Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 7, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 129

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

Statements

Apology for comments made in the House

Hon. R. Fleming

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Les Wingrove

Hon. S. Robinson

Introductions by Members

Statements

Child Care Month

Hon. K. Conroy

Introductions by Members

Statements

Emergency Preparedness Week

J. Rice

Bike to Work Week

D. Routley

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 19 — Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 34 — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment

Act, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Diamond jubilee of Aga Khan

J. Routledge

B.C. Ambulance Service

N. Letnick

Mental health of children and youth

R. Leonard

Foundry youth mental health services

J. Thornthwaite

Multiple sclerosis

A. Kang

Chinese University of Hong Kong

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on municipal

budgets

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

T. Stone

Fishing industry quota system and support for young

fishers

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Fish health and wild salmon protection

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Impact of employer health tax on municipal

budgets

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

M. Stilwell

T. Redies

Emergency services at hospitals

J. Isaacs

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Elections B.C., report of the Chief Electoral Officer on recommendations

for legislative change, May 2018

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act,

2018 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018

(continued)

J. Martin

S. Cadieux

A. Kang

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 18 — Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs

Reports) Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Sullivan

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

M. Hunt

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

(continued)

Hon. J. Sims

M. de Jong

B. Stewart

S. Thomson

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family

Development (continued)

D. Barnett

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Thornthwaite

L. Throness

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2018

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: It is with tremendous admiration that I recognize the individuals

standing guard today, the honour guard and the senior executive of the B.C.

Ambulance Service. We’re joined by Mike Wright, Marilyn Oberg, Janis

Travaleen, Paul Valley, Glen Greenhill and, always, by the effervescent Lynn

Klein.

[1:35 p.m.]

Extraordinary. We’re in the presence of greatness, I believe. When we

call 911, these are the individuals that respond. I’d ask the House to

please give them the warmest welcome possible.

Hon. A. Dix: I’d like to join my colleague from Richmond South Centre. Members of

the House who were here during the last parliament will know it was under

the former Speaker’s direction that the Fallen Paramedics Memorial monument

was established here in the Legislature. It was an important day for

ambulance paramedics everywhere.

I encourage all members, if they haven’t been there — I know we often

are stuck in the House these days, but they’re there until seven o’clock

today, and they started at six o’clock yesterday — to join, behind the

Legislature at the monument, ambulance paramedics in paying tribute to their

fallen comrades but also to them and the work they do for us every

day.

I want to acknowledge some people, including Joe Smirh, Marilyn Oberg,

Janis Travaleen and Paul Valley, who are involved in that in various

capacities, but all of the ambulance paramedics who are taking

part in those

events over the next couple of days, ending at seven o’clock

tonight.

I also have the opportunity…. I think many members of the House were

in the Rattenbury Room today to get a presentation from occupational

therapists from across B.C. My colleague the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions made sure that I understood and made the point that occupational

therapists also play a critical role in the mental health system in British

Columbia.

I wanted to introduce the following OTs. I may go into OT here on this

introduction, because there are quite a few: Giovanna Boniface; Sarah

Charles; Dr. Skye Barbic; Tracy Adams; Jeff Boniface; Laura Bulk; Andrea

McNeill; Amit Kumar; Allison Patterson; Stephanie Glegg; Meredith Blinkhorn;

Michelle Pidduck; Jeannette Boily; and Nicole Crampton, who’s the chief

occupational therapist of the University of Northern British Columbia,

interestingly. Finally, I wish the House would wish all of the OTs

welcome.

Also, many members on both sides of the House, joined by the Premier

and many members on the opposition side and from the Green caucus, were at

the lunch event provided by the MS Society today. It was a very moving event

where we heard stories about real people and their struggles with MS and

some of the things that we can do together to make people’s lives easier

and, of course, to find a cure.

I wanted to introduce Tania Vrionis, the president of the MS Society

of B.C. and the Yukon; Tracey Fresneda, the board chair; Charles Aruliah,

the manager of government relations; Marilyn Lenzen, Michelle Hewitt, Ed

Jackson; David Allin; Pippa Blake; Rahul Ray; Pauline Adams; Richard

Swinden; Alan Miller; and the Premier’s former boss Lynn Hunter, an advocate

extraordinaire, and her daughter Megan.

I wish the House would wish everyone who is joining us today

welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today on behalf of you, Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce

a longtime friend of the Legislative Assembly.

Dr. Patrick Smith has been the academic director of the B.C.

legislative internship program since January of 2005 and has aptly provided

support and guidance to this great program for many years. He first became

involved with the internship program at the very beginning, in 1975, as part

of the selection committee. His involvement with the program has been steady

and true for over 40 years.

Dr. Smith holds both an undergraduate and graduate degree in political

science from McMaster University and his PhD from the London School of

Economics. As a professor of political science at Simon Fraser University as

well as the current director of the Institute of Governance Studies, his

research interests include public policy, local and metropolitan governance,

political parties and elections and, as well, all things politic. He has

authored and co-authored over a dozen books on these topics.

[1:40 p.m.]

He will be retiring as the academic director of the B.C. legislative

internship program this year. He will be greatly missed by many, especially

the parliamentary education office staff, who have had the honour to work

with and learn from him. He is passionate about the internship program and

the many learning opportunities that it brings to B.C.’s best and brightest

graduates and wishes the program continued success, just as all of us here

wish him the best in his well-deserved retirement.

S. Bond: I know that all of my colleagues in the House would be well aware of

the good work that’s done by the British Columbia Schizophrenia Society.

It’s a non-profit organization. It has a wide family-supporting network. I’m

really pleased to introduce three members of the organization that are here

today. Andrew Stewart is the operations manager. Tom Conway is the new

executive director.

I’m probably a little biased, but David Halikowski is here. He is from

Prince George. He served as the president of the organization. He is

certainly one of those hard-working volunteers that work right across the

province to improve the lives of people who are suffering with mental

illness. I know that my colleagues will want to make them most welcome

today.

Hon. J. Darcy: Today is the start of Mental Health Week and Child Mental Health Day,

and 2018 also marks the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Mental Health

Association in Canada. To celebrate these occasions, we are joined by 47

representatives of the CMHA from across British Columbia. They work hard

every day, whether they’re involved directly in

delivering services, whether it’s

involved in advocacy or whether it’s by volunteering their time. They make

an enormous difference in people’s lives every single day.

There are 47 guests today, so I’m not going to introduce all of them,

but I do want to especially acknowledge Bev Gutray, who is the CEO of CMHA

B.C. I also want to acknowledge one particular guest, Dr. Jean Moore, who

has been a lifelong advocate for the mental health of children and youth, a

long-time supporter of CMHA and also of First Call: B.C. Child and Youth

Advocacy Coalition.

I would ask all of the members of the House — I know that many of you

have met with them or will be meeting with them later today — to please make

them very, very welcome and join their call when they say: “Get loud about

mental health.”

S. Sullivan: I have four very special guests. Tom Gautreau is an entrepreneur and

job creator in Vancouver who contributes in many ways, including as a member

of the Audain Art Museum board. We also have Nick and Ben Gudewell, who are

a longtime business family in Victoria who are committed to the well-being

of all British Columbians. And especially my wife, my amazing Lynn, without

whom I would not be here today. Please make them all welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us this in the members’ gallery this afternoon is Her

Excellency Natasha Smith, the new High Commissioner of Australia to Canada.

Along with her is her second secretary, Ms. Brittany Noakes, and the

honorary consul to Vancouver, Mr. Kevin Lamb.

The delegation is here to talk about relationships between Canada and

Australia, most importantly meeting with members of executive council today

and tomorrow. I’ll have the opportunity to meet with the delegation

tomorrow. I look forward to talking about the Australian test team

absolutely crushing the Brits in Sydney in the final test of The Ashes this

past summer in Australia. I know it was a great day for me, and a great day

for all British Columbians, to see Australia prevail once again with The

Ashes. I know all members will want to put cricket aside for now and welcome

our Australian friends here to the Legislature.

J. Thornthwaite: I would also like to put a little plug in for the occupational

therapists. I’m not going to go through the whole list — the Minister of

Health has already done that — but a special mention to a couple of my

constituents, Giovanna and Jeff Boniface. Will the House please make them

welcome.

Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

Hon. R. Fleming: A couple of items. Firstly, on the last sitting day of the House,

I understand that I may have caused offence to the member for Prince

George–Valemount. This was certainly not my intention, and I want to

take this opportunity this afternoon to apologize to that

member.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: On another entirely unrelated item of business, I want to make an

introduction, following on the Minister of Health’s introduction, to a

constituent of mine, Ms. Ginny Kenyon, who is an occupational therapist at

the Vancouver Island Health Authority. She is here, of course, with the

delegation from the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, B.C.

chapter. She’s a strong and persuasive advocate for her profession in my

community. I would ask the House to make her most welcome.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, please let me join the Deputy Speaker in wishing a very

happy retirement to Dr. Paddy Smith as the academic director of the B.C.

legislative internship program.

For more than a decade, Paddy has balanced his duties as an academic

and director of the Institute of Governance Studies at SFU with his

legislative work. In my experience, frankly, those two worlds can indeed be

quite the balancing act. Paddy has had a hand in selecting the interns who

have assisted many of us in the House, and after years of asking for interns

in the Green caucus, we finally got two of our own — the amazing Alex

McGowan and the incredible Kayla Phillips.

For all of you who have contributed to the study of politics in B.C.

and the work that has been done in this House, thank you, Paddy, and enjoy

the well-earned retirement.

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us today in the gallery are two old friends, longtime

activists and leaders of the Construction and Specialized Workers Union

Local 1611. I’ll start with Merrick Walsh, who is also a leader in the

retiree council, a tireless advocate for his members and for a better

community as well as very, very active in the community.

The other member, currently president of the retiree council, Bruce

Ferguson, is a very, very old friend of mine from our time in Terrace,

British Columbia, where we shared a mentor. Finn Ferguson taught me how to

work hard as well as to stand up for myself and was also, of course, Bruce’s

dad. Bruce has been a great leader in his union and in the

community.

Would the House please join me in making them both very, very

welcome.

E. Foster: I have four guests here in the House today from Vernon, and I speak

also on behalf of the member for Shuswap, because they represent an area in

his riding as well. From the Queen Silver Star Excellence ambassadors

program we have Queen Angitha, Princess MacKenzie and, accompanying them,

two long-suffering volunteers with the program. They’ve done a great job for

the community. They travel around the province with the ladies as they

represent the North Okanagan — Coleen Noel and Karen Humphreys. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Tributes

LES WINGROVE

Hon. S. Robinson: I have some unfortunate news from my community to share with the

House. A longtime lacrosse coach, manager and club executive, Les

Wingrove, passed away about ten days ago. He was just 74. He formed the

Coquitlam Minor Lacrosse Association in the early 1970s. He was a

manager of teams that won both the Minto and Mann Cups. He worked as the

director of operations and alternate governor for the Coquitlam Junior

Adanacs and as the assistant general manager and alternate governor for

the Western Lacrosse Association’s Langley Thunder.

