Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Friday, July 24, 2020

Morning Meeting

Issue No. 15

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

S. Thomson

M. Lee

J. Johal

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2020

The committee met at 9:40 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $524,557,000.

The Chair: [Inaudible recording.] I will turn it back over. I’m sorry,

Members. I had to interrupt the member for Richmond-Steveston and

the Attorney General.

Maybe I’ll turn it back to the member for Richmond-Steveston,

if there’s anything else he had to ask before we go to the Attorney

General.

J. Yap: Thank you, Chair.

I’ll assume that my first question was recorded by Hansard. I’ll

just repeat it. How has the pandemic affected the 2020-2021 budget plan

for LDB?

Hon. D. Eby: The first-quarter results were according to the existing budget

plan. That’s the only quarter we have numbers for currently.

I can advise the member that one of the major policy changes

during the pandemic was to implement a wholesale price discount for

hospitality. The projected impact of that initiative is $26 million to

$28 million, which would be a change to the number for the budget plan.

So first quarter, according to the plan.

There are a couple of trends that I would like to point out to the

member in terms of potential impacts that are coming.

The first quarter. Obviously, hospitality revenue was down, but it

was offset by more people buying alcohol from retail to consume at home.

I would note for the member that June, July, August and December and

January are very big hospitality months for people purchasing liquor —

so Christmas, New Year’s, summer long weekends, and so on, being at bars

and restaurants.

Obviously, with social distancing and varying public health

requirements around gatherings of 50 people and so on, we are expecting

to see a decline in hospitality income over that period. It’s not

determined yet how big that will be and to what extent retail purchases

will offset that.

J. Yap: Thank you to the minister for that and for anticipating my

question about impacts.

The $26 million to $28 million figure that the minister referred

to, I take it, is the expected annual impact of the move to wholesale

pricing for licensees. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that is correct.

J. Yap: So with this announcement of the move towards wholesale pricing

for restaurants and bars, how is that process going? Has it been

implemented? Is it being phased in, or is it now up and

running?

[9:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I just want to clarify my previous answer around the pricing on

hospitality, in terms of the impact of the change to provide wholesale

pricing to hospitality.

I believe I responded to the question, which was whether it was an

annual cost. That is the cost from implementation date, which was the

20th of July, through to fiscal year-end, which is March 31. So it’s not

an annualized cost. It’s the cost of the change for the period through

to March 31.

Then in terms of implementation of wholesale pricing, it launched

on Monday, on the 20th. So far, so good. Restaurants and pubs are

purchasing at wholesale price at the retail level. There’s been no

discernible change to volume or patterns of purchasing from these

customers at this stage.

By the end of August, there will be an online system where

hospitality customers will be able to access the full catalogue online.

Currently there’s a workaround to ensure that we were able to implement

it as quickly as possible, and it will be a more polished process by the

end of August.

J. Yap: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

With the change to wholesale pricing for hospitality, and with the

adjustments to forecasts that the minister referred to in terms of the

impact of the pandemic on revenues to the hospitality sector, perhaps

offset by retail purchase, what is the anticipated net revenue or profit

that government expects from LDB for this fiscal year,

2020-2021?

Hon. D. Eby: Currently, with Q1 meeting targets, the service plan projection

for LDB is $1.133 billion. But as I articulated in the earlier answer,

there are a number of trends that could play out differently. One is the

increase in purchase by people for consumption at home that in Q1 made

up for the significant decline in hospitality.

We aren’t sure, and we don’t believe that it is likely that retail

purchase will make up for the loss of significant hospitality months

over the summer and Christmas if there’s not a vaccine or an effective

treatment for COVID-19. And it is all, obviously, highly dependent on

the trend of infection numbers for the province and necessary public

health closures that might follow.

[9:50 a.m.]

Currently we are still working from the service plan, a number of

$1.133 billion. The significant pandemic variation that the member

should be aware of from this number is the $26 million to $28 million

impact of the wholesale pricing in the fiscal year.

J. Yap: I appreciate that from the minister. Of this amount, $1.133

billion, what is the division between profit from the wholesale division

of LDB and the retail division of LDB?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised it’ll take just a little bit of time to get that

number for the member. If he wants to move on to another question, then

I’ll get that information to him as soon as it’s provided to

me.

J. Yap: I appreciate that. How many LRS licensed private retail stores are

there presently in the province?

Hon. D. Eby: There are 671 active licences in the province for LRS

stores.

J. Yap: There was a moratorium on the issuing of new licences. I’m

wondering if the minister can tell us if that moratorium is still in

place, when it expires and what government’s thinking is, one way or the

other, regarding extending this moratorium.

[9:55 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The moratorium expires July 1, 2022. Government’s intention with

respect to the moratorium is to maintain it.

There is one recently announced policy change that could shift the

number of LRS licences, which is that we provided the ability for wine

store licensees in the province to convert their licence to an LRS

licence. Wine store licensees are limited to purchasing and selling wine

only, as the name might suggest. The ability to convert to LRS means

that they could sell a variety of products, including spirits, beer,

cider, mead, and so on.

I will note that there are 11 of those stores. If all 11 did

convert, then there would be 682, but for most British Columbians, there

would not be any change in the occurrence of the number of outlets

selling alcohol. Beyond that change, we have no intention of increasing

the number of LRS licences.

J. Yap: Thank you to the minister for the response.

My next series of questions is on behalf of my colleague from

Surrey–White Rock, who really wanted to ask these questions, but

unfortunately, she’s not able to join us this morning. She was hopeful

that she could get these in yesterday, late afternoon, but it was not to

be with the change in

schedule of estimates.

I’ll risk your forbearance, Chair and Minister. I’ll read this

into the record. There are three questions, which I will read into the

record. I’ll leave it to the minister and ministry staff to respond, at

an appropriate time, to these questions. I hope that’s okay, Chair and

Minister.

The Chair: Please proceed.

