community and paves the way for

job preparedness.

Especially at the time of COVID-19, everybody is under stress, and

the most vulnerable populations are feeling the hit of mental health

challenges more than anybody. We’re deeply grateful to organizations

like Nanaimo’s Canadian Mental Health Association. They’re front-line

organizations. I’m very glad that as a province and a city, we are going

to be bolstering and strengthening the supports that they need to do

their work.

SAFER VANCOUVER INITIATIVE

IN VANCOUVER–FALSE CREEK

AREA

S. Sullivan: I honour the traditional territory of the First Nations people and

acknowledge the ancestral and continuing connection to this land of the

Métis Nation.

The citizens of Vancouver–False Creek, faced with increasing

street disorder, safety issues, drug addiction and mental illness, have

created a new group called Safer Vancouver. Some of the founders are

young mothers. The area has the second-highest density of children in

the city.

Downtown Vancouver residents are known for their tolerance, but

they now have their patience stressed while they have to deal with

discarded needles in playgrounds and off-leash dog parks; human feces;

agitated and aggressive people, desperate for cash, following residents

into buildings or cars into parkades.

Our outstanding police do their best, but business owners feel

helpless with brazen shoplifting and, recently, $50,000 worth of broken

windows. Some elderly people report feeling anxious when they leave

their homes. These citizens are incorporating a non-profit society that

will support other Safer groups organizing around the prov­ince.

Ten thousand people signed their petition.

Safer Vancouver also advocates for the safer lives of those with

addictions. They ask why preventable overdose deaths are happening at

all. Other countries, like Switzerland, solved this problem decades

ago.

The Canadian Senate issued its report on the Vancouver drug

problem in 1955. Over the past 65 years, the problems have only gotten

worse, growing to affect the whole province. In the last four years,

5,000 mostly men, average age 40, have died needlessly. We have more

overdose deaths per month now than at any time in history.

I am grateful for the volunteers of Safer Vancouver. Perhaps these

citizens will provide the leadership needed to end this tragedy for both

our communities and our fellow citizens with addictions.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF HOTELS

FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

T. Stone: Last month the government purchased Paul’s Motor Inn to house the

homeless and at-risk individuals here in Victoria. Clif Leir owns Paul’s

Diner. He rents the space for his diner within Paul’s Motor Inn. Now,

the announcement of the government’s purchase came as a complete

surprise to Clif. There was no warning. There was no consultation.

Overnight this organic diner that Clif and his partners have worked so

hard to build has gone up in smoke.

If Clif was standing here right now, this is the question that he

would pose to the Minister of Housing. “Our opportunity to operate a

viable business was taken away from us the minute your government became

our landlords. It’s not fair that my staff and I should be made to

suffer as a result of this decision. What are you going to do to fix

this?”

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to recognize that we are in a COVID

situation that requires quick movement, quick action to make sure that

we have the opportunity for those who are most vulnerable in our

communities for quarantining and for a safe place to rest their heads.

The opportunity to purchase this hotel, among other hotels, is part of a

government response to make sure that we have the opportunity to house

people who desperately need it.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the minister talks about collaboration a lot. In fact, in

our estimates last week, she must have mentioned the word about 200

times. But apparently, collaboration doesn’t extend to small businesses

that are impacted by her decisions.

The Housing Minister’s decision has actually killed 20 jobs and

has left Clif and his partners heavily in debt. Crime has spiked on the

property. No one wants to visit this area anymore, and there’s really no

path forward for this organic diner to resume its operations. Again,

Clif had this to say: “So far, the only solution that’s been offered for

us is writing off $150,000 in renovations, killing 20 good local jobs

and giving up on our dream that we all worked so hard to achieve. If the

government doesn’t fix this, it will ruin us.”

Again to the Minister of Housing, what is she going to do to make

things right for Clif and his partners?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said before, as a government, our response is to help those

who have been severely impacted by COVID. As I said before in this House

and in this chamber, we have moved very quickly to make sure that we

have the opportunities for these folks.

The hotel did come up for sale. I want to remind the member that

it was up for sale, so we purchased it so that we can do more with this

property. And I want to point out that we actually had one of the local

physicians, the addictions physician, who talked about how people are

stabilizing, how it is making a difference for those who absolutely,

desperately need these homes and these supports.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: A simple phone call, an attempt on the part of the minister, the

minister’s office, B.C. Housing to reach out to this small business

would have been, I think, the least that they could have done to give

them a heads-up as to this purchase. But apparently, the minister seems

quite disinterested in worrying about the impacts of her decisions on

small businesses.

Clif owns three other restaurants and bakeries in Victoria, and —

rightfully so — he’s worried about the exposure of this situation to his

other operations. To quote Clif: “If this government doesn’t address our

losses, we run the real risk of having to close our other locations,

which will put another 35 local jobs and the families that depend on

them at risk.”

Again to the Minister of Housing, the minister’s decision has

already killed 20 jobs and now risks putting dozens more out of work.

What is she going to do to fix this situation so that Clif and his

partners don’t lose everything?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I want to assure the member that when we made these

purchases, which happened confidentially because they are land purchases

— I think that’s important to recognize — we reached out to all of the

tenants in all of our purchases and encouraged them to continue

operating their businesses. We will certainly maintain their leases, and

we certainly engaged with them around next steps. I’m very proud of the

fact that we have moved quickly to make sure that those who are most

vulnerable have the opportunity to have a safe place to rest their head

and get the supports they need so that they can make better life

choices.

J. Johal: Last Friday the minister said that B.C. Housing is budgeting on

continuing to receive lease revenue from the businesses located in

recently purchased hotel sites. This just doesn’t work for these

businesses and not just for Paul’s Diner as well.

Local Victoria salon All About Hue Hair Designs discovered through

the media that their leased property, located in the former Comfort Inn,

had been acquired as a shelter. Most of the salon’s clients have

cancelled their appointments after their business suffered water damage

from a fire in one of the units shortly after they began moving people

into the hotel.

Why does B.C. Housing’s business plan for these sites revolve

around acquiring businesses and forcing them to continue operating out

of locations where they feel unsafe?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we also know that we’ve had some significant challenges

because the previous government continued to ignore homeless people.

They did that….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Oh, listen to them now. Now, suddenly, they’re paying

attention.

They ignored a problem that was growing and growing and growing.

We took significant steps when we became government, and we’re

continuing to take significant steps. There are many who are very proud

of the fact, and I’m very proud of the fact, that we moved hundreds and

hundreds and hundreds of people…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …into stable housing. That, I think, is really significant for

this government. It’s significant for the people of British Columbia.

They can all be proud of that work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: These businesses will not survive NDP policy. That’s fact. The

minister has been derelict in her duties.

Let me give you an example. The salon’s owner, Lindsay Price, says

the first interaction she had with a representative of B.C. Housing was

a construction worker she encountered boarding up her shop’s window for

“safety reasons.” Imagine that. The next day, a B.C. Housing

representative tried to entice them to continue operating their business

out of the now shelter. To quote Lindsay: “This has been the most

unprofessional experience I’ve ever encountered in my years in

business.”

The minister’s action is driving small business owners out of

business. What will she do to compensate them?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, you know what drives small business out of business? It’s

the fact that they continued to ignore homelessness as it was growing

under their watch. We’re cleaning up their mess. We’re going to continue

doing what we need to do to house the most vulnerable, to bring in the

supports that they need.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Oh, listen to them. They would much rather sow division in

communities than bring communities together, build them up together so

that we can actually make a change in people’s lives.

GROUNDWATER USE

LICENSING AND REGISTRATION

PROCESS

S. Furstenau: The Water Sustainability Act was brought into force 4½ years ago

to ensure a sustainable supply of fresh, clean water that meets the

needs of B.C. residents today and into the future. Under this act,

anyone using groundwater for anything other than household use is

required to obtain a water licence and pay nominal water fees and

rentals.

Licensing groundwater use establishes equity between surface water

and groundwater users and gives certainty to licensees for their

continued use and helps the government understand how much water is

being used. However, since the act came into effect in early 2016, only

4,000 applications have been received by the ministry, and there are an

estimated 20,000 existing non-domestic groundwater users in

B.C.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development. The deadline for applications is March

1, 2022. At the current pace, your government will only receive

applications from 25 percent of users, meaning that many will be legally

required to stop diverting and using water and, in many cases, shut down

their businesses on that day. What resources is his ministry using to

assure there is an uptake in the licensing and protection of

non-residential water users?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for the important question around water

use and groundwater use. Our ministry has taken many measures to reach

out to those on wells and using groundwater to encourage them to

register. We’ve made many efforts, and we’re taking efforts through

We’ve extended the deadlines and increased our performance as in getting

direct contact and pointing out that it’s in the users’ best interest to

register their use.

This becomes an important record for future applications on the

same groundwater systems. It also is encouraged by waiving the fees that

will come into effect for those water users if they don’t apply before

the deadline. So we’re taking it very seriously.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’ve extended the deadline, because we realized that the efforts

within our ministry weren’t getting the results that we wanted. So we’ve

adjusted and are reaching out to the users to encourage them to register

before the deadline.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate that the minister recognizes the importance of this.

However, the trajectory for only having 25 percent of users registered

by the deadline is not a positive one for the province or for certainty

that business is going to need in order to know that non-residential

users of water will be able to turn on their taps after this act comes

into full force. Equally worrying is a lack of progress on the submitted

applications. Of the 4,000 submitted so far, fewer than 1,000 have been

processed.

My question again is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development. What is his exact plan to get

this act enacted, how many new staff have been applied to this, and what

are the exact resources that have been put towards ensuring that this

water licensing happens?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, thank you to the member. Water usage across the province is

an incredibly important issue, especially as we see the impacts of

climate change and, generally, more people accessing not just

groundwater but surface water, as well, for a variety of

reasons.

We have increased our allotment of staff on this topic. Again, as

we became government, we realized, in short order, that the original

deadline was not going to be met. We’ve extended that deadline and used

a number of means to reach out to the groundwater users. There are an

estimated 20,000 existing non-domestic groundwater wells that are

required to be licensed.