He was an inductee, as a builder, into the Canadian Lacrosse Hall

of Fame. He was instrumental in the formation of the Coquitlam Sports

Hall of Fame. The family is encouraging donations to the Trevor Wingrove

Bursary Fund in lieu of flowers. I was friends with his son Trevor, who

died at the age of 42, in 2010, of cancer. It’s really heartbreaking for

this family to have yet another death.

There is a memorial to honour Les and his work, both for the

lacrosse community and for the Coquitlam community. It’s this Saturday

at one o’clock at the Poirier centre. I’m very proud of my community and

the volunteers who are putting this memorial together for everyone to

come together. I hope that the members of the House and the Speaker

share their condolences with the community.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Michelle Hewitt here from the

Kelowna–Lake Country riding. Also, her mom is accompanying Michelle —

Pauline Adams, from Great Britain, somewhere in that wonderful

country.

Michelle is a testament to what it really means to be an advocate for

people with diverse abilities. As you can see, Michelle drives an electric

go-cart. Sometimes she talks about how fast she can go in that wheelchair of

hers. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I’ve seen her advocate not only for

people with MS in her riding, in her constituency and in her community but

for people with MS all across this country. It gives me great pleasure and

privilege to say that I’m her representative in this place.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’ve seen many changes that have happened over the last few years

because of Michelle’s advocacy for people with MS. Would the House please

help me welcome and congratulate her and all of the MS people.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d almost given up.

Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon is Dr. Tuti Irman,

the new consul general of the Republic of Indonesia in Vancouver. She’s here

on her first official visit and met with the Lieutenant-Governor at

Government House this morning. Would the House please make this new consul

general welcome here in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to welcome two guests that are in the House today from the

Kwantlen Student Association — Nicki Simpson, who’s the policy and political

affairs coordinator; and Caitlin McCutchen, the president of the Kwantlen

Student Association and the chair of the Alliance of B.C. Students. They’re

in the chambers today to advocate on behalf of their 19,000 members. Will

the House please join me in welcoming our guests today.

T. Stone: It’s not often that I get to stand and introduce folks who are here

from Kamloops–South Thompson, but today is one of those days — three

individuals. First off, I would like to welcome the mayor of the village of

Chase, Rick Berrigan, who is here today along with the CIO for the village

of Chase, Joni Heinrich.

Chase is a beautiful community, the western gateway to the Shuswaps.

It’s on the Little Shuswap Lake, which is the source of the South Thompson

River. It’s a vibrant, progressive community filled with people with big

hearts. Certainly, Mayor Berrigan and CIO Heinrich embody that to the nth

degree.

I would also like to welcome Aleece Laird, who is here with us today.

She’s an entrepreneur and small business owner, a larger-than-life

personality, someone who has done a tremendous amount to build the community

in Kamloops.

I would ask the House: please make Aleece and the mayor of Chase, Rick

Berrigan, and CIO Joni Heinrich welcome here today.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce some folks up in the gallery today from

Citizens Climate Lobby. Laura Sacks, Judy O’Leary and Anni Holtby have come

from the Kootenays. As well, Caelen Cook and Kayla Brent are here. Citizens

Climate Lobby is a group of citizen advocates who are working to create the

political will for a livable climate, something very important when we talk

about intergenerational equity.

Statements

CHILD CARE MONTH

Hon. K. Conroy: Seeing as we weren’t here last week, this is my first opportunity

to recognize that May is Child Care Month, an opportunity to highlight

the importance of improving access to affordable, quality child care

throughout B.C., as well as to acknowledge the amazing people right

across the province who are involved in child care, including child care

providers, licensing officers, instructors of early childhood educators

and early childhood educators themselves.

In fact, I had the honour, along with our Minister of State for

Child Care and the Minister of Education, to address the Early Childhood

Educators of B.C. Conference on Friday. I have to tell you it was a room

full of energized people excited about the changes coming in B.C. — not

only what it means to them but what it means to families and children

that they provide services to.

I also want to point out that the CEO, Don Giesbrecht, of the

Canadian Child Care Foundation was there. He said it was the first time

ever that he’d been at a provincial or national conference where three

ministers were actually there talking about child care and acknowledging

the commitment of child care in this province.

Please join me, all, in recognizing that May is Child Care

Month.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I wish to acknowledge the presence of Ron Woodward, longtime civil

servant, a professional, dedicated individual, outstanding human being. I’d

ask the House to please make him welcome.

Statements

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

J. Rice: Today I’d like to recognize two partners in preparedness, but let

me tell you why first. According to a PreparedBC survey, many British

Columbians aren’t prepared for disaster and don’t have the supplies

necessary to take care of their families. So for this week, which is

Emergency Preparedness Week, our governments and our partners are

committed to changing this.

We’re launching the Partners in Preparedness program to help more

British Columbians get prepared. Under the program, B.C. retailers will

champion emergency readiness by promoting and selling disaster supplies

in their stores.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’m thrilled to announce the first two B.C. retailers to come on

board, London Drugs and Save-On Foods. British Columbians will be able

to visit these retailers and grab a premade emergency supply list and

build their kits in one big shopping trip — one easy shopping

trip.

I’d like to call on all British Columbians to get their kits

stocked and ready to go. And I encourage all B.C. retailers to get on

board with the Partners in Preparedness program.

BIKE TO WORK WEEK

D. Routley: I’d like to remind the members about Bike to Work Week, otherwise

known as “bad hair week.” This is a week where it’s casual Friday for

your head every morning, all week. If you’re really serious, you come to

work with four or five faux hawks from your helmet, and then you can

really high-five your workmates.

Personally, I’ve been riding for 40 years, avidly. I calculate

that I’m on my seventh trip around the equator — not literally but

figuratively. I celebrated this momentous occasion on the weekend by

crashing into a house. It was a doghouse. It was my dog’s doghouse. It

was not a clean dismount, but it proves that it’s always fun to ride a

bike.

People out there have made a choice. They’ve made a choice for

climate, but it’s fun. They’ve made a choice for their health, but it’s

fun. They’ve a made a choice for public health, but it’s fun. For me,

riding a bike is just plain fun, and that’s enough.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by some very dear friends of mine,

Marie Kolenosky and Linda Hawes from Salmon Arm. They ventured all the way

down to the Legislature to participate in the pro-resource rally on the

front steps of the Legislature just over the noon hour. Would the House

please make them feel very welcome.

A. Wilkinson: Just a quick word to thank Prof. Paddy Smith. I met him 25 years ago

in the B.C. Civil Liberties Association — which, for better or worse, has

generated a few members of this House. He has committed his career to the

integrity of the democratic process, spent untold hours training and

preparing our interns, and we owe him a great debt of thanks.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 33, the South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, be introduced and read a first

time now.

I’m pleased to introduce this act into the House. The Lower

Mainland continues to experience significant and sustained growth. This

is a good sign of the region’s livability and its attractiveness to

residents, to visitors and to businesses. With growth, however, can come

significant pressures. In the Metro Vancouver area in particular, people

are facing growing congestion. They are spending too much time stuck in

traffic instead of being at home with their friends or their

family.

We are committed to making life more affordable, delivering the

services that people can count on and building a strong, sustainable and

innovative economy that works for everyone. Part of this commitment

includes partnering with TransLink and the Mayors Council to develop

lasting, effective and fair solutions to the region’s transportation

needs. The Mayors Council has developed a bold ten-year vision for

transportation in Metro Vancouver — transportation that proposes

significant new service expansions and the transit infrastructure that

people need.

The legislation that I’m introducing today would provide TransLink

with new development cost charge authority that they have requested.

This authority will help ensure that the necessary funds to deliver

these service expansions are available and that proposed amendments are

based on similar authorities that are already available to both local

governments in the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. It

would give TransLink the authority to impose development cost charges

across the transportation service region and to use the funds for the

capital cost of expanding TransLink’s regional transportation

system.

With Metro Vancouver’s expectation to grow by a million people by

2040, these projects are critical to support the substantial regional

growth. The proposed authority has been designed to ensure transparency

and accountability and will also ensure that housing affordability in

the region, which we all know is a significant need, will not be

compromised. A new development cost charge authority will help TransLink

fund the region’s share of needed new transit expansion and help to

ensure that new growth which benefits from a healthy transportation

system is paying its fair share.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority

Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

BILL 19 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill contains amendments to two acts: the Protected Areas of

British Columbia Act and the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003. This bill contains amendments that allow our

government to move forward with ongoing reconciliation efforts with

Indigenous peoples. Three class A parks will be renamed with an

Indigenous name to reflect the historical and cultural significance of

these areas to individual First Nations.

The bill also continues the annual practice of adding lands to

protected areas, improving protected area boundary descriptions,

correcting administrative errors and occasionally removing portions for

public safety or access reasons.

Amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will add

lands to an existing conservancy on Haida Gwaii, add lands to ten

existing class A parks, modify the boundaries of five parks, improve

boundary descriptions, replace metes and bounds with official plans and

correct administrative errors.

The bill also amends the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003. It repeals an amendment in the aforementioned act

related to Graham-Laurier Park that was never brought into force and is

no longer needed.

On an administrative note, I want to point out to all members that

the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the official

plans, mapped boundaries for their review that depict the boundaries of

most of the protected areas in this bill. In addition, the official

plans will be posted on the B.C. Parks website.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 34 — GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill contains amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Targets Act. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act is renamed the

Climate Change Accountability Act and will be the foundation of a

renewed climate action strategy to be released in the fall of

These amendments will establish new greenhouse gas reduction

targets to set a clear path to the 2050 target. They will also expand

the scope of the act to include public reporting on government climate

adaptation measures. Specifically, the amendments set new legislated

targets of a 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2007 levels

by 2030 and a 60 percent reduction from 2007 levels by 2040.

It also repeals the 2020 target of 33 percent reduction, which the

previous government stated could not be met. A lack of effective climate

policies that build on the success of early climate action in B.C. put

the 2020 target out of reach today.

This bill also enables sectoral greenhouse gas emission reduction

targets to be set by ministerial order. The legislation will also

address the 2018 Auditor General’s report recommendation to require

detailed public reporting on how the province is preparing for climate

change.

Beginning in 2020 and continuing every other year, the risks of

climate change to the province and the steps taken to mitigate that risk

will be reported. With the input of the Climate Solutions and Clean

Growth Advisory Council and engagement with industry and other

stakeholders, B.C. is charting a new path to meet our climate goals and

targets.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DIAMOND JUBILEE OF AGA KHAN

J. Routledge: Prince Shah Karim Al Hussaini, His Highness the Aga Khan, is

visiting Vancouver today as part of a world tour to mark his diamond

jubilee, or the 60th year of his reign. The Aga Khan is a direct

descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and the 49th imam, or spiritual

leader, of 15 million Shia Ismaili Muslims around the world, including

120,000 in Canada and 20,000 in B.C.

His Highness’s visit provides an occasion for Ismailis to express

their gratitude to him for his leadership and for dedicating his life to

the improvement of the quality of life around the world. Over the past

few months, the Aga Khan has paid official visits to parts of the world

with significant Ismaili populations. To date, these include East

Africa, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, India and the United States

of America.