J. Yap: Question 1, on behalf of the member for Surrey–White Rock. With

respect to the severe challenges in the pub and bar industry currently

with COVID-19, would government consider increasing the number of LRS

licences by creating a window for existing bar and pub establishments to

apply for these new LRS licences, and would government consider removing

the one kilometre restriction from government liquor stores as an

impediment to new licences?

This would go a long way to helping these businesses over the hump

of COVID-19. Given the current economic environment, it doesn’t make

sense for government liquor stores to be protected from private

competition.

Question 2. Several constituents have contacted me over concerns

with recycling beer cans, liquor bottles and even glass containers with

liquor as a result of the pandemic. These concerns include the fact that

not many recycling depots are open. The grocery stores won’t recycle pop

cans, and the LDB won’t recycle beer cans. Added to that, in our

community, there have been long lineups, parking challenges and

frustrations among residents. On top of these frustrations,

notwithstanding the LDB’s closure of its recycling service, the LDB

continues to charge a recycling fee.

The questions to the minister. Again, these are from the member

for Surrey–White Rock. Does the LDB have a plan for the recycling of

beverage containers? Will there be an amnesty for bringing more than the

normal amount of recyclables to stores and LDB, etc., to clear the

backlog? Does LDB have a definite date for restarting recycling, and if

not, why? If the LDB is not able to commit to a date for resuming

recycling, will they stop charging a recycling fee at

checkout?

The last question from the member for Surrey–White Rock. Recently

government opened the sale of takeout alcohol with food for restaurants.

However, that order doesn’t include growlers or bombers, which can be

more cost-effective or appropriate for consumers. Would the government

amend its alcohol-to-go program to include growlers and bombers, and if

not, could they explain the rationale for not doing so?

That ends the questions read into the record on behalf of my

colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock.

[10:00 a.m.]

Next I’d like to turn it over to the member for Kelowna-Mission,

who has a few questions.

Hon. D. Eby: I take it, from the member giving over to another member for

questions, that the member for Surrey–White Rock would like these

answers in writing?

J. Yap: Yes.

S. Thomson: Good morning. Thank you to my colleague for Richmond-Steveston for

providing me the opportunity to ask a couple of quick questions here in

the process of these estimates.

The question that I wanted to ask to the Attorney General is

around the change to the wholesale pricing model for restaurants. I’m

certainly not arguing against that, and I recognize the importance of

that to that sector. But I wanted to confirm with the minister whether

he’s aware of and, in considering that policy, understands the

significant negative impact that that decision has had on the craft

manufacturing sector, both the craft distilleries and craft breweries,

that are impacted by that decision.

I’ve met recently with a number of distilleries here in the

Okanagan. For one distillery, this change has a direct impact on them of

around $78,000 off the bottom line, just for July and August. For

another one, it’s over $300,000 for the same time period. Could the

minister confirm that in his considerations for implementing this

policy, he acknowledges and understands the negative impact of that on

the sector?

Hon. D. Eby: The recommendation related to hospitality pricing came to us from

a group called the business technical advisory panel. This is a group of

industry representatives that includes two members, in particular,

related to the member’s question. One is the Craft Distiller Guild, and

the other is the B.C. Craft Brewers Guild. It is a relatively small

group, fewer than ten participants, and what they do is provide

recommendations to government based on an industrywide

perspective.

[10:05 a.m.]

One of the benefits of having this entity providing advice to

government is that they can have a discussion among themselves about

potential impacts of any policy shift and provide recommendations to

government that take a global perspective. I can’t speak for either of

them in terms of the decision-making about why they supported this

particular recommendation.

From my perspective, I can say that it certainly must have been

part of the calculus that having restaurants and pubs open and surviving

the pandemic is of economic benefit to all producers in the province and

that all producers are hurting a bit as a result of the pandemic. To

share some of that financial harm around is, industrywide, more

beneficial than having one sector, which craft producers are dependent

on, taking all of the impact.

I don’t know the extent to which thinking like that influenced the

decision, or at all, but I can advise the member that the recommendation

to implement hospitality pricing came from, included, the very groups

that the member listed as negatively affected by the decision. I’m

certainly aware of the impact. Craft distillers and brewers in British

Columbia — and wineries as well, when they sell to restaurants — are

able to sell at a lower price than retail.

Obviously, when you have a wholesale price for all products going

to restaurants and pubs, that removes that advantage. But I can also

advise the member that there are many restaurants and pubs that are very

loyal to B.C. products, are supportive of B.C. products and will

continue to order and promote B.C. products regardless of that. I’m very

confident in the ability of B.C. products to compete in this new

environment.

S. Thomson: I’m sure the minister understands that this sector has great

opportunity, is a job creator, is part of our tourism sector and is one

that supports a very, very significant component of the value-added

sector in agriculture.

It’s important to put into context — the minister referred to the

recommendation from the technical advisory panel, the BTAP report — and

recognize that that recommendation was part of a package of

recommendations and was meant to be considered as a total package, not a

process. Everybody gave up a little bit in that process in terms of

making those recommendations. But what has happened here — to take one

of the recommendations from that report and move forward with it in

terms of the wholesale pricing — has had that very, very significant

impact on one of the other sectors.

There were recommendations in the BTAP report that balanced out

that decision, as a package of recommendations. The situation here is

that picking one recommendation and moving forward with it has that

negative impact. That was part of the overall support, from the craft

sector, for the package of recommendations. I’ll ask the question to the

minister. Given this negative impact, is he prepared to consider some

policy steps that would mitigate that impact on the sector?

This is a sector that really stepped up to the plate during the

COVID pandemic with the production of hand sanitizer, a major

contribution. Is the Attorney General prepared to consider some

mitigating policy measures that would offset that very, very negative

impact on the sector? Can he provide a timeline of when he is prepared

to move forward with the balance of recommendations in the BTAP report,

which would be part of that mitigation — moving forward on

those?