As the member points out, many have not taken advantage. As of

April 23, 2020, about 20 percent — that’s approximately 4,000, as she

pointed out — of the anticipated applications have been received. We

have some work to do. No doubt about it. We’ll be boosting up efforts to

ensure people come into compliance and register their groundwater

use.

Again, I just want to emphasize that it’s in the users’ best

interest to establish the use that they have of that groundwater and,

therefore, protect their use into the future.

M. Polak: The issue of water licences, of course, is only one piece that the

Green Party House Leader has raised. There’s a second piece, and the

minister alluded to it a moment ago. That is that the registration of

domestic wells is also lagging far behind. Mind you, this is three years

into this government’s tenure.

I want to know, at this point, three years in, why the minister

has only just now seemed to come to the realization that he needs to add

more staff to get this done.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you again. I’m glad to see so many questions on an important

topic in B.C., and that’s the use of groundwater for domestic

consumption.

Since becoming government, as I said, we realized that the

previous efforts of the past government, which the member represented,

weren’t good enough. So we took measures right away to try to improve

the registration of groundwater usage.

When it became apparent, quite quickly, that we weren’t going to

be getting an uptake of registering groundwater wells, then we took

measures immediately. We extended the deadline. We improved outreach

communication to the users of the groundwater in order to ensure that

they understood the benefits. We’re taking an approach that involves

education, and that’s what we plan on doing in order to get full

compliance and compliance by the deadline.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.

M. Polak: The Water Sustainability Act provides government with new powers

to control water usage in times of drought and scarcity. Government can

take some really dramatic action.

[2:10 p.m.]

Wells registered for domestic use, of course, would be

prioritized. But here’s the risk. If domestic wells are not registered,

they are at risk of losing their right to use water.

We want to know what specific action the minister plans to take,

going forward, in order to ensure that these rights to water use are

protected, not the actions that they thought maybe they should take

three years ago. Here you are, three years into a mandate, plenty of

time to have seen this coming, yet we’re hearing the minister speak now

about actions that are not specific and don’t seem to involve dedicated

staff.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, we value water in this province to such a phenomenal

degree. It’s so important for all aspects of how we conduct ourselves.

That’s why it’s important for people with groundwater wells — and I have

a groundwater well, as a matter of fact — to register their usage for

non-domestic consumption.

We are taking measures, we have taken measures, and we do have

dedicated staff working on this. We’ve taken ongoing measures, including

presentations at conferences, including emails to stakeholders,

including informational articles in trade publications and open houses —

a suite of tools. It’s public education, in order to get people to

comply by the deadline, that being March 1, 2022. So we still have some

time to make sure that we get that compliance rate as high as it can

be.

STAFFING AND SERVICES

AT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

FACILITIES

J. Isaacs: British Columbians know what the term “24-7 wraparound support”

means. It’s physicians, nurse practitioners, clinical staff and outreach

workers who are on site and available when needed 24-7. But despite

promises of 24-7 service, that’s not what government is delivering to

sites all around the Lower Mainland.

Last Friday the minister confirmed that “there are not clinicians

on site. That’s a different level of service,” but that “there is

someone on site who will sit down and have a cup of tea and

listen….”

Does the minister understand that a cup of tea will not adequately

meet the complex and unique needs of this vulnerable

population?

Mr. Speaker: To which minister, Member — the question.

J. Isaacs: Minister of Housing.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Thank you, Member.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It wasn’t clear if it was to me

or to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, so I wanted to get

some clarity.

Again, I want to point out to all of the members…. What’s

interesting is that I was listening to the quote and thinking: “Well,

that’s a little bit out of context in terms of what we talked about on

Friday.” Let me correct the record here in the House so that all members

can hear exactly what I talked about. What I talked about was the fact

that we have very well-trained, very well-educated staff 24-7, some of

whom will be nurses, nurse practitioners or physicians, as well as

support workers.

I think it’s important for people to understand what a support

worker is. I have a job posting, actually, that comes from one of the

projects, a supportive housing project in Vancouver. They have,

actually, a job posting right now for the midnight-to-noon shift. That’s

sort of the overnight part. I think that we can all agree that that’s

the part that the members are raising what I think is a divisive issue

about. I think it’s important that British Columbians and the members

opposite understand what that means when we’re talking about a support

worker.

In this case, I want to point out to the members that this

person…. Let me talk about their training for a moment, because I think

it’s important: a minimum of two years’ post-secondary education in

mental health and addictions and a minimum of two years’ experience in a

similar setting with a mental health and addictions–related agency;

extensive working knowledge of psychosocial rehabilitation approaches

and services, including individual service plan development and

implementation of life skills training; a solid background and knowledge

of concurrent disorders, with related work experience; two years’

experience working with people with mental illness or those at risk of

homelessness; and a demonstrated commitment to promoting empowerment in

individual and group advocacy.

These people are very well trained to do their jobs.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Moun­tain on a

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: I just want to remind the minister that it was her quote on

Thursday afternoon that I am repeating here. Secondly, this is the third

time that we’ve heard the minister describe the job description of very

well-qualified people. That really is not the issue.

Residents in Yaletown are frustrated with an increase of open drug

use, needles in playgrounds, aggressive behaviour, break-ins and

violence. When I asked about the 400 percent increase in crime, the

minister dismissed it, telling me: “It just means that people are making

phone calls…and most often it is not a crime. It’s just a

concern.”

Why is the minister dismissing the legitimate concerns being

raised by residents and businesses about the increase in

crime?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to say that those 24-7 support workers — the

ones that we all banged our pots and pans for, for all of those many

days — are the people that are being disrespected by the people

opposite. They’re doing tremendous work, and to suggest that they’re not

qualified to support people, I think, is disrespectful.

Secondly, I want to say that we have done dozens of these

supportive housing programs right around the province over the last

number of years. We’ve housed thousands of people. At the beginning,

when we first bring these online, there is a bit of an unsettled time.

We have seen calls go up to police, requests, because people are

concerned. But what we’ve also done is that.... We’ve seen from the

evidence that, actually, crime doesn’t go up. In fact, in the Marpole

area, crime actually went down.

We follow the trends. We follow what’s going on. Clearly the

members opposite are not interested in bringing people together to house

the most vulnerable. They are looking for opportunities to sow seeds of

division. I think that’s very disappointing.

J. Thornthwaite: I would suggest that the minister go and visit downtown Vancouver,

because simply moving people into hotels without proper on-site services

solves nothing. The NDP clearly don’t have community buy-in

there.

I was on the conference call with Vancouver residents like Miles

Mitchinson. He told me: “There’s a tipping point where people go from

being willing to put up with issues in their community to a point of

boiling over.”

Again to the Minister of Housing, will the minister finally listen

to people like Miles and put together a proper program that includes

real access to on-site services?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said, all of our programs have on-site services. Again, I

find it very disrespectful of the members to suggest that the

professionals that work there 24-7 are somehow not professionals. These

are the people who have put their lives on the line during a COVID

response to make sure that people were safe.

I am sure all of these members were out on their porches banging

their pots and pans. I know that I was. I was thinking of these people

who are working with the most vulnerable, making sure they were safe. To

suggest somehow that they’re not professional, I think is very

disrespectful of them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: What the minister doesn’t understand is that we do respect these

workers. The fact is that they’re just not there all the time. Without

the wraparound support, the NDP are simply warehousing

people.

Shockingly, in September 2017, when this minister was first

appointed Minister of Housing, she said, when referring to the lack of

services, that eight-by-eight rooms are “not going to address

homelessness,” and it’s not “where people can get the services that they

need so that they can become contributing members of society.” Those are

the minister’s words. When is this minister going to start providing

real on-site wraparound services to the people that need it?

Hon. S. Robinson: We started doing that back in 2017. I’m very proud of the fact

that we started that program. The member is referring to SROs. Those are

eight-by-eight rooms. That’s not what we’re providing in our supportive

housing modular program. That’s not at all what we’re

providing.

[2:20 p.m.]

In fact, people have their own washrooms. The dignity of a

washroom is what people now have access to. The dignity of three meals a

day is what they have access to. They have the opportunity to receive

the supports, the counselling, the medical services and the medication

services that they didn’t normally get under the previous government. We

have made significant progress. Is there more to do? Absolutely, and I

look forward to continuing to deliver for the people of this

province.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s not just Yaletown that is experiencing these

situations. It’s not just the Lower Mainland that is experiencing this.

It’s the same story in West Victoria Street in Kamloops. On Friday, the

minister admitted that the 24-7 clinical wraparound supports and

services that people rightly expect just aren’t there. She has very

clearly said that there are no clinicians on site and only someone to

“have a cup of tea.”

To the Housing Minister, the businesses and residents around the

West Victoria Street corridor in Kamloops have had enough. When will she

deliver a proper program with real access to on-site

services?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s so interesting to hear how things get taken out of context.

We have really made some significant progress, in fact, even in the

member’s own riding. In fact, there was an editorial around Kamloops

that said…. I quote the end of the editorial: “We are seeing the fruits

of that labour” — meaning our labour — “now and will continue to witness

serious progress on the issue.”

The community of Kamloops is very pleased to see the progress that

we are making in their community, and we are going to continue doing it,

because people need the dignity of a home. They need supports 24-7 that

we provide and access to clinical services when they need

them.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, maybe the minister could recite from the newspapers in

Kamloops about the attack on the security guard that was hired as a

result of what was going on in the West Victoria Street corridor, the

71-year-old retired gentleman that was doing a side job who got attacked

and put in hospital with charges pending now against the person that

attacked him. That was the minister’s response when the community

started to rise up on the issues.

The issues and concerns we’re raising today are real. They’re from

the community. They’re what we’re hearing from our own constituents. The

minister is dismissing them out of hand by saying we’re trying to be

divisive. We’re simply bringing forward what people are calling for.