His Highness’s diamond jubilee has inspired a number of

international projects and initiatives to eliminate poverty and ensure

access to education, early childhood development, quality health care,

safe and secure housing, economic opportunities, as well as cultural

initiatives.

Canadian projects under development include a public park in

Burnaby. In fact, the Ismaili Centre in Burnaby is a legacy of His

Highness’s silver jubilee. Over the last 50 years of Ismaili settlement

in Canada, the community has sought to contribute to the fabric of

Canadian society by being involved in many spheres of public life and

through regional programs that demonstrate the ethic of volunteerism and

compassion.

To commemorate both Canada’s 150th anniversary and His Highness

the Aga Khan’s diamond jubilee, the Ismaili community has pledged, and

surpassed, one million hours of service to improve the quality of life

in Canada.

Please join me in welcoming His Highness the Aga Khan to British

Columbia.

B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE

N. Letnick: I rise today to echo the earlier comments of the hon. Minister of

Health and offer an expanded view of our world-renowned B.C. Ambulance

Service. The rationale for the creation of the service was to end the

patchwork and duplication of hundreds of different agencies or

organizations that provided some kind of ambulance service to the people

of British Columbia.

Communities in B.C. had some level of ambulance service operated

by various organizations or private providers. However, volunteers

served most communities with little access to financial resources,

equipment and training. In many areas, there was no ambulance service at

all.

In 1972, a full review of health care in the province was

conducted, and in ’74, an independent governance board was created,

known as the Emergency and Health Services Commission. Over the past 44

years, major advances in the service have been made with respect to

skills, education for paramedics and the latest in equipment.

Today the British Columbia emergency health services is the agency

responsible for the oversight and operation of the B.C. Ambulance

Service. Currently the BCAS moves an average of 1,500 patients every day

via air, land and sea. The B.C. Ambulance Service is the only public

ambulance provider in the province and is, in fact, still the only

provincial ambulance service in Canada. It’s one of the largest

ambulance services in the world in terms of complexity, scope of

practice and area of response.

The official motto of the service is: “One team, one goal, working

together for life.” Our B.C. Ambulance Service is staffed by highly

skilled individuals at all levels of the organization, where care,

compassion and respect are their guiding principles.

I ask the House to join me in honouring all members of our B.C.

Ambulance Service and, especially on this day, to remember their fallen,

who have paid the ultimate price in service to our province.

MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

R. Leonard: This week is Mental Health Week, and starting the week today is

National Child and Youth Mental Health Day. I’d like to acknowledge the

Canadian Mental Health Association, which serves over 100,000 people in

B.C. each year.

[2:10 p.m.]

Sadly, only a third of B.C.’s 84,000 children and youth

experiencing mental health problems are connected to the help they need.

One in five adults in B.C. experiences mental health and/or substance

use problems, and we are certainly all aware of the devastating opioid

crisis.

The Hedican family from my community, after losing their son to an

overdose, is speaking out with passion and conviction about the need to

overcome stigma. How do we seek help if we are marked by shame and

disapproval? A number of years ago there was a rash of five teen

suicides in Courtenay-Comox. It was devastating to the families and

frightening for all of us. It was a very painful lesson about the

effects of stigma and the need for supports and services when and where

they are needed.

We now have the first Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in

Canada. The focus: ask for help once, and get help fast. Every door is

the right door. The Ministry of Education is providing more supports in

schools for early intervention and prevention so that our kids can have

the best start possible. There’s an expanding network of Foundry

centres, one-stop shops for youth services, in many

communities.

a

part in eliminating stigma. Everyone, let’s join the conversation with

personal, caring conversations in support of mental wellness. Be kind;

be open. You might just change someone’s life, maybe even your

own.

FOUNDRY YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: In honour of Mental Health Week, I’d like to talk about a man on a

mission.

In 2014, I met Dr. Steve Mathias, founder and medical manager of

the inner-city youth mental health program at St. Paul’s Hospital. Steve

started the Granville Youth Health Centre and wanted to implement the

successful integrated, one-stop-shop model provincewide. He modelled his

vision after Australia’s national network of mental health facilities,

Headspace. A fellow North Vancouver resident, Steve and I began on a

year-long journey to lobby the Ministers of Health and of Children and

Family Development on this prominent vision to transform youth mental

health in B.C.

From that, Foundry was born, with Dr. Steve Mathias as its

executive director. The idea behind Foundry was to create a hub of

one-stop shops where youth can access mental health care, substance use

services, primary care, social services, and youth and family peer

support services. Foundry brings a wide range of partners, stakeholders

and service providers together, partnering under one roof.

Our government first introduced and broke ground on five sites,

including Abbotsford, Campbell River, Kelowna, North Vancouver and

Prince George, with five more promised in Budget 2017. This includes

Victoria, which officially opened its location last week. I had the

privilege of visiting last March. When I visited Foundry Victoria, the

waiting room was already full.

I’m very pleased to see that this new government has recognized

the transformative nature of these Foundry centres and has agreed to

keep this valuable service going. However, it does not mean we should

stop there.

Foundry needs to be expanded to every community across the

province, and they need to be connected to the schools. In my opinion,

there needs to be a location at every post-secondary institution in

British Columbia. This will go a long way to help reduce the stigma

surrounding mental illness and ensure that all children, youth and

families will have timely access to qualified mental health

care.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

A. Kang: May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month in B.C. Multiple

sclerosis is a chronic, often disabling disease of the central nervous

system, comprising the brain, spinal cord and optic nerve. It is one of

the most common neurological diseases affecting young adults in

Canada.

Most people with MS are diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 40.

Additionally, women are three times more likely to develop MS than men.

Every day people living with MS do whatever it takes to move their lives

forward, despite the challenges. By sharing their stories, we help

people better understand life with MS and become inspired to do whatever

it takes to change the world for people living with MS.

[2:15 p.m.]

Jamie-Lynn Sigler, The Sopranos actress, was initially

diagnosed at the age of 20 and was symptomless for a long time. It was

during the last decade that she began to struggle with the often

unpredictable effects of the disease. She says: “I can’t walk for a long

time without resting. I cannot run…. When I walk, I have to think about

every single step, which is annoying and frustrating.”

MS impacts all Canadians, not only the individuals living with the

disease but also their friends, families, workplaces and health care

teams. The unpredictable and often episodic nature of the disease makes

it particularly difficult for people affected with MS to maintain an

adequate quality of life.

Through their work, the MS Society provides services to people

with MS and their families, and funds research to find the cause and

cure for this disease.

May 30 is World MS Day. Multiple sclerosis — that’s why I keep

saying MS — may be a part of who you are, but it doesn’t define who you

are. MS can’t take that away from you. You are a very special

person.

Thank you so much to the MS Society for your efforts in supporting

Canadians living with MS. Together we can do whatever it takes to change

the world for people with MS. Thank you so much for all your good

work.

CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

T. Wat: I rise today to speak about the Chinese University of Hong Kong,

CUHK, the university where I completed my first academic degree, a

bachelor of social science.

Stepping into its 55th year, CUHK is one of the top and is the

second-oldest comprehensive research universities in Hong Kong, with an

undergraduate student population of 16,700 and a postgraduate population

of 12,600. There are 7,000 non-local students coming from 50 countries

and regions all over the world.

CUHK has the largest campus in Hong Kong and has been named the

most innovative university in Hong Kong. I’m proud to be one of the

200,000 alumni, many of whom have been making many achievements in

various professional areas and contributions to the world.

I’m honoured to have been appointed as one of the 12 founding

members of CUHK’s global alumni advisory board and one of only two

Canadian alumni advisers. Together with 11 other fellow alumni from all

over the world — places such the United States, England, China, Hong

Kong, Korea and Singapore — I recently attended the first board meeting

in Hong Kong. We have a realistic and objective evaluation of CUHK and

are open in terms of dialogue on the opportunities and challenges facing

the university.

There are over 120 alumni associations at home and abroad. One of

them is the Alumni Association of the Chinese University of Hong

Kong–British Columbia. The association of over 400 members organizes

activities throughout British Columbia throughout the year, connecting

fellow alumni.

My sincere thanks to the alumni members in B.C. for their

contribution to our province’s culture and economy, making B.C. a most

diverse and vibrant place to live.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

A. Wilkinson: About a year ago, we were in an election. The now Premier told

British Columbians that the only taxes his government, if it came to be,

would introduce were those laid out in the NDP platform. This promise

has been repeatedly broken in the last ten months.

A new report by the Union of B.C. Municipalities — we all know

about the UBCM; it represents hundreds of municipalities around this

province and is close to the voters — has confirmed what we have been

telling the government for some time: that the employer health tax will

double the cost to these communities in the coming year and quadruple

their costs in 2019.

Will the Premier finally accept that British Columbians will have

to pay, through their property taxes, for his newly inspired employer

health tax?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It is no surprise to me that the other side would stand up and say

that they were against giving a break to families and individuals by

cutting MSP premiums $1,800 a year for families and $900 a year for

individuals. Instead, what the other side decided to do was double MSP

premiums and add costs to families.

We are addressing affordability. Municipalities will make the

decisions that they need to make. Let’s remember that they are saving 50

percent this year on MSP premiums. They will save 100 percent on MSP

premiums when they’re eliminated, and families will save in their

community.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Finance Minister’s increasing disconnection with reality is

starting to become clear.

The Premier never told British Columbians there would be an

employers health tax. It never was suggested in the election campaign

that municipalities would be forced to raise property taxes. Here we

are, with the UBCM, the British Columbia municipalities

concluding…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

A. Wilkinson: …that “implementation of the employers health tax will lead to

property tax increases for the majority of British Columbia.”

There we have it. Residents in our city of Vancouver are going

from paying $2.5 million in MSP premiums this year to an eventual bill

of $17.5 million in 2019, which will of course be passed through to the

taxpayers. Yet we have the member for Vancouver–Point Grey refusing to

meet with taxpayers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, that is typically known as nervous

laughter.

When will this Premier acknowledge that the tax grab he has

engaged in is going to flow through to every property tax payer in this

province?

Hon. C. James: What is going to flow through to families is $1,800 a year in

savings. What will flow through to individuals will be $900 in savings.

Municipalities have the option to make the decisions they do, but even

if a municipality decides that they’re going to look at a small increase

to address this, families will still be further ahead because of the

savings they are going to get here.

I would like to ask the member across the way…. I am guessing that

what you are saying to British Columbians is: “Throw away affordability.

Let’s keep the unfair, regressive MSP premiums in this

province.”

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This is a classic example of a Finance Minister who needs to do

some homework. So 600,000 people in the city of Vancouver — their taxes

go up by $17.5 million. That means a net loss to me and to the members

opposite who represent Vancouver. Somehow the Minister of Finance tells

us this a good deal. Well, thank goodness she’s not in retail, because

we’d all go broke in her store.