There’s concern that in this process the minister has had the

report for a significant amount of time, and the sector doesn’t see the

timeline in terms of moving forward with the complete package of

recommendations.

To the minister, can he advise on whether he’s prepared to

consider some mitigating policy decisions that would offset that

significant negative impact? Can he provide a timeline on when he’s

going to move forward with the total package of recommendations that are

in the BTAP report?

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that this particular recommendation around

hospitality pricing was pulled out of the BTAP report as a whole by BTAP

and identified as their number one priority in the context of COVID.

Obviously, we took that recommendation very seriously and have

implemented it in a very short time period, in order to benefit these

critical pieces of the ecosystem around hospitality in British

Columbia.

I can advise the member that, also in the COVID context, a number

of recommendations that came from BTAP were pursued and implemented,

separate from the original report. It included the patio expansion, the

ability for the distillers to produce hand sanitizer, the delivery of

packaged alcohol with food, and deferrals in relation to

licences.

All this was a very significant amount of work done in a very

short period of time by the folks at our regulator, and I want to just

put on the record how much I appreciate the effort of all those people

to do that work. There were a lot of late nights and weekends, and there

continue to be, as the patio applications come in for processing, to get

those turned around, because everyone understands how vital it is that

this happen in a hurry.

I do understand the member’s core submission, which is that there

is a larger set of priorities of industry within the BTAP report. I do

think, and at least I hope…. I tried to be clear that that was our work

plan for the mandate of the government. It is a huge amount of work. It

is a significant reform of alcohol policy in the province, and we

continue that work. COVID has disrupted and introduced additional

priorities. It was my goal to stay on target with those original

recommendations and really focus on those, but COVID changed those

plans.

I want to extend my appreciation to both BTAP and to the regulator

for their working together to try to save as many businesses as we

can.

S. Thomson: Thanks for the response. I would just close by saying that when

the minister answered an earlier question about the $26 million to $28

million cost of this implementation of this policy, that’s the revenue

impact to government.

What that doesn’t account for is the cost and the impact on the

craft manufacturing sector. The cost of this policy decision is,

essentially, being borne by two components: government and the craft

manufacturing sector. As I said, the overall package of recommendations

in the BTAP created that balance that would have offset it and created

that balance around all of the puts and takes that are in those

recommendations.

[10:15 a.m.]

Unfortunately, what has happened here is that it has moved forward

with one specific part of the recommendations — and the others, as the

minister pointed out — but there’s a critical piece that hasn’t moved

forward. Those are the balancing recommendations around the

manufacturing sector.

This is, I’ll just reiterate again, a sector that has tremendous

opportunity for jobs, for growth, for contribution to the value-added

agriculture sector. It’s a component of our tourism sector in all of our

regions and communities throughout the province. It’s the craft

distillers. It’s the craft brewers. It’s the small-scale

wineries.

I would just encourage the minister to expedite and move forward

with the key recommendations in the report that balance that and look

for policies that help mitigate this negative impact on this sector.

They are bearing part of the cost of this decision, and I know there are

concerns that the overall set of recommendations haven’t moved forward.

So I’d encourage the minister to expedite that process and deal with

this negative impact and the balance of the recommendations.

With that, I’ll close and turn it back to my colleague from

Richmond-Steveston.

Hon. D. Eby: I would like to respond, Mr. Chair, if I could just have one

second.

I was hoping that we might have quarter 1 this year over quarter 1

last year numbers from craft distillers, but we don’t have those numbers

yet to share with the member. But I’ll just put on the record that once

we do, I’ll do my best to get those numbers over to the member so that

we can see what the actual result is.

What I’d like to just underline is that the impact of the collapse

of the hospitality sector on sales for craft brewers and distillers

needs to be the value, essentially, that’s weighted against the

financial impact of the wholesale price initiative. If there’s nobody to

sell to because the restaurant has gone out of business, is that a

greater impact than the hospitality pricing?

I suspect that’s why the BTAP group pulled this recommendation out

and said, “This is urgent; please do it right away,” which government

did. I don’t know that for sure. The deliberations take place among the

group itself. But I can confirm and advise the member again that that

was pulled out as the number one priority for us to get out the

door.

Certainly, I will take the member’s advice in terms of other

recommendations of BTAP. But I can also advise him that due to the work

on COVID-related policies, we have been delayed in the implementation of

the other BTAP recommendations, and we may be for a while yet, depending

on the continuing impacts of COVID.

I’ll also advise the member that if he has suggestions about

policies related to craft distilleries that would be trade-compliant, I

would be glad to hear about how government could further support this

important sector, and the same, certainly, for craft brewing. But I can

also tell the member that we are in very close contact with the two main

organizations that represent these groups, the Craft Distiller Guild and

the Craft Brewers Guild, on a regular basis.

J. Yap: Just to follow up from my colleague from Kelowna-Mission on the

matter of recommendations from BTAP, the technical advisory panel

provided their recommendations back in June of 2018.

[10:20 a.m.]

I do appreciate the minister mentioned that this was intended to

be a workplan over the mandate of the government. We’re now two years

in, and yes, we’ve had the unexpected pandemic happen. I wonder if the

minister could…. I know there’s tremendous staff that work at LDB and

the control board, the LCLB, who are very dedicated, work very hard and,

I’m sure, have provided a comprehensive outline around the policy work

that needs to be done to complete the work on the BTAP

recommendations.

As was mentioned by my colleague from Kelowna, all the

participants in BTAP arrived at this consensus group of recommendations,

24 recommendations, based on a give-and-take. Some were going to get

what they really wanted but had to give up something so that overall,

the stakeholders could agree on a document that they presented to the

minister. Some of the recommendations have been addressed, as mentioned,

and that’s a good thing. But the whole package needs to be implemented

so that the industry as a whole can move forward on a level playing

field and fairly.