What they’re calling for is what the minister promised with her multiple

different times that she has talked about 24-7 supports.

Again, when is the minister going to provide on-site, proper

supports and services that the communities were led to believe by this

minister they would be getting?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have 24-7 supports for people on site. I think what the members

keep referring to is that they would prefer to go back to the old days,

when we institutionalized people, because that’s what they’re

describing. It’s not how we operate. I know that they’re moaning and

groaning over there, but they know full well that what we’ve been doing

is housing people and giving them the supports.

The data says that housing first works, and I prefer to follow the

science. I think that’s really what’s critical. It’s what British

Columbians expect of us.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

TOURISM

INDUSTRY

M. Stilwell: Back in March, the Legislature approved $5 billion for economic

recovery, yet here we are 16 weeks later and not a dime of that money

has been spent on a tourism industry that’s in crisis.

Other provinces have a plan, and they’re spending money on tourism

recovery. But not here in British Columbia. In fact, the Minister of

Tourism said on Friday that what we’re going to do is continue listening

and developing a plan.

To the Minister of Tourism, when will she actually present a

recovery plan that includes and outlines investments?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. We did very thoroughly talk

about this on Friday. As I said to the member, we’ve provided a number

of supports for the tourism industry to date, such as the $10 million we

provided to the CDMOs so that they are able to welcome visitors all

across the province now that we’re in phase 3 of our

recovery.

[2:25 p.m.]

What the member and I talked about on Friday was very clear. We’ve

worked closely with the sector. We’ve been able to provide some pieces

of relief to date to a sector that’s been extremely hard hit by the

COVID pandemic, and we’re going to keep working with this sector as we

work towards recovery.

There’s an ongoing process going on. We’re out talking to sectors

all across the province. We’re talking to all British Columbians to see

what they want British Columbia to look like and move towards in

recovery. I’m going to keep working very closely with the tourism sector

to address their needs.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Annual Report, 2017-2018 ,

from the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes

(Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(VEHICLE INSURANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

section 5 (continued) .

M. Lee: I just wanted to take the opportunity, now that we are starting

the second part of our committee phase on Bill 11…. Before I come back

to some of the questions that we had discussed with the Attorney General

around stakeholder consultation, I wanted to just take this opportunity

to address two points that the Attorney General had made near the end of

the last committee debate. He asked me to let him know if I disagreed,

and of course, I do.

The Attorney General, himself, confirmed in committee on Bill 11

that there are 400 to 500 catastrophic automobile accident cases per

year. The Attorney General further confirmed that of those catastrophic

cases, there are about 35 cases per year in which an injured party would

exhaust their

part 7 benefits under the current rules.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Attorney General did not clarify, although he perhaps should

have, that the 35 cases were within the limit of

part 7 benefits when

that limit was set at $150,000. Of course, we know that that was

increased subsequently to $300,000.

The Attorney General also did not mention that under the current

system, even at the $300,000 level…. Many of those 35 people would also

have tort claims under the current system to ensure that their care and

wage loss needs were covered, above and beyond their

part 7

benefits.

We know that there are approximately 100,000 bodily injury claims

made every year here in British Columbia to ICBC. The example that the

Attorney General used, of an at-fault child on a bike, to great

emotional effect, was indeed tragic but incredibly rare. The Attorney

General knows that. What is not rare, however, is the converse of that

scenario, the one where drivers, pedestrians, cyclists are injured by

negligent drivers.

Let’s take a far more likely scenario, where a child, on a bike or

otherwise, suffers serious injury at the hands of a negligent driver.

This is the scenario I thought the Attorney General had given. That is

almost every bodily injury claim ICBC deals with, not the very rare

scenario he used. When we are discussing laws and changes to laws, like

this Bill 11, I think it’s important that we focus on what is likely and

common, not those scenarios that provoke the most emotion.

In this scenario, what will happen to that child when that child

is injured at the hands of a negligent driver? Well, for starters, she

will be reliant upon an ICBC adjuster for the rest of her life. She will

need to ask ICBC, cap in hand, for approval to pay for her physical

therapy and medication for the remaining years of her life.

Every step of the way, from the moment of the collision until that

child’s injuries have either fully recovered or until the end of their

life, they will have a relationship with ICBC. Before that child can

attend treatment or receive money to compensate them for financial

losses, they will need an ICBC adjuster to sign off and approve such

funding. That child and their family will have no autonomy to decide

what’s best. The ICBC adjuster will decide what’s best and only when it

suits them, not when it suits the injured child.

Certainly, we will examine in committee to come here how this will

work over the course of an injured person’s life. I expect that the

Attorney General will just say to us, “Well,” because now ICBC will have

a duty to assist the injured person, “just trust us.” As we look at the

duties, particularly in

section 120 of this bill, that duty has been the

same duty for the past 40-plus years.

The Attorney General also mentioned, in the last stage of the

committee on Bill 11, that a person who was injured could sue an

at-fault driver under the government’s proposed no-fault system. This

government has drafted Bill 11 to allow injured British Columbians to

sue at-fault drivers but only in circumstances where that at-fault

driver is convicted of a certain crime. Those are situations that this

Attorney General feels are fair for injured people of this province to

retain their right to sue.

This is an extremely high burden of proof on the prosecution in

criminal matters — that is, beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence in

criminal trials is often held to be inadmissible because of the Charter

challenges and the like. Because of these challenges, Crown prosecutors

often recognize the inherent challenges in proving an at-fault driver

was guilty of a crime. They simply drop the charges and strike a plea

deal with the drunk driver for lesser, non-criminal offences.

In any of these circumstances, under the Attorney General’s

no-fault system, the injured person would have no recourse, no right to

sue, no right to hold the at-fault drunk driver accountable.

This is the message that this government and this Attorney General

want to convey to the people of British Columbia: You can’t sue a drunk

driver unless you can get the prosecution to secure a criminal

conviction. While this change will not likely cause people to drive more

recklessly, it certainly won’t encourage people to drive more carefully.

That is the message this government is sending to the people of our

province. We will also consider this in

section 116 of this

bill.

[2:35 p.m.]

Before we go to those sections, I’d like to address one more item.

That is stakeholder consultation. In the last committee stage, we talked

at length as to the status of stakeholder consultation. Since that time,

we’ve received many letters from occupational therapists about their

concerns about the consultation process and the views that have been

made.

I’d like to ask the Attorney General: in terms of the

non-disclosure agreements that are in place, what is the actual length

of term of these agreements?

Hon. D. Eby: I looked and looked at

section 5. I didn’t see anything about

non-disclosure agreements. I understand that the member would like to

redo our last set of debates because it didn’t go that well for

him.

The reason why it didn’t go that well for him is that the system

he is defending so ardently and enthusiastically is one that benefits a

couple of groups of people. I would agree. It definitely benefits the

lawyers who work in this area. It benefits the experts, who provide

reports in this area and charge $10,000 for one report, and the lawyers,

who take 30 percent of the settlement amount that’s paid out by someone,

anywhere from one to ten years after the accident.

The member writes off the idea that there should be any concern

that people who are at fault in collisions are inadequately covered,

including a young girl who drives her bike through a stop sign. “It’s

very rare,” he says, “so we shouldn’t worry about it.” Okay. But what

about the fact that that falls on the families of these people who have

to take care of them for the rest of their lives? It falls on the public

purse and taxes, which have to support people who have inadequate

benefits.

He suggests things that are simply untrue, and he presents them as

factual. He says that I said: “Oh, just trust us. There’s a duty on

ICBC. So just trust us.” That is the exact opposite of what I said. I

said that one of the hardest things about this system is going to be to

ensure that the culture at ICBC changes.

They have had a culture, for decades, where they had a legal duty

to defend the at-fault driver with a lawyer, paid for by insurance

premiums, to fight the person who was entitled to benefits. One of the

hardest things is going to be shifting that culture into the care-based

system.

We need to put multiple safeguards in place. I didn’t say: “Just

trust us.” It was the total opposite. I’ve explained, many times, the

multiple safeguards that we’re putting in place to ensure that people

get the benefits they’re entitled to — everything from the civil

resolution tribunal, the Ombudsperson and the fairness commissioner to

judicial review of the civil resolution tribunal.

The member says that we haven’t done anything on road safety and

that, in fact, our system is going to encourage people to drive worse,

even though, if they cause an at-fault collision, their insurance rates

still go up. He says that we’re somehow changing that. We’re

not.

We’re not encouraging people to drive worse. In fact, one of the

first things we did, on inheriting the mess that that side of the House

left us, was to change the rules to make it significantly more expensive

for people who drive badly in our province. They pay huge premiums, not

just through their insurance but through additional penalties, when

they’re driving recklessly.

The effect of those measures is significant. We’ve reduced

accidents by 20,000. So 20,000 fewer accidents with those measures.

That’s pre-COVID. Again, I said this the last time we debated. I don’t

mind having a debate about the bill. I don’t mind having a debate about

the policy. There are pluses and minuses with any policy. There are puts

and takes. I acknowledge that openly.

What I do mind is when a member — who has had multiple briefings,

who knows what he’s saying — is incorrect and stands up and continues to

say things that are incorrect. I know he’s a smart guy, and I know he

understands it. I know he knows that if you cause an at-fault accident,

your rates are still going to go up. I know he knows — he shouted out

“drunk drivers” the other day — that if you’re convicted of drunk

driving, you can still be sued personally and criminally convicted. I

think that’s an important standard. Don’t you, hon. Speaker?

I think our criminal justice system is one that is fair and one

that works. It’s not without challenges, just like any system. There are

opportunities for improvement, but I think it’s a fair

standard.

He says he would place it somewhere else. I accept that, but the

vital piece — and, I think, the duty of people in this House — is to

help people understand the bill and to understand what the actual issues

are. With all due respect to the member, that speech that he just

delivered will not help people understand what the puts and takes are on

this bill.

[2:40 p.m.]