These taxes in Vancouver are going up sevenfold. A sevenfold

increase in taxes in the city of Vancouver, and somehow this is being

portrayed to us as a good deal. The members from Vancouver, represented

in this room, refused to listen to their constituents on this

issue.

When will the Premier accept that this is a net increase in

taxation, and this presentation from his Finance Minister is a facade?

Taxes are going up, not down.

Hon. C. James: It doesn’t surprise me that the other side would find it very

difficult to understand affordability because they did nothing for

families for 16 years.

It is no surprise to me that the other side would not understand

that we said we were going to get rid of MSP premiums, and by 2020, we

are going to do that in this province. Being responsible, as other

provinces have done, we are bringing in an employers health tax.

Businesses who have a payroll under $500,000 will not pay the employers

health tax. There will be a savings for families. It’s a good deal for

British Columbians, and we are moving ahead on our

commitment.

[2:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: Higher personal income taxes, higher carbon taxes, the speculation

tax, the employer health tax, higher prices at the pumps — affordability

brought to you by the NDP government of British Columbia. The facts are

clear. The NDP are replacing the MSP with a much higher tax

grab.

Here’s what the Union of B.C. Municipalities had to say

recently.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

T. Stone: “Increased employee MSP-related costs for communities like

Vancouver, Saanich, Victoria and Burnaby will run into the millions.”

Now, Burnaby will pay $4.4 million next year. That’s up from over $100

million in MSP costs today. The NDP MLAs across Burnaby are not

listening to their community.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, what has she told the UBCM?

Should communities cut services, or should they raise property

taxes?

Hon. C. James: I’m sorry. Coming from the member from the old side, the old

government that left us with over a $1 billion hole in ICBC that the

taxpayers of British Columbia are having to pay for…. If there’s

something to get angry about, I’d get angry at what you’ve done to the

public of British Columbia about ICBC.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, it’s not just all of the NDP MLAs from Burnaby who are

missing in action on this file. The member for Port Moody–Coquitlam has

also failed to listen to his community. Let’s look at the cost of this

NDP tax for Port Moody. This year they paid $130,000 in MSP. Next year

the cost will increase to $715,000. The UBCM says communities face a

choice of reducing services, increasing property taxation, or

both.

My question, again, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is

responsible for communities in this province. I’m wondering if the

minister could let us know whether she has advised the city of Port

Moody to raise property taxes for their taxpayers or to cut services in

that community.

Hon. C. James: I would say to the member across the way: 50 percent savings in

those MSP premiums as of January 1 this year, 50 percent savings next

year for those municipalities. Most importantly, 100 percent savings for

families in 2020, which means $1,800 in a family’s pocket every single

year.

FISHING INDUSTRY QUOTA SYSTEM

AND SUPPORT FOR YOUNG

FISHERS

A. Olsen: Young fishermen and fisherwomen in once-thriving resource

economies on the coast have been priced out of the industry. The

commercial fishery is organized into a system of quotas, effectively

privatizing a natural resource owned by all British Columbians.

Fisherwomen and fishermen have to pay 70 percent of the landed value of

their catch to the corporation that owns the licence. It has become

increasingly difficult for fishermen to support themselves and their

families, so much so that the number of people fishing commercially in

B.C. has dropped from about 20,000 in 1985 to 5,000 in 2015.

The federal government is doing a review of the Atlantic quota

system but refusing to do the same for our coast. Young fisherwomen and

fishermen are lobbying Ottawa, the federal government, on their own

behalf to change the quota system. They’re the future of commercial

fishing in B.C. and proving to be leaders of coastal communities. The

provincial government has a real opportunity to be more vocal advocates

for our youth leaders.

[2:30 p.m.]

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

Operations and Rural Development: what substantive action is the

province taking to support these young British Columbians?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on such an important topic,

young people and the future of our fisheries resource in the province.

Absolutely, B.C.’ers should be benefiting from the resources in the

oceans that they have, the communities have, at their front

doorsteps.

I can remember people in the area that I represent being upstream

benefactors of the fisheries resource. There used to be processing

facilities where there’d be an annual migration of people from upstream

communities. This just wasn’t in my constituency but around the

province, down to the coast — the benefit from the kinds of jobs that

the member talks about. Today these fisheries are still an economic

driver in coastal communities and need to be protected for tomorrow and

into future generations.

I know the member knows that the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans is responsible for the licensing he refers to around

owner-operator and around fleet separation policy.

While we’re pleased to hear about the federal changes to the

Fisheries Act, we will be working closely, and we welcome the

opportunity to work closely, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

to ensure that B.C.’s interests are maintained in terms of conservation,

which is primarily our responsibility; advancing reconciliation

objectives, which again is part of this government’s important mandate;

and maximizing the economic benefits, in return, to British

Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

FISH HEALTH

AND WILD SALMON

PROTECTION

A. Olsen: Yes, absolutely, I know that the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans has lots of jurisdiction when it comes to our fisheries in the

province of British Columbia, and the provincial government has a lot of

responsibility and is banging the drum very loudly for our economy and

the economy of our coastal communities. That’s what I’m encouraging the

government to do.

Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable

Development released a report last month that I talked about in question

period. It concluded that DFO has not adequately managed the risks

associated with the salmon farming industry and is failing its mandate

to protect wild fish.

Compounding that dismal report, scientists have now discovered and

confirmed that the highly contagious virus impacting Atlantic salmon now

also harms Pacific salmon and can pose a serious threat to B.C.’s

declining wild salmon populations if it spreads. Researchers found

samples in farmed chinook and Atlantic salmon and confirmed the presence

of the highly contagious piscine reovirus in both species. Fish farmers

said it’s not a problem; it’s not a problem in their farms. The lead

author of the study, Kristi Miller from the DFO, said that something

else is at stake here, and we have risk to the wild salmon.

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

Natural Resources. As I said in my morning statement, I have a

commitment to ensuring our children and future generations inherit a

world with salmon. How many more studies is it going to take before this

government steps in?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the efforts of the member around ensuring that we have

sustainable fisheries in B.C. and, again, point out that the federal

responsibility in this area is paramount. However, we are focusing on

what is within our jurisdiction constitutionally — that is, habitat

protection to ensure that sustainable fisheries are able to proceed into

the future; spawning channel concerns that we have jurisdiction over;

sport fishing regulations as they apply to populations of endangered

species and species at risk; and, of course and especially, upholding

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ responsibilities with respect to

fish health.

We’ll be continuing to do this. I look forward to further

discussions with the member on ensuring that this opportunity is

available, not just today but enhanced into the future for young people,

as he points out, and fishing-dependent communities all up and down the

coast.

[2:35 p.m.]

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

S. Bond: Perhaps one of the other things we want to remind the Finance

Minister of today…. One of the other things she inherited was the

best-performing economy in the country, the number one job creator, five

balanced budgets and a triple-A credit rating.

To the Minister of Finance, it’s not just members on this side of

the House that are making statements today about the tax that’s being

imposed. In fact, this minister is looking elected officials in the eye

and simply saying they’re wrong. Well, let’s look at who else is

concerned about her tax regime: Victoria, Oak Bay, Saanich, Esquimalt,

View Royal. I don’t see their members sitting on this side of the House.

They are all saying property taxes will go up as a direct result of the

surprise NDP tax.

If the minister won’t listen to this side of the House, perhaps

the government will listen to a former NDP leadership candidate and now

mayor of Oak Bay, Nils Jensen. He says this will means higher property

taxes or “less on roads, sewers or water.”

To the Finance Minister, are Mayor Nils Jensen and the Union of

B.C. Municipalities wrong, or will British Columbians pay higher taxes

and receive fewer services?

Hon. C. James: I have, in fact, had conversations with a number of those mayors

and a number of mayors in municipalities around the province. It is up

to the municipalities how they determine their budgets. I would not

dream to tell them how they should manage their budgets. That is their

choice to determine how they manage their budgets.

I can tell you that when we are talking with British Columbians,

what British Columbians are saying is that it’s about time that we ended

being the last province with medical service premiums and got rid of

that regressive tax in British Columbia.

John is a retired senior. He’s going to save $900 a year thanks to

MSP. John says: “I completely strongly support the elimination of the

MSP. I’m retired. I’m going to use it for general living expenses, since

I’ve been having difficulty making ends meet here in the most expensive

region in Canada.”

We are going to continue to stand up for British Columbians and,

like every other province has done, eliminate medical service premiums,

a regressive tax brought in and doubled by the other side.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: The Minister of Finance just doesn’t get it. The Minister of

Finance has introduced a surprise tax on municipalities across British

Columbia, and the only choice that she is giving them is whether to

raise taxes or to reduce services.

Let’s look at what the Finance Minister’s very own mayor has to

say about the higher NDP tax. Mayor Lisa Helps said: “It is not a wash.

Businesses will be impacted. Municipalities will be impacted.

Universities will be impacted. Everybody will be impacted. Even the

United Way will be impacted. So what — are they going to raise more

money to pay for the employer health tax?”

Will this Finance Minister today listen to the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, respected leaders across British Columbia, rethink her

half-baked tax, as her own mayor is demanding?

Hon. C. James: I have to say to the people of British Columbia, when they hear

from the other side, who doubled MSP premiums, who made it more

difficult for people…. We are making a choice on behalf of British

Columbians to address their affordability issues and saving them money

each year with the elimination of their medical service

premiums.

I have had conversations, as I said, with municipalities. If

municipalities make that choice, even with the small increase, the

savings for families will be much greater. They will be better off in

British Columbia. That is the direction of our government that we are

going to continue — a focus on people in British Columbia, unlike the

other side.

[2:40 p.m.]

M. Stilwell: This minister seems to think that they’re making a choice, but

they’re not giving municipalities a choice at all. What they’re doing is

downloading. That’s what it’s called. It’s downloading, not giving them

a choice.

Saanich is one of the communities that is hardest hit by this new

NDP employer health tax. This year the MSP cost to the municipality was

$208,000. Next year, though, Saanich will see and pay almost $2 million

in the MSP and the new NDP tax. According to the municipality’s director

of finance, this will not only mean increases to property taxes, but it

will also mean increases to water and to sewage rates.

Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain to Saanich

residents why they should pay this new NDP tax grab through higher

property taxes, higher water rates and higher sewage rates?

Hon. C. James: I want to quote from Ray. Ray is a senior in his 70s. He’s going

to save $900 a year thanks to the elimination of the medical service

premiums. Ray says he’s going to use the money that he saves to

contribute to his grandchildren’s education. His granddaughter is in

college, and his grandson is in grade 12. They deserve a good education,

and he loves to help them.

I’d like to ask the member on the other side: what’s the choice of

the other side — continue medical service premiums for families in

British Columbia, continue to see the double increase that the other

side did or cut health care programs and health care

services?

We are doing the responsible thing. We are saving family

resources. We are protecting health care spending so we can ensure the

good services that people rely on in British Columbia. It’s the

responsible thing and the affordable thing for families.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: What the members on the opposite side are doing is playing a shell

game, moving things around. Does Ray own his house? His property taxes

are going to go up. He’s going to pay more for water and more for sewage

rates too.