To the minister, can he provide a timeline of when the BTAP

recommendations in total can be expected to be implemented? Recognizing

we have the pandemic to deal with…. But I do know that there’s a great

public service that provides great support to the minister. I wonder if

he can share with us what they’re saying they can do, on behalf of the

minister, in implementing all these recommendations from

BTAP.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were 24 original

recommendations. That expanded to 30 recommendations, and then the 30

recommendations were supplemented by additional COVID-related

recommendations.

[10:25 a.m.]

What we have with BTAP is a rolling discussion and a re-evaluation

and prioritization based on circumstances — in particular, the pandemic.

In that context of an ongoing discussion — on what is likely to become

and remain an institution advising government, because it’s been

incredibly helpful for everybody — I can advise the member that six

recommendations made by BTAP are complete and 15 are in progress. The

horizon for implementation of all of those is in the neighbourhood of

24-36 months, and nine require further assessment and

discussion.

Now, the member would rightly ask: “Why does it take so long, 24

to 36 months, to implement those 15 that you have in progress?” As one

example, a significant number of those recommendations are tied up with

a significant reform of our distribution system at the government-owned

distribution warehouses in the province — new computer systems,

end-to-end monitoring of shipments, and so on. It’s a very significant

IT project that is underway and a number of recommendations from the

report flow from those reforms that need to happen.

Others are closer, and industry has been advised and been provided

commitments by government around implementation so that they can plan

accordingly. For example, rural agency stores. I recently appeared

virtually for one of their membership meetings and announced that

government will be transitioning oversight and governance of those rural

agency licences to our regulator out of the LDB. Creating a separate

licence class for rural agency stores is something the sector has been

asking for, for a long time. So while it is in progress, it is

significantly underway and committed to by government.

The numbers provide a bit of the story. The larger context is an

ongoing discussion and prioritization with the BTAP group.

J. Yap: Thank you for that, Minister. A good segue to a quick question on

the distribution centre.

Can the minister confirm the status of the new distribution

centre? Is it up and running? He mentioned that there’s still some

technology implementation to happen, but is the transition from the

Vancouver warehouse to the Delta warehouse complete? And what is the

status of the government property, the former Vancouver warehouse

property? What will happen with that real estate?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked a number of questions there, but I’ll start with

one that he asked earlier, which is the split between wholesale and

retail in terms of revenue for government, projected. Wholesale revenue

projected for this fiscal is $1.079 million. Retail revenue — $64

million on the retail side.

The member also asked about the distribution centre. The new

distribution centre is running at a 95 percent fulfilment rate. The full

transition was completed at the end of May. There have been no major

issues. There are obviously occasional hiccups with new facilities, but

everything is running as expected. In fact, they’re currently running

record volumes through the facility, 11 percent more cases year over

year. This year they expect to ship 22-million-plus cases through the

new distribution centre.

With respect to the old distribution centre, that warehouse was

sold at the end of July last year, and the LDB had to be out by the end

of July. It’s owned by a group of First Nations. I believe it’s the MST

— the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh. In any event, it is a group

of First Nations and the Aquilini Development corporation that purchased

it.

J. Yap: Moving on to cannabis. Last year the minister informed the House

that the organizational structure of LDB for distributing cannabis was

not yet complete.

Can the minister update us on where that is right now with respect

to cannabis distribution?

Hon. D. Eby: The organizational structure is in place. There are no additional

employees added, except as demanded by additional volume of stores and

sales going forward. So the organizational structure is in

place.

J. Yap: How many legal cannabis stores in B.C. are now open? How many of

these are LDB, and how many are private?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to give the member a set of numbers here. Please feel

free to ask for clarification.

On the public side, there are 19 public stores that are open as of

this week. On the private side, here’s where the numbers might get a

little bit complicated. There are 260 licences issued. There are 45

approvals in principle, in addition to those 260. That is, functionally,

they’re ready to go, and it’s up to the operators to open and begin

ordering.

Then there are 213 private stores that are actually ordering from

the LDB, ordering cannabis for sale. It’s a good proxy for the number of

private stores that are actually open, but some stores may be ordering

but not yet open, so it’s not a perfect number.

J. Yap: I appreciate that from the minister.

By complete coincidence, Chair, there is an op-ed in the

Vancouver Sun from Val Litwin, who is the CEO of the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce. The topic is very germane to my next series of

questions. The headline is: “Cut the Red Tape that Plagues Legal

Cannabis Stores.” The minister may have read that in his morning

clips.

I’ll just quote, to set the context for my next series of

questions, from the CEO, Val Litwin: “B.C.’s legal cannabis stores are

ready to put hundreds of unemployed retail employees back to work

quickly. They’re also well positioned to generate thousands of dollars

in tax revenue if they were allowed to accept online orders and deliver

to your door. Unfortunately, burdensome regulations mean cannabis

retailers are struggling to find workers and are being forced to compete

with illegal dealers.”

He goes on to say…. Again, this is exactly what he says: “Since

March, the economic fallout from COVID-19 disproportionately hit the

retail sector, leaving thousands out of work.” The Finance Minister

confirmed that “almost 400,000 jobs were lost in B.C. in the first two

months of the pandemic.”

He goes on to say: “Meanwhile, cannabis retailers have hundreds of

jobs to fill. Sounds like a no-brainer. Workers need work, and there are

jobs waiting. So what’s the problem? But overly restrictive policies and

regulations in the cannabis sector are keeping furloughed employees on

government programs, depressing the earnings of B.C.’s regulated

cannabis industry, and inadvertently protecting the illicit

market.”

He goes on to say: “As of now, the hiring process for a single

front-counter job at a cannabis retail store takes up to three

months.”

Finally, near the end of his piece he says: “With reasonable

regulations and policies that mirror those of liquor distribution, the

cannabis sector is poised to provide much-needed jobs for workers,

create thriving businesses for legitimate employers across B.C., improve

health and safety for consumers, push out the illicit market, and

increase tax revenue for government.”