One of the puts, I understand from the Trial Lawyers Association

of British Columbia, is that there are about 10,000 jobs — lawyers,

paralegals, transcribers, experts, people who work with the experts —

within the industry of personal injury currently on the legal side in

British Columbia, all supported with wages that they advise me are well

above average. I accept that.

It is an incredibly difficult thing to say that those folks are

going to have to transition their work over the next decade to something

else. Obviously, that’s hard to say. That is a very real issue. That is

a serious concern. We can have a debate about the impacts of this policy

in that regard, but those costs are no longer sustainable for drivers in

the province. Those costs are eroding benefits for people who are

involved in single car collisions or for people in the scenario of this

girl going through the stop sign on her bike.

We have made a difficult decision, which is what governing is

about, to say that we are going to transfer money from this

administration into delivering lower rates and better benefits for

British Columbians. That is a difficult decision. That is a serious

policy choice.

The member, instead, pretends that this decision is somehow about

introducing a bill that secretly takes benefits away from people. We’re

quite open. We’re quite open about saying we’re getting rid of the legal

costs. We’re passing on that benefit to British Columbians. You don’t

have to pretend it’s about something else. We put it in press

releases.

The member wants to defend the experts. He wants to defend the

lawyers. I don’t blame him. They bring significant things to the table.

But we cannot afford it. Drivers cannot afford it. We cannot afford to

give up the benefits for people who are injured in collisions in order

to pay for that infrastructure, so it leads it a difficult

decision.

Members on one side of that debate; government is on the other

side of that debate. There’s no point in wrapping ourselves into a

pretzel about a regulation about the definition of the word “highways,”

as if that’s secretly going to take benefits away from people. It’s not.

That’s not where the savings are coming from.

All the member for Richmond-Queensborough has to do is look at his

comments talking about Manitoba, talking about the fact that they have

had a stable system for more than a decade that has enabled them to have

the capital reserves — because they didn’t have a government that was

raiding the capital reserves — in order to provide a rebate when people

needed it the most.

The system in Manitoba, the one that the member for

Richmond-Queensborough was so excited about, the one that’s able to

deliver refunds under a public insurance system, some of the lowest

rates in Canada — that’s the same system that’s in this bill. It’s not a

trick, not a secret. It’s working in other places. He’s not going to

find it hidden in the regs. He’s not going to find it through some other

kind of secret trapdoor where all of the money is. He’s not going to

find it hidden in a non-disclosure agreement.

We need the expertise of people in this area to assist us in

drafting the regulations. If we were not actively engaging experts in

this area, the member would be the first one to stand up and say: “Why

aren’t you talking to occupational therapists? Why aren’t you talking to

doctors? Why aren’t you talking to chiropractors, massage therapists and

others, making sure that the system works? Why aren’t you talking to

disability advocates?”

The member knows why we need an NDA, because they’re involved in

drafting the regulations. People could use this foreknowledge to

financial advantage. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not a

secret.

I’ll do my best to get the answer for the member about how long

they last. Nothing turns on it. There are no secrets here in the bill.

There are no secrets about our intentions in relation to the

regulations. We want to copy the successes in Manitoba. It’s on the

record, not a secret.

M. Lee: Well, I’m also looking to ensure that we all have understanding of

this bill and what’s at stake here. We do have a duty, and I think that

duty is to have reasoned discussion and debate about this bill. So when

the Attorney General dares to stoop to introduce emotion and

tragedy….

We’re talking about 100,000 claims, 100,000 British Columbians

injured in motor vehicle accidents a year in this province, and this

Attorney General comes back and repositions the whole thing on its

head.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of course we have concern for all injured British Columbians,

including children. I have three myself. The Attorney General has two.

As parents, of course…. But if a British Columbian gets injured by an

at-fault driver, that’s what we’re talking about here.

We can continue on and have this debate, and we have. But I think

it’s insulting that this Attorney General will turn this whole

discussion on its head that way. I take great offence with

that.

Let me just say that when we’re talking about holding at-fault

drivers accountable, this government has set that standard as criminal

conviction. The Attorney General has confirmed that again. I said, in my

effort to have understanding here, that when we’re talking about

criminal convictions for drunk drivers, the standard is very high. Most

often, what happens is no conviction. There are Charter challenges.

There are other challenges to the case, typically. Typically there’s no

conviction. It takes a conviction for that drunk driver who is at fault

to be held accountable under this Bill 11.

I understand that the Attorney General feels exposed by the

non-disclosure agreements — the secrecy over this bill, in his words.

That’s what it is. No details — 119 details left out, 42 additional.

Another couple that the Attorney General has tabled in further

amendments to this bill.

There are gaps in this bill. We will have that discussion. As I

understand it, these non-disclosure agreements that have been entered

into are totally indefinite. Anyone who enters into this NDA with this

government can’t speak to the contents of their discussion around Bill

11 indefinitely. Not when the process is done. This whole sensitive

nature of process that the Attorney General identified last time around,

around regulations. You’d think that the NDA would expire then. Maybe

you’d think that this consultation would have been done prior to the

introduction of Bill 11. That didn’t happen either.

My concern is this. We’ve been receiving letters that have

indicated concerns by the occupational therapists here in this province.

I just want to read into the record a number of these

concerns.

“I’m aware of many OTs who do not agree with the public statement

made by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists British

Columbia and felt silenced.”

“This position statement was created without a formal survey of

its members or other known consultation methods.”

“I understand the Attorney General is saying he’s consulted with the

health community, and this is meant to suggest we are endorsing the

enhanced benefits scheme. This is simply not my experience.

“My colleagues are frightened of speaking out, frightened of losing

their income. Please don’t mistake their silence for agreement. The

Attorney General should be ashamed of what he has done here. This entire

process is shameful and divisive. The Attorney General has pitted us

against ourselves and frightened us. Shame on you all.”

Another one said this: “There are many allied health care

professionals similar to our group who currently provide services to

ICBC. We are afraid to speak openly for fear of being blacklisted if we

speak up publicly against an insurance company which contributes to our

livelihood.”

I wish to read in three more.

“Since ICBC has decided to implement a no-fault system, they have

been pressuring occupational therapists to support this move.”

Pressuring, Mr. Chair.

“There has been an implicit threat that if we don’t support it,

then we will be blacklisted from providing any work to the corporation

in the future.”

[2:50 p.m.]

“The truth is there was no member consultation on the ICBC changes

before their announcement. CAOT-BC’s public statement in support of the

changes on the same day as ICBC used the term ‘we’ was grossly

misrepresentative of the opinions of the members — opinions that they

were not aware of at the time, as CAOT nor ICBC ever sought them

out.”

I’d like to ask the Attorney General…. I understand there

continues to be great division amongst the occupational therapist

professional community, even with that representative body being called

into question as to whether they truly represent the views of

occupational therapists here in this province. How can the Attorney

General go forward on the basis that occupational therapists have

serious concerns, not only about the nature of this bill but the way

they’re being treated in the consultation process?

Hon. D. Eby: First of all, I’ll note, obviously — the member notes it himself —

that the governing body for occupational therapists has endorsed the

change. Like any governing body, there will be debate within the

membership about what position the body should take.

Occupational therapists play many and diverse roles in the current

system. Some are expert witnesses for trials. Some are providing

supports to clients. Some do both. It is without doubt that there will

be voices in favour of the position taken by the governing body and

opposed to it.

I can advise the member this. I’m aware of not a single inference

of a threat, or even that ICBC could or would be in a position to

threaten someone to participate in any engagement or consultation

process. The suggestion, without a basis of evidence, is

inappropriate.

Now, I want to point out that the people who are engaging with us

are taking a significant risk, because many of them are asked to provide

expert reports to the law firms that are the most profoundly affected by

this change. If you’re coming to ICBC and government and saying, “Look.

I know you’re moving to this new system. I’ll bring my expertise to make

sure that it’s done the right way, understanding that this is the

direction that government is going to go,” you are very vulnerable to

being told: “We’re not interested in having you provide our expert

reports.” That could be a significant impact on a source of income for

an occupational therapist or someone else.

I also notice who the member reads letters from and who the member

doesn’t read letters from. So we’re going to do a test and see if anyone

can spot the difference between the letters that he read and the letter

that I’m about to read.

“Dear Premier Horgan” — this came in on May 22.

“Four years ago I was a stay-at-home mom to two small children. My

husband had a good job at” — I’ll blank it out — “in downtown Vancouver.

He liked his job, and he worked hard for our family. We invested our

money wisely, and our financial future looked bright for us and our

kids.

“Then in the spring of 2016, my husband was stopped in a traffic jam

on Highway 1 and was hit from behind by a distracted motorist going at a

high speed. I will not go into all the details here, but now my husband

is totally disabled with terrible chronic pain and is unable to work. He

is unable to do much of anything, and his pain is unrelenting. He barely

leaves the house. We cannot go on vacations with him, and doctors have

said his condition will never get better. The best way to describe him

is that he is like an 80-year-old now in terms what he can do

physically.

“We hired a lawyer and naively thought that things would eventually

work out. We weren’t going to be asking for anything extravagant. We

just wanted his lost wages and future care costs, which are thousands of

dollars per month, that we feel were due to us. Nothing can take away

his pain, and nothing can change the fact that his future is bleak and

the whole dynamic of our family has changed. I was positive, because we

live in Canada, and Canada takes care of its people. I love this

country, and I had no doubt that things would eventually work

out.

“I came to find out this week that the maximum amount we can get

from ICBC is based on this distracted motorist’s coverage. Her coverage

was one-fifth of what we were asking for. Once the lawyer takes 30

percent, we are left with about four years of living” — all caps, four

years.

[2:55 p.m.]

“My husband had about 20 years left until retirement. We are a young

family. How is it possible that we are limited to what we can get based

on the motorist’s coverage? I am aware that we have to then sue her, but

do we honestly think she has the other four-fifths of what we want? We

will be locked up in a legal battle for years now.

“We are honest people. We are not out to get more than we deserve.