The NDP’s new tax will cost Saanich residents an extra $1.78

million, but that’s not all. UBCM also found that “the impact on Saanich

property owners could be compounded with increased levies for the

capital regional district and hospital district, B.C. Assessment and

B.C. Transit, which would also be subject to the employer health tax and

facing the same challenges to fund it.”

When will the minister rethink this half-baked NDP tax grab and

start listening to the communities?

Hon. C. James: I will remind the member again: we’re the last province left with

medical service premiums. What did other provinces do? They decided to

put in place an employers health tax and a payroll tax to be able to

bring the resources in for health care.

It’s the responsible approach. Other provinces have moved in that

direction. We are saving families dollars, and we are protecting health

care spending. That’s what the people expect their government to do for

them.

T. Redies: The Comox Valley regional district paid $202,000 in MSP last year.

Next year they’re going to pay $337,000, with the NDP’s new payroll tax.

In Courtenay, they paid $92,000 this year. Next year the NDP tax will

cost them $317,000. But the member for Courtenay-Comox isn’t listening

to her community.

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain why residents in

Courtenay and Comox will have to pay higher property taxes to replace

the MSP?

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member raising the issue, and as I said, I’ve

continued to talk to municipalities.

But in the end, their families, which the municipalities also

serve, will save $1,800 a year, and individuals in those municipalities

will save $900 a year from a regressive tax that we are eliminating. I’m

not sure why the members on the other side would be against

affordability for families.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: What the members on the other side of the House are asking is for

the Minister of Finance to acknowledge that municipalities are going to

have to pay higher taxes due to the EHT, and that’s going to be borne by

property owners.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, in Maple Ridge, MSP costs this year are $175,000. Next year,

with the NDP’s new tax, they will pay $875,000. That’s higher. Costs in

Mission…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

T. Redies: …go from $134,000 to half a million with the NDP tax grab. That’s

higher. But has the NDP MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission stood up for his

constituents? No. He’s said absolutely nothing.

Again to the minister, why are families in Maple Ridge and Mission

being forced to replace the MSP premium with higher property

taxes?

Hon. C. James: I will remind the member again that the numbers she quotes are a

50 percent savings this year because we cut MSP premiums by 50 percent

this year. I would remind the member that there’s a 50 percent savings

again next year with the MSP premiums. And I remind the member that

there’s 100 percent savings as of 2020 from the elimination of the MSP

premiums. I would also say that $1,800 is a savings for families each

and every year.

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT HOSPITALS

J. Isaacs: Waiting in the emergency room can be excruciating, and British

Columbians, under the Fraser Health Authority, spend 11.4 hours longer

in the ER than the target time.

To the Minister of Health, what immediate actions is he taking to

alleviate ER wait times in Fraser Health and around the

province?

Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank the hon. member for her question. Indeed, people

in Fraser Health have struggled for a very long time with long wait

times in the emergency room, both in the immediate receipt of service

and in being transferred to the wards. The statistics generally utilized

right now indicate what the situation was up to 2017, and indeed, the

national performance of Fraser Health relative to other places in Canada

was not very good. I don’t think it’s appropriate at this point, because

I’m so appreciative of the question, to remind people of who was in

government over the past 16 years.

I would say this. We have to take steps to improve this, and often

the problem in the emergency room is not found in the emergency room,

where outstanding doctors and nurses and health professionals work. It’s

outside in the community. It’s improving primary care. In the city of

Surrey alone, for example, 90,000 people were without a family doctor or

nurse practitioner four years after the start of the GP for Me program

in Surrey.

We need to improve primary care, and indeed, we are proposing, at

the direction of the Premier, the establishment of urgent primary care

centres. We also have to improve long-term care, it seems to

me.

It’s very difficult, standing beside the minister responsible for

ICBC, to talk about problems, but I’ll tell you that 90 percent of care

homes didn’t meet care standards in British Columbia at the end of the

16 years of Liberal government.

We have provided the budget, the responsibility, the policy

changes, and we’re hiring the people necessary to improve long-term

care, to improve home care and home support. And oh, I wish there was a

supplementary question.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 22, Civil Resolution

Tribunal Amendment Act, and in Committee A, I call continued debate on the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services. At the same time, after that, I will also call

the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family.

[2:50 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

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

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for

Legislative Change, May 2018, from the Chief Electoral

Officer.

[2:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — CIVIL RESOLUTION

TRIBUNAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

section 19 (continued) .

M. Lee: I just wanted to pick up from where we last left off on

section

19. The Attorney General indicated that in respect of time periods

prescribed by the rules, there currently aren’t any, and that the

purpose of this amendment would be to reflect that.

Looking back at his response, the response ended with reflecting

the law would be better to do so than to the practice itself. I just

wanted to ask: what is the current practice? I think he indicated 60 to

90 days, but if we could just revisit that in terms of the current

practice on time periods.

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a certain amount of discretion that is given to the CRT in

resolving disputes on timelines. These are obviously amendments to

permit them to make determinations in relation to car accidents and the

nature of injuries and the nature of awards under $50,000, or matters

under $50,000 related to car accidents.

With respect to the text that’s here and the intention around

that, the CRT has a practice of not forcing someone who is not ready to

go to adjudication to go to adjudication. For example, where a person’s

injuries aren’t adequately resolved or stabilized in order for there to

be a determination, or where a person needs more time to gather

evidence, they wouldn’t be forced to adjudication. At the same time,

though, the CRT wouldn’t allow someone to delay a proceeding where

there’s no reasonable basis for doing so.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m reluctant to provide the member with absolute time. Certainly,

60 to 90 days are reasonable expectations under current disputes, and it

will be much, much faster than the current B.C. Supreme Court process.

There is a possibility that at some point, the tribunal might establish,

by rules…. Once they have some matters under their belt and they have a

sense about the process for these kinds of things, they might establish

a rule requiring final decisions in a certain time period. That’s the

intent behind the amendment.

I do note that the member, in a previous exchange, made requests

for data around how the tribunal responds to somebody saying that they

would like to have a representative with them in attending the hearing.

There are two types of representatives that individuals might request to

have with them at a hearing. One is a lawyer, and the other is a lay

advocate or a non-lawyer. So they can make an application to the

tribunal, in small claims or in strata, to have someone represent them

or to appear with them at the hearing.

For small claims, to give the member an idea, there were 28

requests for a lawyer. These are matters under $5,000. It was approved

11 times, which is a 39 percent approval rating. For strata, there were

120 requests for lawyers, and 45 were allowed. That’s a 38 percent

approval rating. For non-lawyer advocates, there were 140 requests for

advocates in small claims matters, permitted 106 times. That’s a 76

percent approval rating. For strata matters, 125 requests for lay

advocates, approved 69 times. That’s a 55 percent approval.

Over the whole of the groups, advocates or lawyers were permitted

70 percent of the time in small claims matters when they were requested

and 47 percent of the time in strata matters when they were requested.

When you combine everything together, 56 percent of the time — whether

it was strata or small claims, lawyer or not — an application for an

advocate was approved by the tribunal.

I hope that assists the member. I’m glad to table this document

that I’m reading from so the member has a table to refer to if that’s

helpful to him.

M. Lee: Thank you for that information. I appreciate that. If we could

just go back to that particular

section of the bill —

section 16,

proposed new

section 20.1.

I take it, just to clarify with this information being tabled,

that under the provisions of the current act, under

section 20, the

difference is for accident claims — that a party may as a right be

represented by a lawyer in a tribunal proceeding. It means that there

wouldn’t be a situation where, as the Attorney General just categorized,

the number of requests versus the number allowed….

To clarify, in each case where a claimant is appearing before a

CRT, that individual has the right to have legal

representation.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

M. Lee: So back to

section 19, then. In terms of the time periods, then….

I think, given the Attorney General’s response, I’d just like to clarify

that the question would be: is it foreseen at this time, with the

different natures of claims that might be considered by the CRT — strata

disputes versus cooperative association versus accident claims — that

the time periods that might be considered by the tribunal might be

different depending on the nature of the claim?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. That’s correct.

M. Lee: In the area of accident claims, then. Appreciating, again, that

this is a new area for the CRT if they establish themselves with this

new jurisdiction, how will that work in terms of the determination where

a claimant is not yet prepared to go forward with the

tribunal?

[3:05 p.m.]

At some point in time, what will happen with that claimant in

terms of how the tribunal exercises its authority over that claimant in

terms of compelling that claimant, ultimately, to initiate or start that

process?

Hon. D. Eby: We don’t believe there’s any authority for the tribunal to compel

someone into this process. This is around if the person has a dispute

with an award that is made by an adjudicator or a determination that’s

made by the adjudicator. So the person drives that process. They appear

at the tribunal. They make the application. The tribunal doesn’t compel

people to participate in this process.

M. Lee: For, in practice, what might be a 60- or a 90-day period, how does

this play with the 12-month…? When we look at the definition of “minor

injury” under Bill 20, how will this play or interplay with the 12-month

test in terms of determining whether there’s been a serious impairment,

for example, that occurs and that condition continues to occur beyond 12

months?

Hon. D. Eby: We might be able to clear up some confusion that some of the

members mentioned in second reading speeches, which was around that

maybe you’d have to go to the tribunal in 90 days.

That is simply not the case. If you believed you had a serious

impairment and disputed, or that you were seriously impaired in your

daily activities, and you believed that that was going to last for

longer than a year, you just wouldn’t go to the tribunal until after the

year had passed. There’s a two-year limitation period for going to the

tribunal, so you would have between month 12 and month 24 to bring your

application.

M. Lee: I guess that suggests that the claimant would have the

understanding as to whether they have a serious impairment. I appreciate

that that will be fully canvassed under Bill 20.

Again, I’m just interested to know if there’s any situation where

it turns out that the condition continues beyond 12 months — when an

individual is in the course of being unrepresented in front of the CRT

and doesn’t fully appreciate the severity of his or her condition, in

situations where he or she may not have legal representation because

they’re trying to resolve something that is immediate and wanting to get

a quick decision.

Knowing that the CRT is the inertia or the momentum behind

decision-making may well be the case, is there any potential prejudice

for a claimant in this kind of situation in the interaction with that

12-month period?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In the scenario that the member outlines, the person…. There are

two scenarios, I guess. One is where the person shows up with apparently

minor injuries and then things get worse unexpectedly. Maybe they have

somehow taken some steps that limit their rights.

That same scenario exists under the current system. You might sign

a settlement agreement. You might enter into an arrangement with respect

to compensation for an injury, and it may not be a full understanding of

where the injury is going.

The risk is just as present under this system as under that

system, but there are some arguable improvements in the system in that

if you go to B.C. Supreme Court, it’s not the judge’s job to try to

figure out whether you’ve shown up at the right time or whether you have

a serious impairment or not, except on the evidence that you bring

forward.

In the CRT, the tribunal members will be actively involved in

ensuring that the individuals who appear in front of them are aware of

what their rights are, of what the system is and what the application is

about. That will be part of the training, and that is part of the job of

the tribunal, because it’s assumed that most people are attending the

tribunal without representation, although they have every right to bring

a lawyer with them if they wish.