This was in today’s Vancouver Sun . It really sets the

context for a few questions here, and the minister may want to respond

to that op-ed.

My first question. We’ve heard from cannabis retailers with many

frustrations, issues, complaints about the level of service and the

quality of product. I wonder if the minister can comment on what’s being

done to resolve these issues.

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I will respond as best I can to Mr. Litwin’s op-ed, but first, let

me respond to the member’s questions.

In terms of delivering product, we’re not aware of any issues

currently, except for one. With COVID, Canada Post stopped delivering

parcels to the door, so customers need to go to the Canada Post depot

because they need to do age verification. The mail carrier will not

knock at the door and do that at the door, so that was an inconvenience

for customers that was COVID-related.

In terms of the warehouse, the availability of product, there was

a major issue last year with cannabis flower. I can advise the member

that that is not an issue this year. But this year, the availability

issue relates to edibles, concentrates and drinks. This is due to a

shortage of, in particular, suppliers. The licensing of suppliers is

done on the federal side. In addition, suppliers have also been

struggling in this new market, trying to get their product assortment

right and their chains of supply in place.

[10:45 a.m.]

A number have downsized significantly or gone bankrupt. This is to

be expected in a new industry but has still provided challenges in terms

of the province being able to access products that can then be

distributed and sold, which is what our job is. There have been

challenges on the industry side in understanding what consumers want and

in delivering that to us to deliver it to them.

On our side, though, I can advise the member that the LDB is in

regular conversation with retail customers. Three weeks ago, there was a

survey that went out to retail customers about their experiences and how

the LDB can improve. There have been improvements in a number of

different areas, including how products are stored and distributed as we

move forward.

Mr. Litwin’s, Val’s, comments about three months to approve a

counter worker are simply incorrect. There is a public safety check

because of the association of organized crime with cannabis sale,

delivery and manufacturing in the province. We have made a commitment to

British Columbians to keep criminals, as best we can, out of the supply

chains and distribution chains of cannabis as we transition to a legal

market.

The current wait time for the full background check is three weeks

for 80 percent of cannabis workers. So 4,300 workers have had background

checks, and we have done significant work to expedite those approval

processes. Those licence numbers that I gave the member, in terms of

private licences, involved extensive background checks of owners,

including financial background checks — very extensive work.

The member is right to note that we have been careful about this.

This is a new market coming from an illicit and illegal market. We know

that organized crime is involved in cannabis production and distribution

in our province, and we do not want them involved in the legal market.

So when we have 300 licences to go through, Public Safety and Solicitor

General does extensive background checks to make sure that organized

crime is not involved.

Finally, just in terms of the suggestion by Val that there’s an

opportunity around continually improving our regulations or making them

respond to current conditions, I think he’s absolutely right. There is,

obviously, opportunity for us to revisit regulations. That was our

intention from the beginning — to start very strict and to loosen

regulations over time, because of the experience of other jurisdictions

and their advice to us. That is, it is very hard to go from loose

regulations to tight regulations in this sector. It is much preferable,

according to their advice to us, to start with very strict regulations

and move to looser regulations.

Recently that has involved things like film on windows, allowing

stores to operate with transparent windows. We were trying to meet

federal requirements around not having children be able to see product.

There’s a federal requirement. Working with cannabis store owners, we

found a mutually agreeable solution where they would keep the product

out of sight of people from the street and be able to have transparent

windows, as one example.

Expediting processes around background checks and the regularity

and the number of times those kinds of background checks need to be

reviewed. Also, allowing people to reserve and pay for products, and

pick them up in store.

Work is continuing on delivery as well. He mentions that as a key

opportunity. One of the challenges we face, obviously, is that a lot of

illegal stores do deliver, and we need to make sure that consumers

understand when they’re ordering that they’re ordering from a store

that’s legal and licensed in British Columbia. That’s one of the

challenges in delivery, because we do know that consumers want to know

if they’re buying from a licensed store or not.

Some of the critique, I think, is fair. But it was a deliberate

policy decision to start strict and ease regulations. Some of it, unfair

and inaccurate. I can advise the member that the licensed producers of

cannabis products in Canada and British Columbia continue to improve.

This is a new market. There will be challenges. But things are going

quite well, in my opinion. British Columbians want us to balance public

safety with the growth of a potential new industry for our

province.

That is both the opportunity that is in front of us and the

challenge. I know that for the member, coming from Richmond-Steveston,

many of his constituents have expressed concern about the legalization

of cannabis and the availability of retail stores in his home community.

I know he knows, better than many members, the public safety concerns

related to cannabis legalization, which is why government needs to take

a very careful [audio interrupted].

[10:50 a.m.]

J. Yap: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

The minister referred to the illegal trade. I wonder if he could

tell us what is being done to address that continued illegal

trade.

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of illegal producers, government’s primary response is

the community safety unit. I can advise the member that this unit

operates out of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and

any detailed questions would be best directed to that

minister.

J. Yap: We understand that illegal cannabis growing and sales on First

Nations reserves has also been an issue. What is the government’s

position on that issue?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that where the nation is concerned about

illegal cannabis growing or sales or distribution taking place on

reserve, they can and, in many cases, have reached out to the community

safety unit in terms of an enforcement response. Government continues to

maintain that anybody selling, growing or distributing cannabis may only

do so with appropriate licences from the provincial or federal

government as required.

With respect to particular priorities of government around

recognizing the government-to-government relationship between nations

and the government of British Columbia, we have a

section of our act,

section 119, that permits government-to-government agreements with First

Nations in terms of the sale of cannabis, provincial jurisdiction. So we

are involved in discussions, with hopes to establish a bit of a template

agreement. We’re quite well-advanced in conversations with one nation. A

lot of that work is taking place in the cannabis secretariat, located in

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I can also advise the member that we are working closely with the

First Nations Leadership Council, where they have a working group on

cannabis, and government is working in partnership with them as well. So

there are extensive government-to-government discussions taking place

about the sale of cannabis in relation to First Nations in the

province.