We were even prepared, knowing we may not get everything we think we

deserve. But how can we live in a country where, after years of

suffering, with a future of unrelenting pain and suffering, we are told

that ICBC can only help him out for four years? What are we going to do

after that?”

What is the difference between the two sets of letters — the

letters that I’ve been reading and the letters the member has been

reading? My letters are from British Columbians who were injured under

the current system. They’re very real experiences with that system. The

member says they’re edge cases. They are not edge cases. They are

people’s experiences under this system.

How does the member think that the lawyers on TV pay for those

ads? Why does he think that lawyers from Ontario come here to advertise

to get clients in British Columbia? Why does he think that happens?

Because the system is broken. It rewards the wrong people. It rewards

areas where there is no risk. It gives lawyers 30 percent of an amount

of money the person would have gotten anyway. And it doesn’t say the

lawyer is only entitled to take 30 percent of what the lawyer actually

achieves for the person. That’s in this proposal of reforms that we’re

putting forward.

This poor mom…. And she will be a poor mom, because she has to

support a permanently disabled husband because the insurance system

won’t support her, because there wasn’t enough insurance coverage on the

at-fault motorist, and the at-fault motorist doesn’t have enough assets

to recover through a lawsuit. The member says that her experience is an

edge case. It is not an edge case. This is a regular

experience.

A colleague in law I know who was involved in a collision as a

pedestrian…. She was hit by a car. She was one of two people hit by the

car, so they had to split the coverage, and there wasn’t enough to cover

her injuries.

These are regular occurrences. If the member spent more time

talking to people who are involved in this system and less time talking

to the people who are working in the system, the member would notice a

profound difference in perspective about how the current system is

working or is not working.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we continue the dialogue here and that the

Attorney General wishes to continue to draw things out.

We’re talking about the extreme case that the member has referred

to in the last committee. The member can stand there and continue to

read letters and draw more into this, but we understand the changes that

are being proposed under Bill 11. Certainly, we’ll come to those

sections about where that duty lies with ICBC and exactly what benefits

will be available to both at-fault and injured British Columbians under

this bill.

But I do want to come back to the stakeholder consultation,

because the Attorney General stated, in response, that any statements of

threat would be inappropriate. Well, those statements are coming in

writing from the people who feel threatened, so I’m not sure how the

Attorney General is substituting his judgment for the professional

occupational therapists who feel threatened, pressured.

I mean, the reason why we’re talking about occupational

therapists, of course, is day in and day out…. Just like we talk about

our respect and support for front-line workers, all health care

professionals are there to assist — in this case, occupational

therapists helping an injured British Columbian get back to daily

living, whether it’s at home or in the workplace or

otherwise.

[3:00 p.m.]

These are the clients and the patients they deal with, and

certainly we can talk about the challenges that they’ve had with ICBC,

the challenges that others have had with ICBC, dealing with ICBC

adjusters. As I said here in committee, I don’t see the change in the

duty. It’s the same duty. It’s the same duty that ICBC has had for 47

years.

Let me ask again to the Attorney General…. I have another letter

here that my colleague and myself have received from the occupational

therapists of British Columbia. It starts out by saying: “We are a group

of occupational therapists who have formed the OT Alliance B.C. in order

to provide our opinion regarding ICBC rehabilitation benefits and the

implementation of a no-fault insurance system in B.C. Despite repeated

requests both to the Attorney General’s office and our professional

association, CAOT-BC, our concerns have not been substantively

addressed.”

How were the stakeholders selected for the purpose of

consultation, and how were other occupational therapists, like this

alliance, left out of that consultation?

Hon. D. Eby: A new group has formed, as I understand it from the member, that

disagrees with the core position of the governing body for occupational

therapists. I accept that. As I said to the member, there are going to

be different views. The member is a lawyer. I know he is. So he knows

about our own governance system as lawyers — the Law Society. There are

different perspectives on what the Law Society should be

doing.

A good example was the discussion about licensed paralegals

potentially doing family law. The Law Society asked government for a

provision to allow there to be different folks doing work other than

just lawyers, a licensed paralegal under the supervision of a lawyer and

then a large group of lawyers. To be fair, I think mostly family law

lawyers got together at a referendum and overturned that

decision.

The internal governance of a governing body, like occupational

therapists or anyone else…. There are typically processes where members

can make their voices heard one way or another. If there’s going to be a

shift in position of occupational therapists, then so be it. But I

haven’t seen it yet — in fact, just the opposite. I’ve seen continued

support from occupational therapists, their governing body,

throughout.

I have to say that almost every group that has asked to meet with

me…. Regardless of whether it’s a new group or an old group or a group

of personal injury lawyers or others, I’ve tried to make time to meet

with them to hear their concerns. I’d be glad to meet with the group the

member cited if I haven’t already met with them.

I just had some letters passed to me, and I have to be honest. I

really debated about when to make these public, how to make these

public, how to talk about this, because it’s really difficult. It’s

difficult for the people who have made the decision to assist government

in drafting regulations. It’s difficult in the sense that they’re

originating with a body that, as Attorney General, I feel an obligation

to consult with, but I feel the conduct is reprehensible.

I feel like I need to make it public now because of the member’s

inferences. He says he has occupational therapists who feel like ICBC is

pressuring them. Now, he doesn’t cite any letters or messages or

anything, but he does say they feel pressured. I want to tell the member

what pressure really looks like for occupational therapists.

The email, and I won’t identify anyone…. Let’s just suffice it to

say that this comes from a personal injury law firm. It’s from an email

that was “copied to every major personal injury plaintiff firm in the

province.”

[3:05 p.m.]

The author says he is “confident they will all adopt a similar

position to the one we’re taking.” I’ve got four or five emails from

personal injury law firms that, in fact, did adopt a similar

position.

“Moving forward, we will maintain a list of every OT” — OT is

occupational therapist — “or OT firm who has signed an NDA with ICBC or

for the benefit of ICBC or fails to rescind this in a timely fashion. We

will ask every OT whether they or anyone in their firm has signed such

an NDA before we engage them.

“We will make it a term of our retainer that failing to disclose

that you or someone in your firm has signed the NDA will be grounds for

the OT or OT firm to refund to us all of the money that we have paid and

to forfeit any fees for work done but not yet billed.

“We will make repeated FOI searches of ICBC to verify our list. We

will share this list with other firms and expect they will share theirs

with us.”

What kind of list, hon. Chair? A blacklist. A blacklist of OTs

that assisted in drafting regulations for the new system.

“Once an OT or an OT firm is on this list, we will take the

following steps. One, that that OT and that firm will be permanently

disqualified from doing any work for us on any matter whatsoever. Two,

if any OT or OT firm, which is a signatory to the ICBC NDA, is put

forward by ICBC or any other insurer, we will apply to the court to

disqualify them for bias. This will be our permanent position. We will

adduce this letter as evidence that the OT and OT firm was aware of our

position before they accepted the retainer from ICBC.”

Now, keep in mind that many law firms do both plaintiff work for

injured drivers and defence work for ICBC. I’ll put that as a side

note.

“No such occupational therapist or occupational therapy firm will be

permitted to do rehab work with a TLAG client.” That’s TLA BC advocacy

group client. “Any OT or OT firm already in place providing such service

will be instantly terminated. This will be our permanent

position.

“I hope this clearly conveys our position in this matter. I am happy

to discuss this with you but will not change my position.

“I look forward to my firm and my clients having your and your

firm’s services for many years into the future. If there are any OTs at

your firm who have not received this message from me, I would be

grateful if you forwarded it to them.”

Now, if the member wonders what pressure looks like, if the member

wonders what a blacklist looks like, if the member wonders what

intimidation looks like in relation to occupational therapists, I think

he has his answer.

The occupational therapists who are working with government in

good faith to bring their expertise, to draft regulations, are being

threatened with a blacklist distributed across the province, to all

plaintiff-side personal injury firms, coordinated by the Trial Lawyers

Association.

The Chair: Member, just for guidance. We are on

section 5, talking about

definitions. Perhaps the comments the member is making goes to the

merit of the bill, which we would have the opportunity to talk about

later on — lots of opportunities.

If we could just focus on

definitions, and we’ll get them out

of the way.

M. Lee: Only to make one quick comment in response. It appears, based on

what the Attorney General has read out, that occupational therapists are

under threat and intimidation by both sides of this.

This is what we heard from occupational therapists in their

letters. That’s what I just read out. But the Attorney General has read

a letter out in this manner, and that’s what we hear.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would just suggest that we can move

forward with the review and voting on

section 5 to

section 31, because

our next questions will be on

section 32 of this bill.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: For the record, what a shameful display of bothsidesism. Are you

kidding? On one side, somebody thinks that maybe ICBC might be

potentially…. Who knows? They feel that way. And I read out a letter

that literally creates a blacklist for distribution across the province?

There is no equivalent. There is no equivalent.

The member’s shameful and unabashed apology for this email —

which, I understand, he is defending as being equivalent….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Oh, he’s not defending it?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, then, perhaps he should stand up, on the record, and say

that it’s unacceptable for people to be intimidated out of working with

government, that it is unacceptable to create a blacklist of people who

assist government in public policy. That is a trend, that is a precedent

that will be a problem not just for this bill but for any attempt at

reform, if they are allowed to get away with this.

I want the member to stand up, on the record, and say it’s

unacceptable. It’s not the same as someone feeling that potentially

something could happen. That a letter that literally creates a blacklist

and attempts to deprive OTs of their living because they provided their

expertise to government in drafting public policy — I want him to stand

up and say that is wrong and that he does not accept it.

M. Lee: Clearly, Mr. Chair, any British Columbian or representative

organization, professional or otherwise, that is faced with intimidation

or threat…. It’s unacceptable. We want to have good policy discussion.

Nor is it acceptable that we are set behind a secret non-disclosure

agreement right now. We have cases where OTs are writing letters to my

colleagues and myself saying that they’re under threat and intimidation

from ICBC. Whether it’s coming from the Trial Lawyers Association of

British Columbia or ICBC itself, it’s not acceptable.