The other scenario — the other possibility of a person who appears

to have a more minor injury and it gets worse over time — would assume

that their doctor has also missed it, because people will be attending

their own family physicians, who will be providing them with information

about their injuries. That information is the evidence in front of the

tribunal. There is a risk of a doctor missing an injury, but that risk

also exists under the current system.

The other scenario is where someone is seriously impaired, where

they’re not able to work, where they’re not able to go to school.

They’re assuming, I guess, in the scenario, that it’s going to get

better before the 12 months are up, and they’re rushing into the

tribunal to reach a final resolution around their injury. It’s hard to

imagine a scenario where that would happen, but if it did, there’s an

on-line solution explorer that’s part of completing the documentation

for the claim so that it would be quickly apparent to them that there

may be an issue here that they need to address.

The tribunal member would be assisting them in understanding that

as well. It would be part of the considerations. It’s difficult to

imagine that scenario manifesting any differently here — that someone

would be rushing off to finally resolve a complaint when it’s not

apparent when it’s going to actually resolve and what they’re going to

need in terms of support and compensation, and so on.

The other big difference — and we are bleeding a little bit into

the other bill — is that during this entire process, this person would

be having their out-of-pocket expenses covered by ICBC for various

therapeutic responses, and so on, as they’re incurred, so the person

would have the benefit of full coverage for their injury rehabilitation.

Certainly, our hope is that people will be getting better over time, but

it wouldn’t necessarily be assumed so, even if they did rush off and

file a CRT application.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

M. Lee: On

section 22, I just would ask the Attorney General to clarify

the situations under which…. In the amendment to 56.1, to include

section (2.1), the wording where “if the party has defaulted in the

tribunal….” I’m curious about the framing of those words. I know

default, which we’ll get into in a moment. But the actual drafting of

that — I just wanted to clarify the meaning as to why it’s drafted that

way.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Default is defined in

section 2(

b) of the act. It is defined as

where “a party fails to comply with

section 7….” That

section relates to

giving and responding to initiating notice. So they get the notice, and

they just don’t respond, or subsection (

b) of 2(b), if

section 36 or

section 52 applies.

Section 36 is “referral to the tribunal for non-compliance” and

section 52 is “if party does not participate.” If someone’s refusing to

participate in the process, or they’re not complying with tribunal

orders, then that would be considered a default as well.

In the event of a default, this amendment restricts the ability of

a party in terms of the actions they may take at the tribunal until the

default is set aside by the tribunal. In particular, they may not make a

notice of objection as a tool to encourage compliance with either a

previous order of the tribunal or to encourage participation or to

respond to an initiating notice, so that default needs to be dealt with

first.

M. Lee: Depending on the nature of the default…. If the Attorney General

can just outline what areas that typically a claimant might be in

default in, in front of the tribunal.

Hon. D. Eby: The definition of “default” captures the areas that the tribunal

has identified. That’s in

section 2(b). In particular, it’s in giving or

responding to initiating notice, the scenario where there are defaults

by definition.

Section 36 is where there’s a non-compliance with the tribunal

order, and

section 52 is where a party does not, or refuses to,

participate in the process.

These are not just examples of defaults; these are literally the

definition of default in

section 2(b). Other matters are not considered

defaults if they’re not included in the definition.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

M. Lee: In terms of the repealing of this particular provision, would the

Attorney General please explain the intent for such a repeal?

Hon. D. Eby: This is closely linked to the

section that we just canvassed with

the member. Because the previous

section no longer allows a notice of

objection to be filed if someone has defaulted, you don’t any longer

need a mandatory security deposit.

Previously you were allowed to file a notice of objection even if

you were in default, but you were only allowed to do it if you paid a

deposit. Because the previous amendment that just passed no longer

permits that filing of the notice of objection if you’re in default, you

don’t need the security deposit as a knock-on provision.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

M. Lee: In terms of repealing division 6 of

part 5, this would…. Just

again, with the Attorney General, if he could clarify the rationale for

this proposed amendment, which would delete the right of appeal for

strata property final decisions.

Hon. D. Eby: This relates to appeal provisions for strata property claims — the

section that’s being struck here. What it did was set out a two-step

process for appealing a decision of the tribunal — how you get to

Supreme Court.

Generally, the feedback we received from the civil resolution

tribunal about feedback they received from the public about this was

that this process was inefficient, it wasn’t very well understood, it

was confusing to people, but everybody understood how judicial review

worked.

[3:20 p.m.]

To avoid the inefficiency that this

section unintentionally

created and be consistent with review procedures set out for every other

type of case under the civil review tribunal act, this was repealed, and

it’ll just go ahead as judicial review, just like all the other review

procedures set out in all other cases under the act. That’s why this

section’s being repealed.

M. Lee: Just to clarify though, the standard of appeal under this

section

is different from the standard of appeal under the coming

section that

we’ll review in a moment. Is that not correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct that in the bill, as a whole, there is a

higher standard on judicial review established by the bill. But that is

not done by this section. It’s done by another

section that talks about

this tribunal being an expert tribunal. We’ll get to that.

What this

section does is it says you don’t need to go through

this process to apply for judicial review. You can just go ahead and

apply for judicial review. So it’s simplifying matters to get to the

Supreme Court for a judicial review. The reason for that was just simply

to simplify matters and avoid confusion that was created unintentionally

by this section.

M. Lee: Thank you for that. I just wonder in saying that, though, whether

the outline of how to go about appealing a CRT decision to the Supreme

Court…. Is that not needed to be spelled out? Or is that spelled out

somewhere else in the act or proposed regulations?

Hon. D. Eby: Applications for judicial review from these matters and from other

administrative tribunals generally proceed under the Judicial Review

Procedure Act and the B.C. Supreme Court rules that apply to judicial

reviews. So it’s not set out in this act.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

M. Lee: In terms of the proposed addition of 5.1, judicial review, the

criteria that are set out would basically incorporate…. Perhaps I could

just clarify, first of all, that the criteria for judicial review will

be spelled out under the Administrative Tribunals Act, under sections 58

and 59.

I’d like the Attorney General to walk us through the standard that

is set out in, if I’m correct on that, the two sections that would apply

here, depending on the nature of the claim that’s being

reviewed.

I appreciate that under 56.7(3), in effect, the accident claim

under 56.7(2) would be looking at the standards set out in

section 59 of

the Administrative Tribunals Act. If he could just walk us through that,

then we can just probe that a little more here.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 56.7, which is part of

section 25, sets out the standard

of review on appeals from the tribunal. Subsection (1) says the tribunal

must be considered to be an expert tribunal, and

section 58(2) and (3)

of the Administrative Tribunals Act applies, in relation to judicial

review of the final decision of the tribunal for a claim in the

exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal or a claim in respect of which

the tribunal is considered to have specialized expertise.

Subsection 58(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act deals with

judicial reviews relating to expert tribunals. That sets out matters —

sub (

a) through (c) — that talk about a finding of fact or law as an

exercise of discretion by the tribunal. Sub (

b) talks about the

application of common law rules of natural justice and procedural

fairness. Subsection (

c) talks about any other matters. It’s kind of a

catch-all. So it incorporates subsections 58(2) and (3). As the member

might expect, this deals with, for example, findings of facts and law

and that kind of thing.

That’s the higher standard of review. There’s a carve-out here,

under sub 56.7(2) that talks about attributing liability in an accident

claim, and this applies a lower standard of review. That is that the

courts are given more discretion, because courts are recognized as

having expertise in this area around attributing liability in an

accident claim. So it’s a carve-out to recognize that in that area, the

courts have more discretion in their review of the tribunal’s

decision.

[3:30 p.m.]

Then the third, which is subsection (3), talks about

section 59 of

the same Administrative Tribunals Act — the standard of review without

privative clause. It applies to an application for judicial review of a

final decision of the tribunal other than a claim to which subsection

(1) of the

section applies. This, simplified, is a catch-all of matters

that are not captured in subsection (1) to ensure that nothing remains

uncovered by the standard of review section.

I’m just going to check in with my staff and make sure I didn’t

misspeak on any points before the member hops up. They’re nodding. It’s

a complicated area, so I wanted to make sure I was right.

M. Lee: Thank you for walking me through that. Just to come back to sub

56.7(2), that would clarify that sub (1) does not apply where it relates

to liability. In which case, what standard does apply?

Hon. D. Eby: What happens is that because it’s carved out, it goes into the

catch-all, the Administrative Tribunals Act,

section 59, which is what

the standard of review should be where there’s no prohibitive clause.

The standard of review, according to sub 59(1), “to be applied to a

decision of tribunal is correctness,” in that scenario, “for all

questions except those respecting the exercise of discretion, findings

of fact and the application of common law rules of natural justices and

procedural fairness.” There are a number of other subsections where it

talks about findings of fact, discretionary decisions, a decision

exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith, for an improper purpose,

irrelevant factors, and so on.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I think the answer the member is seeking here is contained in

subsection (1) — correctness — but you need to read the whole of

section

59 to really have a sense about what the full standard of review is for

those matters.

M. Lee: If I could just first walk back up to sub 56.7(1). For the purpose

of involving the standards review, I first wanted to confirm that the

way that this provision is drafted, to engage on that standard the test

must be that the tribunal must be considered to be an expert tribunal. I

just wanted the Attorney General to confirm that.

We discussed previously, in earlier sections of this bill, the

ways in which this tribunal would be viewed to both be an expert

tribunal and, secondly, under sub 56.7(1)(b), considered to have

specialized expertise. Again, we’ve talked about what kinds of

individuals would be serving on the tribunal which would fit that. I

just wanted the Attorney General to confirm, for the purpose of this

section, that the tribunal will reach that standard.

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly tribunal members will receive extensive training.

They’ll be selected on the basis of having a background that’s

consistent with the ability to be trained up on these particular

questions that will be going in front of them.

There are two parts, I think, to the member’s question. One is the

legal question of: what is the standard of review? When the proposed

law, the bill here, says that the tribunal must be considered to be an

expert tribunal, it’s directing a court, on review, about what the

standard of review should be. That incorporates with it a whole bunch

behind that legal terminology about how the court looks at the decision

that was made by the tribunal, what standard it’s held to, and so

on.

The member is also asking a practical question about: well, can we

be certain that the tribunal will be experts and that this standard is

appropriate? I can tell the member that the members will be hired and

trained in accordance with ensuring that they are expert in resolving

these matters, but not only that. They’re going to be hearing these

matters day in and day out, over and over, and they will be quite expert

in resolving these matters.

[3:35 p.m.]

Certainly, in a very short period of time, they will hear many

more of these types of disputes than other decision-makers might get to

hear at other levels, under other systems. This will be a specialized

tribunal that hears matters of: is it a minor injury or not? And in

accident disputes under $50,000, the tribunal members will be quite

expert in that in a very short period of time, given the volume of

cases.

M. Lee: Just one more question before we get to sub (2). In terms of

exclusive jurisdiction, that wording in sub 56.7(1)(a) — I wanted just

again go through the meaning of those words in the context of this

provision. Particularly, we’re talking about exclusive jurisdiction in

terms of the types of claims that’ll be put forward in front of the

tribunal, I presume?