J. Yap: The minister earlier in his reply had talked about public safety,

which of course is a concern for all British Columbians, including my

constituents. The key to this is education. Government has talked about

enhanced education around cannabis use.

Can the minister tell us what concrete steps the government has

taken on education with regard to cannabis?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of areas of cannabis education that fall within

the responsibility of this ministry, and then there are a number of

pieces that fall within the responsibility of Public Safety and Ministry

of Health. So please don’t take this as a complete answer of everything

that government is doing. I would encourage the member to raise

questions with the Ministry of Health and PSSG as well.

In terms of the B.C. cannabis stores, there are educational

materials in stores, including banners, ads and pamphlets, educating

people about the use and risks and how to mitigate risks of using

cannabis, also public health–related information. In terms of the online

store, there is a

section of the online store and banners and other

advertisements that relate to public health and responsible use of

cannabis. The educational materials, the public health materials, in the

online store are not age-gated, which means that they can be accessed by

anyone, regardless of age, with the goal of providing that information

to all British Columbians. The LDB does do some limited social

Now, with respect to our regulator, the key mandate of the

regulator has been educating British Columbians about legal versus

illegal cannabis and risks associated with purchasing illegal cannabis,

which include the promotion and support of organized crime and gang

violence but also, obviously, potential health risks, encouraging people

to make good decisions — if they’re going to purchase cannabis, to

purchase legal cannabis.

They have been educating consumers about which stores are legal

and which are not. There’s a map of legal stores so that consumers can

identify a store near them and choose to purchase there. There are

decals that have been provided to licensed retail stores so they can

identify themselves as licensed by the province of British Columbia.

They also deliver the Selling It Right program that is mandatory for all

retail employees in the province, at both public and private stores, to

complete.

The Selling It Right training program is up and running right now.

All employees have until the end of September to complete this program

and be in compliance. It’s the cannabis version of the Serving It Right

program that the members will surely be familiar with. That program

provides education to cannabis store employees around age confirmation,

serving people who are impaired and other kinds of public health–related

information to mitigate harms and prevent children, for example, from

accessing cannabis.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Yap: My last question on cannabis is with regard still to public

safety. The minister talked about how we are in this period of

transition from illegal to legal. Then there’s organized crime, which

the minister referred to in respect to keeping them out of the legal

market. It is known, from media reports, and just generally accepted

that organized crime has been long involved in the cannabis trade in

B.C.

Can the minister tell us…? What is the status, to the best of his

knowledge, of that involvement? Has it gone up? Has it gone down? Is it

about the same? What is police intelligence saying to him?

Hon. D. Eby: I would encourage the member to raise those questions with PSSG. I

don’t get intelligence briefings from police related to cannabis,

illicit industry activity, in the province.

I can advise the member that in terms of the financial impact on

organized crime, the government is forecasting, this year, to have a

$350 million revenue from the sale of cannabis. That is money that is

not going to organized crime in the province. The member can imagine

supplying $350 million to criminals across the province. The impact of

that is obviously fairly significant — to take that out of organized

crime.

It also generates jobs and provides products that are less likely

to cause significant adverse health impacts for British Columbians.

Also, that $350 million in product was grown by licensed producers that

do not bypass hydro utilities, cause house fires and other public health

issues with remediating grow-ops in residential areas.

We’re making some progress, because last year’s sales were $135

million. So it’s more than double that. It is good to see British

Columbians transitioning their use of cannabis from the illicit market

to the legal market in the context of all the controls we put in place

to encourage people to use responsibly if they do choose to use

cannabis. Otherwise, I would refer the member to PSSG.

J. Yap: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

Moving on to BCLC, my first question, I think, would be fairly

obvious. There has been a major impact of COVID-19 on the government’s

2020-21 budget plan, which originally forecast a target of $1.374

billion in net revenue to government, which obviously is not going to

happen this year because of COVID and the impact on the casino industry.

Can the minister comment on what he expects the financial impact of

COVID will be on BCLC? A follow-up question, so he has it, is: what is

the operational staff — that is, of the casinos?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The casinos closed on March 16 and remain closed currently. I

understand that B.C. Lottery Corp. service providers have provided a

proposal to the PHO around reopening. That is being considered by the

PHO, although the PHO has given no indication of a reopening date at

this point.

So currently closed, and we do not know when they will reopen. The

decision is entirely in the hands of the PHO, and I will take direction

from the public health officer when she feels it is safe and that the

plan meets requirements around public safety in relation to COVID

transmission.

I can advise the member that B.C. Lottery Corp. revenue numbers

are very much in flux, but to get a sense of the impact of the closures

of the casinos on provincial revenues, the projected revenue from

casinos operating normally to the province is about $23 million a week.

So each week that casinos are closed, that is roughly the revenue impact

on the province.

If I could ask the member if he is done with liquor and

cannabis-related questions. If he is, then I will release those staff to

their work for the province.

J. Yap: Yes, I have completed the questions with regard to LDB, liquor and

cannabis. He may release the staff. With that, I would like to say thank

you to the staff for their dedication and their great work in executing

the policies that provide for liquor and cannabis in our province.

Thanks to them for their great work in supporting the minister and our

province.

To the minister, thank you for the response on my question. We

understand that some service providers — some of the casinos — have

submitted reopening plans incorporating safety in the new world that we

live in. We, of course, want to see the casinos upgrade safely for the

sake of customers and the staff.

The minister referenced the fact that every week that the casinos

are not operating, we’re not collecting a substantial amount — $20

million or so — in revenues to the province, so it’s a substantial

hit.

[11:10 a.m.]

I do appreciate that the minister is placing the responsibility

for the safety side with the provincial health officer to sign off on

it, and that’s understandable.