Hon. D. Eby: Chair, it is not the same. It is not the same thing to say, “Hey,

if you’re going to assist us in drafting these regulations, we need two

things. We need you to not talk about what is secret right now but will

be public” — namely, the regulations, because someone could derive

financial benefit from that. The second thing that’s in these NDAs is:

“You can talk about anything that’s public. Anything you want to talk

about that’s public — go ahead; knock yourself out.” So when the regs

are public, people can come out, and OTs can come out, and they can talk

about those regulations if they want to — no problem.

If the member doesn’t see the difference between that and creating

a blacklist of OTs who cooperate with government — and using that to

deprive them of earning a living, to threaten their livelihood — then

the member is so embedded in the current system, so willing to endorse

its excesses that he would sign off on depriving people, who are

deserving of benefits, from those benefits. He would sign off on saying

that that is the equivalent of creating a blacklist. It’s shameful, hon.

Chair. Just shameful.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 17 that’s in the possession of the

Clerk.

SECTION 17, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 45.1 is

amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) (

a) and

substituting the following:

(

a) respecting the amount payable as benefits for the

provision of health care by a health care practitioner to an insured

person, including, without limitation, regulations adopting a payment

schedule under

section 26 of the Medicare Protection Act ;

and

(a.1) in subsection (3) by striking out

“ subsection (1) (a) (ii) ” and

substituting “ subsection (1) (a) ”,

and

(

b) by repealing subsections (4) to

(8). ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 45.1 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act sets out requirements

for periodic reviews of benefits amounts. The amendment is a technical

housekeeping amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

[3:15 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my name in the

orders of the day.

SECTION 21 , in the proposed

section 72 (t), by

adding the underlined text as shown:

(

t) respecting exceptions for the purposes of

section 61

(1) (

a) or (b) .]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends subsection 72(

t) by adding a reference to

subsection 61(1)(

b) so that the regulations may be made in relation to

both subsection 61(1)(

a) and subsection 61(1)(b).

Section 61 of the Insurance Vehicle Act sets out the rules and

restrictions on optional auto insurance. Subsection 61(1)(

a) relates to

optional insurance that extends coverage that is specified in a

certificate or policy. Subsection 61(1)(

b) relates to optional insurance

that extends coverage that is provided under

part 10 of the

act.

The amendment authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

allow optional insurance contracts that extend coverage under

part 10 of

the act, as well as extending coverage specified in a certificate on

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 27 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 27.1 standing in my name in the

orders of the day.

SECTION 27.1 , by adding the following

section:

27.1

Section 93.1 (5) is amended by striking

out “ as defined in

section 83 (1) of this

Act ,”. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: The amendment amends subsection 93.1(5) of the Insurance Vehicle

Act to strike out “as defined in

section 83 (1) of this Act.”

Section 93.1 sets out collection remedies available to ICBC if

money is owed to ICBC or the government. Subsection 93.1(5) provides

that ICBC may deduct the amount of an indebtedness from any insurance

money payable by the corporation to the debtor. However, there cannot be

any deduction from insurance money that is benefits under the

act.

[3:25 p.m.]

With the revised definition of “benefits” in

section 1 of the act,

which includes both benefits payable under

part 1 and all amounts

payable under

part 10 of the act, and the amendments to the references

to “benefits” in

section 83 of the act, which does not include

part 10

of the act, the current reference in subsection 93.1(5) to

section 83 is

no longer required or appropriate.

Amendment approved.

Section 27.1 approved.

Sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 31 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 31, by deleting the proposed

section 111 and

substituting the following:

Consequences of offer and payment of pre-litigation

payment

111 An offer under

section 108 or a

pre-litigation payment is not an acknowledgment or admission of

liability, including for the purposes of the Limitation Act ,

and does not prejudice the rights of the insured or the

corporation.]

This amendment deletes subsection 111(2) of the Insurance

(Vehicle) Act, which is added by

section 31 of the bill. Subsection

(2) is deleted because it’s unnecessary to state that lawyers cannot claim a

contingency over an amount that they did not assist their client in

obtaining. It would be unethical for a lawyer to claim a contingency

over something that happened before they represented the

client.

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

section 32.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 32 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 116 (1), by

adding the underlined text as shown:

(1) In this section:

“garage service operator” has the prescribed

meaning;

“out-of-province owner” means a person who has

ownership of a vehicle in a jurisdiction outside British Columbia in

accordance with the law of that jurisdiction;

“voluntary occupant” means a person who is a

voluntary operator of, or a voluntary passenger in or on, a vehicle that

the person knew or ought to have known was being operated without the

consent of the owner , the out-of-province owner or, in the case

of a leased motor vehicle, the lessee.]

The amendment amends

section 116 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act,

which is being added in

section 32 of Bill 11 to add a definition of

“out-of-province owner” and amend the definition of “voluntary occupant”

to add a reference to an out-of-province owner.

Under subsection 116(5), voluntary occupants of vehicles being

operated without the consent of the owner cannot sue for damages. With

this amendment, the ban on lawsuits applies regardless of whether the

vehicle is a B.C. vehicle or an out-of-province vehicle.

Amendment approved.

section 32 as amended.

M. Lee: Just as a point of clarification on the other amendments to

section 32 that the Attorney General had on the order paper. Will those

be dealt with or after we have further discussion about

section

32?

Hon. D. Eby: There are some remaining proposed amendments standing in my name

on the orders of the day. I move the remaining amendments to

section 32

standing in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 153 (2), by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown:

(2) The corporation must calculate and determine the

caregiver benefit amount of the reimbursement

to which the insured is entitled under subsection (1) in accordance with

the regulations.]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 170, by deleting

the definition of “licensed vehicle” and substituting

the following:

“licensed vehicle” means a vehicle

(

a) that is not any of the following:

(

i) a non-standard motor vehicle;

(ii) an excluded vehicle;

(iii) a vehicle in a class of prescribed class of

vehicles, and

(

b) that is one of the following:

(

i) a vehicle registered and licensed under the Motor

Vehicle Act or the Commercial Transport

Act ;

(ii) a vehicle for which a permit has been issued under

the Motor Vehicle Act or the Commercial Transport

Act ;

(iii) a vehicle registered in a jurisdiction in the area

described in

section 118 of this Act for which licensing requirements of

the jurisdiction in which the vehicle is registered are

ful­filled; . ]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 172 (2), by

adding the underlined text as shown:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply respecting actions to be

brought or proceedings to be commenced or maintained against

(

a) persons who, at the time of the accident, are not

owners, lessees named in an owner’s certificate, occupants or operators

of included vehicles involved in the accident, and

(

b) persons in a prescribed class of persons by persons

in a prescribed class of persons .]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 173, by adding

the underlined text as shown:

No actions or proceedings for vehicle damage — accident

off-highway

(1) In this section,

“licensed person” , in relation to a licensed

vehicle, means

(

a) an owner, a lessee named in an owner’s certificate, an

occupant or an operator, or

(

b) a person in a prescribed class of

persons.

(2) Despite any other law or enactment,

(

a) a licensed person , other than a licensed person in

a prescribed class of licensed persons, has no right of action

and must not commence or maintain proceedings against another licensed

person respecting vehicle damage sustained to a licensed vehicle in an

accident that

(

i) occurred off-highway, and

(ii) involved at least 2 licensed vehicles;

(

b) no action or proceeding may be commenced or maintained

by a licensed person , other than a licensed person in a prescribed

class of licensed persons, against another licensed person

respecting vehicle damage sustained to the licensed vehicle in an

accident that

(

i) occurred off-highway, and

(ii) involved at least 2 licensed vehicles.

(3) Despite the Negligence Act , in an action to

which subsection (2) of this

section does not apply respecting an

accident that

(

a) occurred off-highway, and

(

b) involved at least 2 licensed vehicles,

if 2 or more persons are responsible for the vehicle damage

arising out of the accident, they are liable for any damages awarded for

that vehicle damage in the degree to which they are respectively

responsible and are not liable to make contribution to and indemnify

each other respecting that liability or any payment made in relation to

it.]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 174 (1) and (4),

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the

underlined text as shown:

(1) In this section, “eligible vehicle”

means

(

a) a licensed vehicle with respect to which coverage is,

under this Part, provided by a certificate,

(

b) a non-standard motor vehicle

(

i) with respect to which

(

A) a licence or permit has been issued under the

Motor Vehicle Act or the Commercial Transport Act ,

and

(

B) coverage is provided by a certificate,

and

(ii) that was involved in an accident that occurred on the

portion of the highway on which the vehicle is authorized to be

operated,

(

c) an excluded vehicle

(

i) with respect to which

(

A) a permit has been issued under the Motor Vehicle

Act or the Commercial Transport Act , and

(

B) coverage is provided by a certificate,

and

(ii) that was involved in an accident that occurred on the

portion of the highway on which the vehicle is authorized to be

operated, and

(

d) a vehicle with respect to which coverage is provided

by a certificate and that is in a prescribed class of

vehicles .

but does not include a vehicle in a prescribed class of vehicles.

(4) The total value of indemnification under subsection

(3) must be reduced by the extent to which, expressed as a

percentage,

(

a) the insured is responsible for the accident,

and the owner and the operator of the insured’s eligible

vehicle and a person in a prescribed class of persons is responsible

for the accident, and

(

b) another person whose name is not ascertainable is

responsible for the accident.]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 175 (4), by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown:

(4) The total value of indemnification under subsection

(3) must be reduced by the extent to which, expressed as a

percentage,

(

a) the insured is responsible for the accident,

and the owner and the operator of the insured’s eligible

vehicle and a person in a prescribed class of persons is responsible

for the accident, and

(

b) another person whose name is not ascertainable is

responsible for the accident.]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 178, by deleting

the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Recovery

(1) In this section:

“out-of-province owner” means a person who has

ownership of a motor vehicle in a jurisdiction outside

British Columbia in accordance with the law of that

jurisdiction;

“owner” includes an out-of-province

owner.