Secondly, in terms of the limits on dollar amounts on minor injury

and the overall limit of $50,000, what does this exclusive

jurisdiction…? How far does it reach in terms of how it considers all of

the limits around the tribunal’s jurisdiction?

Hon. D. Eby: Exclusive jurisdiction issues. There are two exclusive areas of

jurisdiction. One is entitlement to accident benefits, and the other is

determination of whether an injury is a minor injury according to the

legislation that’s also in front of the House. Those are the exclusive

areas of jurisdiction for the tribunal. Those are the two areas. And

that’s it.

Damages for accident claims under $50,000 is not exclusive,

because you can make an application to the court. We went through this

with the member earlier. You can make an application that in the

interest of justice and fairness and all the circumstances and so on,

according to the criteria that are set out, the matter could go ahead in

the B.C. Supreme Court anyway.

We’ve tried to send signals that the preference, certainly from a

policy perspective, is that matters go ahead in this more efficient

tribunal, for a bunch of reasons that I’ve talked about many, many

times. But it’s not exclusive jurisdiction around disputes under

$50,000.

Liability and accident claims, similarly, is not exclusive

jurisdiction. It’s shared jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, if you

can cross those hurdles that were set out ensuring that only those

disputes where justice and fairness require that it goes to the B.C.

Supreme Court.

M. Lee: I suppose in terms of walking through the justice and fairness at

the outset of this process, then, a claimant would need to have legal

counsel to help navigate that determination. That’s something that I

think will need to be considered here, in terms of….

The concern, I think, will be the standard of review for these

claims and the need to ensure that claimants have the right level of

legal input and legal counsel on that. I’d just invite the Attorney

General for some comment on that concern.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just for clarity, there is no restriction on attending either the

CRT or B.C. Supreme Court anywhere in the legislation on these disputes

related to motor vehicle matters under or over $50,000, catastrophic or

minor injury. There’s no restriction on counsel.

Odds are good that if you are in B.C. Supreme Court, you are there

with a lawyer because it is a complicated process. It’s difficult to

represent yourself, but you might be there appearing on your own. It’s a

bit speculative, that piece. I’m trying to get at what the member is

asking about. There are a couple of scenarios.

One is where you believe your claim is valued at less than

$50,000. The evidence appears to suggest that the claim is valued at

less than $50,000, and you’re in B.C. Supreme Court. If you still want

the court to determine that, even though everything suggests that it

should be in front of the CRT, you can try to convince the court that

justice and fairness ensure that you get to continue, even though you

are below the $50,000 threshold. If you are over the $50,000 threshold —

the medical evidence and the material damage evidence and whatever it is

say you are over $50,000 — then there is nothing to move you out of the

B.C. Supreme Court process. There is no legal test there, other than

what the value of the anticipated damage is here.

I’m hopeful that that addresses the member’s question, although

I’m not sure it does.

M. Lee: If I could just go to 56.7(2), with respect to a comment earlier

that courts may be in a better position to assess liability, would that

suggest, though, that under the $50,000 limit, the CRT will be in a

lesser position to do so than a court?

Hon. D. Eby: The intent in the carve-out was to avoid a circumstance where the

courts head down a certain path with respect to liability on other tort

claims and the civil resolution tribunal issues a number of decisions

that head down another direction around liability and then there’s a

divergence in the understanding of the two bodies of when liability is

incurred. By lowering the judicial review standard on reviews relating

to liability, we’re aiming to prevent that outcome, where the decisions

around liability between the court and the civil resolution tribunal

would vary.

We would like consistency between those decisions in terms of

apportioning liability, and we think that the lower review standard will

enable that.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask the Attorney General: in terms of the

prescribed class that’s referred to in sub-subsection 58.2(1)(b)…. In

the absence of that being defined or being in the original act, could

the Attorney General please describe or explain what that prescribed

class may well be?

Hon. D. Eby: As an example, we believe that this would be required for

cooperative associations.

M. Lee: Just on 27. Will this be defined then by regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. This would be prescribed by regulation. I

can tell the member that in terms of what is being contemplated right

now for any regulation, cooperative associations are an example. I’m not

aware of other examples at this stage, but there may be others

eventually, so it was proposed to do this by regulation.

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

M. Lee: On

section 30, I just wanted to refer back to

section 93 of the

current act and ask the Attorney General just to walk through what seems

to be a broader expansion of the regulatory powers by making this

amendment — if he could just take us through those changes.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m looking at subsection 93(2), for the member to follow

along.

Subsection (2)(a), “respecting any matter for which the tribunal

may make rules….” This is a regulation-making power to ensure that

there’s not a circumstance where the tribunal might make a rule, where

they didn’t have the authority to do that under the act. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Counsel would not have the ability to make a

regulation relating to that. It would be an awkward situation where the

tribunal could make a rule but the cabinet couldn’t make a regulation

relating to that.

Subsection (

b) is unchanged. Subsection (

c) is struck because it’s

now captured in subsection 113(b). Subsection (

d) is changed to reflect

a new

section number. Subsection (e), which was previously not in force,

is replaced with a

section relating to accidents — accident claims.

Obviously, one of the driving forces behind this legislative change was

around accident claim

definitions. Subsection (

f) is captured by sub

113(

b) as well. Subsection (g) — we have a whole new judicial review

section that we’ve been through.

Subsection (

h) is struck, and we’ve changed it so that there are

not these different formulas anymore. The new limitation period is

contained elsewhere. In relation to subsection (i), 14.1 has changed to

section 16.4, and the new provision, subsection (g), is sufficient to

provide any regulation-making power that’s needed here. Subsection (

j) has moved to various places through the act, for strata and small claims

and accident claims, which could use subsection (

g) which I’ll go over

in a sec.

Subsection (

g) is respecting any other matter for which

regulations are contemplated by this act to ensure that we haven’t

missed a

section where regulations are needed but there’s not a

regulation-making power. Subsection (f), working backwards, is

prescribing fees to be paid for anything done by the tribunal. And

subsection (

k) is changed to subsection (c), which talks about deposits

for claims previously adjudicated.

I hope that assists the member. There are obviously a lot of

changes in 93(2) there.

M. Lee: Given the nature and the scope of this amended

section dealing

with regulatory powers, when that was presented to the legislative

review committee, was there any particular rating as to whether there’d

be a high or a medium or a low probability of any challenge to this

provision?

Hon. D. Eby: These are standard regulation-making powers. Subsection (g),

although it appears to be a significant broadening of regulation-making

power, in fact requires that somewhere in the act it says that it’s

prescribed. It requires some indication that there was a matter for

which regulations were contemplated. It couldn’t just be regulations

made out of whole cloth concerning any matter whatsoever. So it is a

restricted provision.

I can say, though, that certainly there are interested parties in

the existing system, and they’re well-resourced with lawyers. The member

should expect that there will be challenges — probably not to these

particular provisions but challenges to the civil resolution tribunal

authority or jurisdiction or to other bills related to the reform around

ICBC.

[3:55 p.m.]

We do expect those challenges. In preparing legislation, one of

the pieces we do is we make sure that we’re operating within the rule of

law, the constitution in Canada and the laws in British Columbia. I can

advise the member that certainly I wouldn’t present anything in this

House that I felt would not stand up to challenges in the court and that

didn’t reflect good policy around access to justice and public policy

related to resolving claims like these.

M. Lee: In terms of the provisions, specifically new 93.2(

a) and (g), in

terms of the breadth of those possibilities of what might be put through

as a new regulation for the tribunal, can the Attorney General share

with this House any expectations around what future changes to the

tribunal’s rules might be affected through this particular

provision?

Hon. D. Eby: The most obvious one we can think of, given the new jurisdiction

of the tribunal, would be in relation to experts. The tribunal might

require a joint expert or might limit the number of experts or would

permit the admission of a doctor’s medical records without the doctor

having to attend personally. That was kind of our best effort here to

try to anticipate some of the obvious areas where there may be new rules

under this power.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

section 32.

M. Lee:

Section 32 is the biggest part of this bill in terms of

introducing jurisdiction across the board. In terms of

section 113(b),

again this refers to a class of claim to be prescribed by regulation.

Could I ask what the expectation is around that class of

claims?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Currently there is no class of claims that we anticipate

prescribing excluding from the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This is a

regulation-making power that anticipates that there might be some sort

of issue that comes up with a class of claims that, for some reason, is

determined that it’s more appropriate to go directly to B.C. Supreme

Court instead of being at the tribunal. In which case, this provision

gives the ability to prescribe what that class of cases is and send it

off to court instead of having it appear in front of the tribunal. But

there is no class of cases that are currently anticipated.

M. Lee: Just in terms of

section 116 — again, this

section relates to what

we’ve been discussing at committee stage on specialized expertise.

Again, this

section buttresses that statement. If I could ask the

Attorney General, in terms of how the tribunal members will continue to

meet this requirement under

section 116.

Hon. D. Eby: There are two possible areas where the member’s asking the

question. One is around what is called the privative clause in

administrative law, which is a signal to a court around deference — that

the tribunal should receive deference from the court when appeals take

place, when it’s about judicial review. This is very common language

around a privative clause — subsection (2) — a signal to the court that

as a policy matter, we want them to give deference to the decision by

the CRT.

I feel like, though, the member is actually asking a more

practical question about: how do we actually know that the tribunal

members will be experts? The CRT members here, in relation to the ICBC

claims, are going to hear two areas of exclusive jurisdiction. They’re

going to hear entitlement, accident benefits and definition of minor

injury, and then they’re going to hear a lot of claims under $50,000.

That’s all they’re going to hear. That’s all they’re going to deal

with.

They are going to be highly specialized in these areas. They will

know the law inside and out. That’s part of, in addition to the training

and the hiring process that the CRT will engage in, how we know the CRT

will be quite expert in these areas.

It’s different than B.C. Supreme Court. A B.C. Supreme Court judge

can hear any number of different matters — adoption, appeals,

bankruptcy, bodily injury, contracts, corporate law, criminal matters,

debt collection, medical malpractice, negligence, societies. The

structure of the court and the hearing process is quite different,

because there’s a wide area that a judge in B.C. Supreme Court, the

justice in B.C. Supreme Court, may have to hear. That usually involves

lawyers and providing information to the court about the state of the

case law and state of law and the evidence that’s in front of the court,

and so on.

In the tribunal, it’s set up so that people can appear without

counsel. They can appear self-represented, if they choose to do that.

Although as a right, they can bring a lawyer to a tribunal. The tribunal

member is more involved in the process, around ensuring that there’s a

fair outcome.

It’s a totally different structure than B.C. Supreme Court, and it

necessitates and enables the possibility for CRT members to become quite

expert in this specialized area that they’re doing day in and day out,

over and over.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. Lee: I do appreciate…. The Attorney General is correct. I am trying to

address the question in both ways. On the practical side, if we can just

take this opportunity one more time….