My question to the minister. As the minister responsible, does he

have a sense of when, given what we know of…? I assume he knows about

the opening plans. So whether he sees an opportunity for some limited

reopening of the casinos, in a safe way, in the short term.

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Lottery Corp. has been working in partnership with service

providers — service providers are the companies that run the casinos for

the province — to establish health and safety guidelines so that there

are common minimum standards across the province.

Each facility is unique, though, in its layout and so on. There

will be unique aspects to the safety plan for each particular facility

at any time of reopening, but there are minimum standards being

established by B.C. Lottery Corp. in partnership with service

providers.

I can advise the member of some of the aspects of the proposed

plan that may be of interest to him. One is that for players who attend

casinos, there’s a proposal that they must have a player-identifying

card in order to use any machine or table in a facility. The goal behind

that is to enable and support contact tracing, in the event that someone

attends a casino that later is found to be positive for COVID, so that

people who were in the area can be contacted immediately and notified.

There are considerations like that going into the plan.

With that said, there is a very active expectation that the public

health officer and WorkSafeBC will have different recommendations and

feedback on the plan for any reopening. As I said before, I think it’s

important to put on the record that although there is a significant

amount of revenue in operations as normal for casinos in the province,

the province and government will only be reopening casinos if the public

health officer is comfortable with and supportive of the plans that have

been put forward for mitigating risk for British Columbians.

People need to have confidence about the safety of a facility

before they attend, and the numbers for revenue from casinos reflect

operations as normal and are unlikely to reflect revenue to the province

from operations in a COVID situation. I also want to recognize and

express that government is very much thinking about the thousands of

British Columbians who work in industries either directly associated

with or in proximity to gaming facilities or dependent on gaming

facilities.

[11:15 a.m.]

We’re, obviously, concerned about those families who are dependent

on those jobs, but again, we are taking our direction from the public

health officer and WorkSafeBC to ensure that those employees, when they

return to their jobs, are safe and that anyone who attends a B.C.

facility is safe as well. We’ve seen some examples out of Las Vegas, for

example, that we don’t wish.

J. Yap: I’m glad the minister recognized the impact on jobs as well. We’ve

heard from some casino operators that they have laid off about 95

percent of their workforce since they were shut down in March. So very

challenging for many families of employees of casinos around the

province.

To the minister, what is the financial impact of the pandemic on

funding for community gaming grants?

Hon. D. Eby: Gaming grants are within the responsibility of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing, but given that those estimates are

complete, to the best of my knowledge, we’ll try to get the member an

answer for that during the tenancy of these estimates.

J. Yap: I appreciate that, Minister.

The number one goal of BCLC’s service plan is that no one is

harmed from gambling offered by BCLC. With the lack of availability of

British Columbia casinos and the availability of Internet and

smartphone-accessible gambling opportunities, or apps, can the minister

tell us…? Are people gambling more online? What sort of risk does this

mobile gambling pose?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. We have seen a shift to online gaming, given

the closure of the casinos. As a result, and in recognition of that,

increased supports have been provided through the online

platform.

The GameSense advisers — these are the people who are in every

gaming facility now in the province, or they were — have now shifted to

a call centre model where they are available by chat and by phone

through the BCLC online gaming platform, Play Now, and are also

otherwise available to members of the public. Given that you can’t go

into a facility to access that service, it’s available both online and

by phone.

PlayNow.com also has a couple of safeguards in place that

land-based casinos do not. For example, you can lock yourself out of

your account for a predetermined amount of time or engage in voluntary

self-exclusion, which prevents you from logging in at all. Then also, it

has gambling session information for the person so that they know how

much money they have spent in any particular session, and they can track

that.

In addition, I can advise the member that the gaming policy and

enforcement branch is working on additional online outreach, in terms of

education about resources available due to problem gambling. The reason

there has also been an increase observed in the grey market. I prefer to

call it the black market because it’s my position and belief that this

is illegal gambling.

In any event, in what is commonly described as the grey market —

online gambling providers that provide services to people with Internet

connections in British Columbia — we’ve seen an increase in that

activity. There are no GameSense advisers, and there are no

account-based controls in the same way. So we want to make sure that the

GameSense advisers that we offer are available to British Columbians who

are gambling on those platforms and that they are taking advantage of

services offered by the gaming policy and enforcement branch, even if

they are gambling on illegal gambling sites.

J. Yap: Speaking of the gaming policy and enforcement branch, their budget

was $19.437 million for 2019-20, which is the same amount that is

allocated for this year’s budget, 2020-21, despite inflation being

approximately 2 percent. In effect, the budget has been reduced year

over year.

Can the Attorney General explain why the budget has been

effectively cut? If so, what services were cut?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the GPEB budget has, in fact,

increased with contingencies. There are 12 additional GPEB inspector

positions that were funded through contingency and were present in

casinos at peak hours until the casinos closed. This was following the

Peter German recommendation that the regulator be present in casinos at

peak hours. So programs have not been cut. Programs continue to be

supported and expanded.

Of course, all of government is encouraged and required to be

fiscally responsible. So GPEB finds efficiencies, certainly, in their

expenditure wherever they can, in relation to travel or other non-fixed

costs. But the presence of GPEB inspectors had actually increased in the

B.C. casinos — while they were open, again.

I’m going to go back to the member’s question with respect to

gaming grants. On June 22, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

announced that, regardless of the impacts of the pandemic on gaming

revenue, gaming grants would be maintained at the same level as the

previous year. For fiscal ’20-21, it would be $140 million.

J. Yap: We understand that the German report recommendations on anti–money

laundering steps have been fully accepted by government and that

government is in the process of implementing all those recommendations.

What is the timeline for completion of all the recommendations of the

German report?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that 37 of the 48 recommendations have

been addressed. Nine will be addressed through legislation by the end of

2021. One will be complete, we anticipate, in September. This is a

recommendation related to the joint integrated gambling enforcement

team. Then there is one, which is ongoing, in relation to money service

businesses within the Ministry of Finance.