(2) Subject to the regulations and subsection (3), the

corporation may recover indemnification paid to an insured under this

Part in relation to an accident on a highway ,

(

a) in relation to an accident on a highway or

off-highway, from an owner of a vehicle described in subsection

(4) except in the prescribed circumstances,

(

b) in relation to an accident on a highway, from

an operator or occupant of a vehicle described in subsection (4)

(

i) the operator or occupant knew or ought to have known

that the vehicle is not a licensed vehicle, or

(ii) the accident occurs on the portion of the highway on

which the vehicle is not authorized to be operated, and

(

c) in relation to an accident on a highway or

off-highway, from a person in a prescribed class of persons in

relation to a vehicle described in subsection (4).

(3) Recovery under subsection (2) is limited to the extent

to which, expressed as a percentage and applied to the amount paid under

this Part, the applicable person referred to in subsection (2) is

responsible for the accident.

(4) The following vehicles are vehicles for the purposes of

subsection (2):

(

a) a vehicle that is none of the following:

(

i) an excluded vehicle, other than a vehicle described in

paragraph (

c) of this subsection;

(ii) a licensed vehicle;

(iii) a non-standard motor vehicle, other than a vehicle

described in paragraph (

b) of this subsection;

(

b) a non-standard motor vehicle

(

i) with respect to which

(

A) a licence or permit has been issued under the

Motor Vehicle Act or the Commercial Transport Act ,

and

(

B) coverage is provided by a certificate,

and

(ii) that is involved in an accident that occurs on the

portion of the highway on which the vehicle is not authorized to be

operated;

(

c) an excluded vehicle

(

i) with respect to which

(

A) a permit has been issued under the Motor Vehicle

Act or the Commercial Transport Act , and

(

B) coverage is provided by a certificate,

and

(ii) that is involved in an accident that occurs on the

portion of the highway on which the vehicle is not authorized to be

operated;

(

d) a vehicle in a prescribed class of

vehicles.

(5) An Subject to the regulations,

an insurer that

(

a) is authorized to transact vehicle insurance in Canada

or the United States of America, and

(

b) has insured a vehicle for which the licensing

requirements of the jurisdiction in which the vehicle is registered are

fulfilled

may recover insurance money paid under a contract of insurance as

a result of an accident from a person referred to in

subsection (2), but only to the extent that the corporation could

recover under subsection (2) had the money been paid by the corporation

under

section 174 or 175 .

(6) An Subject to the regulations,

an owner of a vehicle described in

section 1.01 may recover

damage or losses with respect to vehicle damage as a result of an

accident from a person referred to in subsection (2) of this section,

but only to the extent that the corporation could recover under

subsection (2) of this

section had the money been paid by the

corporation under

section 174 or 175 .]

SECTION 32, in the proposed

section 180 (2), by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant

Governor in Council may make regulations under this Part as

follows:

(

a) establishing requirements and procedures respecting

disputes of claimants and insureds in relation to a

determination or decision made by the corporation under this

Part;

(

b) respecting an evaluation process for settling disputes

between an insurer the corporation and an insured

about the nature and extent of repairs required for a vehicle, the

replacement of a vehicle or the amount payable in respect of direct loss

of or damage to the vehicle and how the costs of the evaluation are

paid;

(

c) exempting prescribed disputes or disputes in

prescribed circumstances from the evaluation process;

(

d) providing that prescribed disputes may or must be

submitted to arbitration, and governing the rights and obligations of

the arbitrator and a party to the arbitration;

(

e) respecting the priority of claims under the plan or

optional insurance contracts;

(

f) respecting indemnification provided under

section 174

(3) or 175 (3), including, without limitation, regulations respecting

how and in what form indemnification may be provided;

(

g) respecting indemnification that was not paid or that

was reduced , suspended or cancelled in prescribed circumstances

under

section 177 (1) (

f) if the circumstances change, including

determining if interest is payable, and if so, the amount of interest

and the manner of payment;

(

h) if an amount is paid under a regulation made under

paragraph (

g) and the circumstances revert to the prescribed

circumstances in which insurance money should not have been paid or

should have been reduced, suspended or cancelled, respecting the

repayment of the insurance money paid, including the manner of

repayment;

(

i) respecting claims under this Part, including, without

limitation, regulations authorizing the corporation to establish

requirements respecting

(

i) the form and manner of making claims,

(ii) the time by which claims must be made,

(iii) the circumstances in which the corporation may

extend a time established for making a claim, and

(iv) procedures to be followed by claimants or

insureds respecting a determination or decision made by the

corporation under this Part;

(

j) establishing requirements respecting how an

authorization made under a regulation made under paragraph (

f) is to be

carried out.]

On the amendments.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: These amendments amend

section 153 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act

being added by

section 32 of Bill 11 to strike out “caregiver benefit”

and replace it with “amount of the reimbursement.” This corrects a

drafting error.

Section 152 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act sets out the caregiver

benefit, and

section 153 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act sets out the

entitlement of those individuals receiving an income replacement benefit

to be reimbursed for care expenses if an individual is unable, because

of their bodily injury, to provide care.

It also amends

section 170 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, being

added by

section 32 of the bill, to replace the definition of “licensed

vehicle.” The new definition of “licensed vehicle” adds the authority to

prescribe a vehicle in a prescribed class of vehicles as not licensed

vehicles for the purposes of

part 11 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. It

is anticipated the vehicles which will be prescribed are the same

vehicles currently excluded from basic insurance by regulations, such as

aircraft, except when the aircraft are being drawn as a trailer on a

highway.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Vehicles excluded from the definition of “licensed vehicle” are

not subject to the ban on lawsuits for vehicle damage and not eligible

for basic vehicle damage coverage.

Finally, these amendments amend

section 172(2)(

b) of the Insurance

(Vehicle) Act, being added by

section 32 of Bill 11, to add “by persons

in a prescribed class of persons.”

Section 172 sets out the ban on

lawsuits with respect to vehicle damage for accidents occurring on a

highway. Subsection 2 sets out the exceptions to that ban.

With the amendment, there will be sufficient authority for the

anticipated regulation, which will allow, for example, lawsuits between

owners of vehicles in specific circumstances, such as where a vehicle

and trailers with different ownership are being operated in combination,

or lawsuits by owners against a thief.

I said finally, but I’m going to keep going. The amendments also

amend

section 173 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, being added by

section

32 of Bill 11, to add in subsections 2(

a) and (b), “other than a

licensed person in a prescribed class of licensed persons.”

Section 173

sets out the ban on lawsuits with respect to vehicle damage for

accidents occurring off-highway. Subsection 2 sets out the exceptions to

that ban.

With the amendment, there will be sufficient authority for the

anticipated regulation, which will allow, for example, lawsuits between

owners of licensed vehicles in specific circumstances, such as where

vehicles and trailers with different ownership are being operated in

combination off-highway, or lawsuits by owners against a

thief.

They amend

section 174 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, being added

section 32 of Bill 11, to add after

section 174(1)(d) “but does not

include a vehicle in a prescribed class of vehicles” and replace

section

174(4)(

a) with “the owner and the operator of the insured’s eligible

vehicle and a person in a prescribed class of persons is responsible for

the accident, and.”

Section 174(1) sets out the definition of “eligible vehicle” for

basic vehicle damage coverage for accidents which occur on a highway.

The amendment provides authority for the regulation to remove vehicles

from the definition. Vehicles removed from the definition are not

subject to the ban on lawsuits for vehicle damage on a highway and are

not eligible for basic vehicle damage coverage. As noted with sections

172 and 173, these will be vehicles currently excluded from basic

insurance.

Section 174(4) sets out the reductions from basic vehicle damage

coverage when the listed persons are responsible for the accident. Basic

vehicle damage coverage is a fault-dependent product. Generally, this

maintains the status quo.

It also replaces

section 175(4)(

a) with “the owner and operator of

the insured’s eligible vehicle and a person in a prescribed class of

persons is responsible for the accident, and.”

Section 175(4) sets out

the reductions from basic vehicle damage coverage when the list of

persons are responsible for the accident occurring off-highway. Basic

vehicle damage coverage is a fault-dependent product. Generally, this

maintains the status quo.

In the definition of “out-of-province owner,” the amendments

strike out “motor.” In subsection 2, striking out “in relation to an

accident on a highway” before paragraph (a).

In paragraph (2)(a), adding “in relation to an accident on a

highway or off-highway” and adding “except.” In paragraph (2)(b), adding

“in relation to an accident on a highway.” In paragraph (2)(c), adding

“in relation to an accident on a highway or off-highway.” In subsections

(5) and (6), adding “Subject to the regulations” and “or

175.”

[3:35 p.m.]

Section 178 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act sets out the statutory

right of recovery with respect to basic legal damage coverage. The

amendments ensure that the provision and regulations under the provision

work as intended.

The amendments also amend

section 180 of the Insurance (Vehicle)

Act being added by

section 32 of Bill

Section 180 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act sets out the authority

to make regulations for the purposes of

part 10, basic vehicle damage

coverage. The amendments ensure regulations can be made as

intended.

The Chair: One moment, please.

Thank you, Members. Just before we proceed, are any members

interested in speaking to these amendments?

The Attorney General has moved eight amendments — we’ll

enumerate those — to

section 32. All amendments are provided on the

order paper. The amendments to

section 32 are as follows. We’ve got

170, 172(2), 173, 174(1) and (4) — getting complicated, Members —

175(4), 178 and 180(2).

I’m joining this in progress, Members. Thank you for your

understanding.

My question now is: should these amendments pass? We’re going

to vote on that now.

Hon. D. Eby: I think maybe

section 116 was missed in the recitation of sections

that were amended, or did we pass that one first?

The Chair: We’ll check that. Appreciate that. There’s a total of nine

here.

Thank you, Attorney General, for alerting us to that. That’s

section 116(1). That, I think, adds the one that you would like,

sir.

Now we’re going to vote on all of these.