In terms of how tribunal members will be selected, again, that

will presumably be governed under the merit-based process that’s in the

Administrative Tribunals Act. If the Attorney General can just describe

the selection process itself for the tribunal members, in the guise of

understanding “specialized expertise.”

Hon. D. Eby: The relevant

section of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act is

part

8, which talks about how tribunal membership and administration is

established.

Section 67 governs the appointment of a chair.

Section 68

governs how vice-chairs and other members of the tribunal are appointed.

Section 69 governs how temporary tribunal members are appointed.

Section

70 relates to acting chair; 71, acting chair if there’s been no chair

appointed; and 73 deals with resignation.

There’s a whole regime that’s set out around how tribunal members

— specifically

section 68, tribunal members themselves — are hired and

the process that is required to staff up the tribunal. I can advise the

member that there are already some tribunal members with personal injury

experience, but obviously, there would be some significant hiring that

would have to take place if and when this bill passes, combined with

additional legislation that’s in front of the House.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. In terms of subsection 68(3) of the current

act, the terms of the appointments are stated to be at least two years

and not more than four years. Is there an expectation in terms of how

tribunal members with personal injury law experience will be appointed

to this tribunal in terms of length of service?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection 68(3) says: “The term of office for the initial

appointment of a tribunal member…must be at least 2 years and not more

than 4 years.” There’s also an option under subsection (4) for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to reappoint a tribunal member after a

merit-based process for an additional term of not more than five years.

Appointments can be full-time or part-time. The two sections, read

together, create the possibility of a term up to nine years.

M. Lee: Just back to sub 68(1), in terms of the merit-based process

itself, I’d ask if the Attorney General can just outline what that

process would look like in the context of this tribunal for the kind of

expertise that’s going to be required for accident claims.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The merit-based process is set out by the chair, and it’s engaged

in by the chair of the tribunal around determining what skill sets are

required for the proper functioning of the tribunal within the

legislative authority of the tribunal.

M. Lee: In terms of considerations around the tribunal members themselves,

as to whether they’ve come from either former lawyers at ICBC or other

members of the bar, are there any considerations around bias?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to take a step back and provide some big-picture

independence safeguards that are in place to ensure that the CRT is able

to independently adjudicate matters, which I think is maybe at the heart

of the member’s question.

The members are appointed on a merit-based process. They are

appointed based on their qualifications. It’s a process set up by the

chair, under sections 67 and 68 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

They can only be terminated for cause, under

section 74, once they’re

appointed for set terms.

Section 74 sets out what that cause restriction

is.

Section 75 establishes remuneration of members, which is “in

accordance with the general directives of the Treasury Board,” and it

applies to members of all B.C. tribunals.

The act itself specifically requires that members of tribunals

“faithfully, honestly and impartially perform their duties” —

section

83. If they failed to do that, that would put them in jeopardy,

certainly, in terms of the application of

section 83 requirements. The

Ministry of Attorney General, obviously, doesn’t get involved with how

the CRT runs its operations. That’s the responsibility of the

chair.

If there were an issue with bias or improper decision-making

because of an outside influence on a tribunal member, keep in mind that

the tribunal decisions can be reviewed by the B.C. Supreme Court. There

would be no deference on a conflict of interest or on a tribunal member

who was improperly receiving payment, motivated by self-benefit or

trying to benefit a third party by adjudicating a decision in a certain

way. The court could hear arguments on that and could overturn

decisions. So the court acts as the safeguard in that

situation.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Just on subsection 119(b), I wanted

to ask the Attorney General how this particular provision works.

Section

9 provided for government to be a party to a tribunal proceeding under

certain situations. So I wondered how

section 119 was to be read against

section 9.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will remember that because government could be a party

to an accident claim, we removed the restriction preventing government

from being a party in front of the civil resolution tribunal. This is

maintaining the status quo for non-accident claims. Government can only

be a party in motor vehicle matters, not in tribunal small claims

matters.

M. Lee: That isn’t clear enough from

section 9 on its own?

Hon. D. Eby: The drafters put this in here as a matter of housekeeping

organization and just to ensure clarity around the fact that government

cannot be a party in small claims matters, only in motor vehicle

matters.

There is a slight difference in wording around government as a

party versus whether the tribunal has jurisdiction in a claim. At the

end of the day, this is intended to provide clarity to people about when

government can and cannot be a party in front of the CRT.

M. Lee: I think I understand that. Really, the way to read

section 9 is….

The reason why I question it is only because under sub 9(1)(a),

presumably a small claims matter is something of exclusive jurisdiction

for the tribunal. I suppose

section 119, then, basically is doing, in a

separate part of the act, something that could have been clarified in

sub 9(1).

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll accept the member’s comment. I think the intention is the

same — to provide clarity around when government is and isn’t a

party.

M. Lee: Are there other clarifications of that same nature required for

other types of claims in this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: Not that we’re aware of, but if the member spots something, we’d

be glad to hear about it.

M. Lee: So generally speaking, under divisions 4, 5 and 6, there is a

differentiation in terms of what falls outside of the jurisdiction of

the tribunal. I ask if the Attorney General could just walk us through.

We could do it separately, but in each case — not each provision, but

generally speaking — what’s the approach, the methodology, that’s being

utilized here to differentiate between matters that are within the

jurisdiction of the tribunal versus matters that are best dealt with by

the Supreme Court?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There is no change in substance, due to these changes, between the

existing bill and the proposed numbering changes. It’s simply a matter

of housekeeping and organization of the bill.

M. Lee: Turning to division 7 on accident claims, I would ask the Attorney

General to explain the differences between sub (

a) and sub (

b) in terms

of the definition of “accident.”

Hon. D. Eby: Could the member clarify which

section he’s looking at?

M. Lee: “Division 7 — Accident Claims,”

section 132.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This provides the tribunal with two different scenarios in which

to apply the definition of “accident.” Subsection (

a) talks about…. It’s

actually easier to start with (b).

Section (

b) says if you’re doing a

determination in respect of benefits, insurance benefits — it refers to

your basic insurance — this is the definition that you should use,

tribunal. If you’re doing a determination on something that is not basic

insurance benefits, subsection (a), then this is the definition you

should use. There is a difference between the two accident

definitions.

Subsection (

b) in respect to benefits — accident benefits, basic

insurance benefits — is talking about your own insurance. It’s accidents

that are caused by the use or operation of a motor vehicle. It’s a more

narrow definition of accident. But if you’re not talking about accident

benefits and you need to figure out the definition of accident to make a

determination in a claim, it’s a broader definition. It includes use or

operation of a motor vehicle, but it also includes caused by a vehicle.

An example of that might be where somebody jumps out of the way of the

car, and they’re injured as a result. It’s caused by the vehicle, but it

doesn’t arise out of the use or operation of the vehicle. Or a vehicle

is picked up by floodwater and collides with something else, and it’s

caused by the vehicle.

So definition (a), for outside of the basic insurance benefits,

has a broader definition. And subsection (b), when you’re talking about

resolving a claim with respect to accident benefits, then it has the

more narrow definition that arises out of the use or operation of a

motor vehicle.

M. Lee: Of course, this bill incorporates the meaning of minor injury from

Bill 20. We could get into that discussion here to a certain degree, but

I suppose for now, let me just work through the other provisions first

and then come back to that.

In terms of subsection 133(2), we still have the combination of

exclusive jurisdiction and specialized expertise. We’ve gone through

that in the course of other provisions of this bill, but just for the

record, would like the Attorney General to speak about this provision in

the context of accident claims.

Hon. D. Eby: This is just as we had discussed previously around exclusive

jurisdiction in relation to specific matters. The carve-out that we

talked about is in

section 25, around liability. Otherwise, the tribunal

is intended to have by this bill exclusive jurisdiction described in (

a) and (

b) there, which is “(

a) the determination of entitlement to

benefits paid or payable under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act” and “(

b) the

determination of whether an injury is a minor injury for the purposes of

the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.” So exclusive jurisdiction

there.

It’s considered to have specialized expertise in relation to the

subsection (c), which is “liability and damages, if the amount…is less

than or equal to the tribunal limit amount,” which we’ve talked about —

$50,000.

M. Lee: So in terms of sub 133(3), the purpose of that provision, I would

just like to ask the Attorney General to walk through.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is to recognize that someone may have more than one dispute

with ICBC arising out of a motor vehicle accident. It might initially

start as a dispute about whether or not they have a minor injury. But

then later on there might arise a dispute: “Oh, ICBC is not paying

injury benefits to which I’m entitled.”

A person can make multiple requests for tribunal resolutions

relating to a single accident. If issues are coming up in relation to

ICBC’s conduct that they want to have resolved by an independent

decision-maker, then they can appear at the tribunal, even if it arises

out of the same accident.

M. Lee: If those circumstances arise, if you’re dealing with the same

accident and there are different potential aspects of that same accident

being put in front of the tribunal, what’s the overall limit to that

determination or that dispute?

Hon. D. Eby: There would be nothing in this that would limit someone’s rights

because they brought forward for resolution one or more than one

separate dispute that they had with ICBC. They would be able

to….

They’re treated separately, as separate disputes, unless, of

course, they concern the same subject matter. If there are two filings a

person makes about whether or not they have a minor injury and they make

them at the same time and it’s the same evidence, that is a matter

that…. Or maybe better, if they were being denied accident benefits and

they filed two separate proceedings around that at the same time…. I

mean, it’s sort of a far-fetched scenario.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m trying to think about when someone’s ability to bring these

might be limited. The intent here is that they’re able to resolve…. Any

dispute that they have with ICBC, they should be able to resolve it

through the CRT. That’s why the

section says: “For certainty, a person

may make a request for tribunal resolution in more than one tribunal

proceeding relating to an accident.”

Even though there’s only been one accident, they might have

multiple disputes with ICBC that they need to resolve. Their right to go

to the tribunal to resolve those separate disputes isn’t limited by a

jurisdictional amount or something like that, other than what we’ve

already talked about in terms of the whole picture of the

act.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask next about subsection 134(1) in terms of the

differentiation as to what matters do not belong under the jurisdiction

of the tribunal. If the Attorney General can just walk us through the

rationale in terms of how provisions under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act

were separated out for matters that do not fall within the jurisdiction

of the tribunal and would be better dealt with by the court.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The intent with the civil resolution tribunal is to have them

develop expertise in accident benefits, minor injury definition,

administration and claims that are $50,000. None of these sections in

134 really relate to that. They’re areas where we didn’t want to…. The

thinking was that they were better left with the court to provide the

tribunal with the opportunity to really specialize in the areas we want

them to focus on, which are the common applications that are going

forward.

Examples of this are around subsection (a), which talks about

financial responsibility to other insurers in other provinces;

subsection (b), which is offences under the act; and subsection (c),

which is where you may have forfeited your insurance but you’re asking

the court for an equitable remedy.

These are very nuanced, specialized and specific provisions that

wouldn’t allow the CRT to really focus on the areas where we want them

to become expert, where we want them to be able to resolve claims

quickly and efficiently and fairly for people who appear in front of

them. The thought here was simply that these provis