Amendments approved.

section 32 as amended.

M. Lee: I wanted to turn to

section 32 of this bill and specifically the

definition of “catastrophic injury” as set out with the prescribed

meaning.

[3:40 p.m.]

Can I ask the Attorney General what will be included in this

definition?

Hon. D. Eby: First of all, I want to correct a response that I gave to the

member earlier about who was blacklisting occupational therapists. I

said that it was the Trial Lawyers Advisory Group, which was a

subsection of the Trial Lawyers Association. That is not correct. It is

a separate law firm that has that name. It is very similar, but it’s not

otherwise affiliated. I mean, the firm may have members who are members

of the Trial Lawyers.

The Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. has not sent letters. I want

to be very clear about that on the record. Other people did but not the

Trial Lawyers Association.

With respect to the member’s question, which is an important one,

there are degrees of an in-depth answer that I could provide. The most

in-depth answer would be to read out

schedule 4 of the Manitoba act,

which details, in incredibly technical medical terminology, the types of

injuries that are considered catastrophic. This is the model for our

regulation.

To give an idea of what is intended here in more lay terminology….

My apologies to those who are more versed in these areas. The Manitoba

definition is a five-page definition in their schedule. Our intention is

to include things like amputations, loss of vision, alteration of brain

function, severe burns, loss of range of motion in various

circumstances, and so on.

Obviously, I’m not talking about quadriplegia. I’m not taking the

most extreme. I’m trying to bring it more towards the end of things that

the member may be asking. How far does it go in terms of the other end

of the spectrum? So up to and including loss of range of motion in some

circumstances.

M. Lee: I appreciate the reference point to the way that it’s defined

under the Manitoba act as

schedule 4. Is there any contemplated

differences between the definition that will be prescribed by regulation

here in B.C., under this bill, versus that definition in

Manitoba?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: At this point, we’re not contemplating changes from the Manitoba

statute. We are consulting with medical experts to make sure that it’s

appropriate for the B.C. context.

M. Lee: In terms of spelling out the definition by way of regulation,

what’s expected to change by virtue of doing it that way?

Hon. D. Eby: The engagement with Doctors of B.C., in particular but not

exclusively, continues on this. It’s a highly technical list. I

understand that one of the benefits of having it in the regulation is

that if there’s another area that needs to be added to ensure that

people receive appropriate benefits for a catastrophic injury, it’s much

easier to do that through regulation.

One of the things that I have underlined for the member, going

forward, is that we’re intending to have engagement processes with

groups like Doctors of B.C., occupational therapists and others

throughout the implementation and following implementation of this so

that we can make sure we’ve got it right. We don’t expect

to….

I mean, I just read out five or six amendments to

section 32. This

is an evolving piece of work. It will require amendment, we expect, to

make sure that we’ve got it right for British Columbia. So having it in

regulation facilitates us making sure that we don’t leave anyone

behind.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General acknowledging the nature of the

number of amendments that were tabled here in this House after Bill 11

was introduced. I think that’s indicative of the complexity of the

legislation that government is presenting here.

The Attorney General, in response — thank you for that — indicates

that there may be additional items included in the definition of a

catastrophic injury. Presumably, that will only lead to additional

benefits being extended to those who have different types of

catastrophic injury, as it might be defined. I appreciate that the

Attorney General has indicated it that way.

[3:50 p.m.]

Of course, as we’ve talked about at length in this chamber, there

has been recent precedent for how the definition and the process around

definition is set in regulation and can go the other way. That is

where…. Well, actually, it’s the same way. It was an addition to minor

injury, when brain injury and concussion were added to that definition,

even though the government, when they passed the bill in the House,

didn’t have that included.

I want to just read into the record a letter that I have been

provided by the Cridge Centre for the Family manager of brain injury

services, the Victoria Brain Injury Society and the Cowichan Brain

Injury Society. It’s a joint letter. One of the members there has been

in the media recently to talk about, again, the challenge with the

inclusion of brain injury and concussion in the minor injury

definition.

I only raise this to illustrate the challenge with

definitions by

way of regulation when it is a critical definition in this bill, as the

member for Surrey South had talked about previously in her comments in

committee and as it will come later on in this discussion.

The statement is this:

“We were first told, in February 2018, that ICBC could balance its

books by moving minor injury claims out of the court system. Despite

repeated assurances to the contrary, by November 2018, we learned that

ICBC had lobbied government to have concussions included in its

definition of a minor injury.

“British Columbia is now the only province in Canada with an injury

compensation law that presumes a concussion is minor unless and until

the victim can show it to be otherwise. How is the brain injury survivor

expected to prove the severity and extent of their condition?

“Under the current minor injury approach, disagreements between ICBC

and the victims are now settled before the civil resolution tribunal.

The CRT has been promoted as a streamlined option for benefit disputes

to be resolved online by the parties themselves. The advantages touted

by the CRT are cold comfort to brain injury survivors who are now

expected to square off against experienced insurance professionals at

ICBC and prove their need for ongoing treatment and compensation,

largely on their own.

“How effective or persuasive would you be in a Zoom meeting if you

were struggling with memory loss, word-finding difficulties and impulse

control problems — three of the most common symptoms our clients

confront as a result of their prior injuries?”

I read that second paragraph just to illustrate further the

challenge for those who are working through the system when the

definition is expanded. That is the previous changes, both the changes

to adopt a minor injury cap with the definition that was subsequently

expanded by way of regulation and, of course, the civil resolution

tribunal, which we will come to, in terms of how you hold ICBC

accountable for the decisions that they make at the adjuster level, at

least in theory.

The challenge, of course, is that when we are talking about

catastrophic injury, individuals…. The 400 or 500 British Columbians

that suffer from those severe injuries every year are even more

challenged to deal with ICBC. So when we talk about the

definition….

I would ask the Attorney General: has there been…? What level of

consultation has been made with those, for example, in the brain injury

community?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: My staff advise that they have received the full list of groups we

consulted with. On that list are eight groups that are specifically

engaged in brain injury rehabilitation and support. They are included on

the list that staff will be sending into the chamber very shortly, to

the member. And just so that I can be a little bit more explicit about

why I’d prefer to do it that way this time, it’s in relation to my

concern about what’s happening to the occupational

therapists.

With respect to Cridge, I have seen their correspondence. They

wrote to me. I certainly understand their perspective in terms of a lack

of trust of ICBC, given what they have seen, trying to support people in

the current system. I am happy to meet with Cridge and with the other

organizations to do what I can to show them what safeguards we’ve put in

place and what we’re going to be doing around cultural transformation,

because I think the system will be better if we receive their feedback

about how best to support their members. But I wouldn’t want to leave

members with the impression that we had not engaged with groups that

support people with brain injuries.

I will note for the record…. I need to do this every time, because

the member continually repeats that brain injuries and concussions are

included as minor injuries — only those concussions that resolve within

16 weeks, in terms of a person completing the duties of ordinary life

and the obligations of ordinary life. Those that continue on beyond six

weeks are not minor injuries.

I do understand the member’s position that people who have a

concussion that resolves within 16 weeks should go to B.C. Supreme Court

and have access to unlimited pain and suffering awards. That was not our

intention with the minor injury definition. So through engagement, we

were able to get feedback that for minor…. And I do want to note with

caution, because the terminology of the statute, rather than my own

feeling about the impact of a concussion injury….

For a more minor concussion injury, relatively speaking, one that

resolves within 16 weeks, it should not be going to B.C. Supreme Court,

with all of the attendant expenses, nor should it entitle a person to

unlimited pain and suffering awards. It is appropriately included within

the scope of minor injury.

It looks like I’ve received the list. I’ll send the list over to

both my friends on the other side who are working on this file,

Richmond-Queensborough and Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: Thank you for the list as well.

[4:00 p.m.]

I want to, just for the interest of time here, move on to

section

116(2)(

f) and ask the Attorney General why the threshold is so high at

criminal convictions before you can sue an at-fault driver?

Hon. D. Eby: Under our current system, if you are negligent, if you are

speeding, you are still covered by your insurance. Certainly, if the

conversation is about personal responsibility and making sure that we’re

holding people responsible for their driving choices, there is not a

significant shift between the new approach and the old one. I think it

is a surprise to people when a clearly at-fault driver — distracted

driver, negligent driver, reckless driver — shows up in court with an

ICBC-paid-for lawyer, and the injured person is defending themselves out

of their settlement awards. That is how our current system works. It

provides lawyers for at-fault drivers, because that’s what they’re

buying their insurance coverage for.

Under the new system, people who…. The system mirrors the existing

system to some extent, to a point, which is where you are convicted of a

criminal offence, and it is actually an expansion, in some ways,

depending on the offence. But regardless, if you are convicted of a

criminal offence, you can be sued personally, and the reason for that

inclusion is because one of the major critiques of no-fault systems is

that they don’t assign responsibility.

We weren’t going to have a system that did that in British

Columbia. We were going to have a system that did assign responsibility

in two ways. For up to a criminal offence, your insurance premiums will

increase, in some cases dramatically, depending on your conduct while

you’re driving, and you will be paying a significant amount of

additional money. If you’re not at fault in a collision, your insurance

premiums will not increase. So there’s accountability up to that

point.

For a criminal conviction, there’s an extra level of culpability.

A court has found you, beyond a reasonable doubt, as the member said, to

have engaged in criminal conduct behind the wheel. As a result of that

special culpability, we feel that there should be special personal

responsibility, namely that you can be personally sued and brought

through the tort system so that someone can recover assets from you in

an attempt to offset some of their experience that they’ve had to endure

because of your criminal decision.

[4:05 p.m.]

I hope that helps the member understand some of the philosophy

behind the approach where, up until the point of criminal conviction, we

use things like fines and fees through the insurance system and outside

the insurance system, and the increase in insurance rates, and then

criminal culpability changes the game because it is so singular and

different. That results in the law suit being able to go

ahead.

M. Lee: I want to just go back over the Attorney General’s response. I

appreci