J. Yap: With successful implementation of the German anti-money laundering

processes, as the minister says, over the next year, what does the

minister expect will be the impact of these changes on gaming revenue

over the next year and beyond, recognizing that this is an unusual year

with COVID? But back to the planning for normal operations, with the

service plan that had been laid out, what would be the impact of those

changes?

Hon. D. Eby: We were kidding a little bit that we’re expecting a 100 percent

increase in revenue as soon as the casinos open. It is a very difficult

time to project revenue impacts, obviously, as a result of the pandemic

closures.

Pre-pandemic, the impact of the German recommendations…. The

recommendations related to the acceptance of bulk cash at casinos and

other related recommendations were priced in last year and continue to

be integrated into the fiscal plan on a go-forward basis. The impact was

not expected to be greater this year than last.

J. Yap: The Cullen commission on money laundering was initially scheduled

to deliver its interim report by November of this year and final report

by May of 2021. With the pandemic, is this still on schedule?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The commission anticipates that their interim letter to us will be

on time but that their final report could be delayed. A number of

participants have been delayed in participating as a result of COVID.

That has resulted in a delay of the anticipated fall resumption of

hearings with the commission.

In terms of the impact on the final report, it’s too soon to say

what, if any, impact there will be in terms of their ability to deliver

that final report on schedule.

J. Yap: The budget was, I believe, $10 million — in this year’s budget —

for the public inquiry. The question to the minister is: does the

Attorney General expect the public inquiry to come in on budget? This,

of course, is an issue that the public is interested in.

Hon. D. Eby: We’re advised by the commission that they are on budget and

currently still anticipate finishing on budget.

J. Yap: My last question is in regards to the rebuilding of BCLC’s

headquarters in Kamloops. Can the minister explain how that process

evolved, how the decision to cancel was arrived at and the reason for

that change in decision?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to the headquarters at Kamloops, BCLC prepared a

business case that was evaluated by Partnerships B.C., which then

provided recommendations back to the B.C. Lottery Corp. and to

government in terms of the use of the existing facility and the budget

impacts of a new headquarters versus using the current facility and

doing upgrades as needed. The decision was made by government, in

partnership with the B.C. Lottery Corp., to upgrade the existing

facility rather than build a new building, given the information we were

provided by Partnerships B.C.

The building itself is undergoing $1.6 million in upgrades to

ensure that the workforce is appropriately housed, that the folks who do

the good work at the B.C. Lottery Corp. have a nice place to work and

have appropriate space allocation and a modern workspace. I can also

advise the member that there are ongoing discussions with the city of

Kamloops around the property as a whole, given this relatively new

approach, although we announced that last year.

In particular, some of the B.C. Lottery Corp. property is being

used as a staging area for the Victoria Street upgrades that are

underway in Kamloops right now. BCLC has made that available to

Kamloops. Obviously, while it’s being used as a staging area, no work

can be done on that site. But the hope is that there can be some

partnership with Kamloops in terms of how that property is used and

beautified to improve the general experience of people in the Kamloops

BCLC property.

I can advise the member as well — because I know it’s an issue of

continuing interest of many members, in terms of the executive

complement of the B.C. Lottery Corp., and government’s commitment to

keeping BCLC headquarters in Kamloops — that the two most recent

executive hires for vacancies in the executive at the B.C. Lottery

Corp., the corporate social responsibility officer and the chief people

officer, both are in the process of, or have recently arrived in

Kamloops as permanent residents of Kamloops. So the executive, in the

vast majority, are full-time residents of Kamloops.

J. Yap: Thanks to the minister for that answer. With that, I want to say a

big thank-you to the minister and all the staff that supported the

estimates with regard to BCLC, all the hard-working and dedicated people

that help government and this minister operate BCLC.

With that, I will hand back the debate to my colleague from

Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: That completes our first portion of AG estimates. We’re going to

switch over now to ICBC and my critic for our team for ICBC, the member

for Richmond-Queensborough.

J. Johal: My first question to the Attorney General, if you can give us a

sense of how COVID-19 has impacted ICBC revenue.

Hon. D. Eby: Just before I turn to staff on that question, I want to clarify

that we’re not going back to B.C. Lottery Corporation. So the gaming

policy and enforcement branch and BCLC folks can sign off.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, is that correct?

M. Lee: Yes, that’s correct.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: On May 14, 2020, ICBC released a report about the impacts of COVID

on revenue. Among other things, it detailed a decline in annualized

premium of $283 million and a reduction in expenses associated with

claims projected at $158 million. I can advise the member that updated

numbers will be provided in a report to be released in September. It

will follow the same format as the May report. But I don’t have more

current numbers than that.

I can tell the member, though, that traffic has been increasing,

as have collisions, but not yet to historic levels, so they’re still

under projected collisions. That’s good news for finances for ICBC, but

also premium revenue is still not at historic levels or projected levels

either.

J. Johal: Alluding to…. I think the minister is commenting about the

information that was released in May.

In that press release from ICBC, it said: “ICBC opened 46 percent

fewer accident claims, including claims for both damage to vehicles and

for injuries, compared to the same time last year, with an average

weekly reduction of 7,200 claims. This drop in the number of claims

amounts to approximately $158 million in savings for ICBC.”

Does the minister expect similar savings of that we saw from the

March to May period, or does he expect those savings to significantly

decline?

Hon. D. Eby: The best I can do is provide the member with broad trends. The

broad trends are….

The point-in-time number from the May report of $158 million in

projected savings was at the sort of lowest point of traffic related to

public health orders of the pandemic, where there was close to a 50

percent reduction over historical trends and projected trends. The trend

since that point has been of increasing traffic and increasing

collisions, but we are still below historic and projected collisions. So

the number of $158 million will be increasing, but at a slower rate in

terms of the numbers that are expected to be released in

September.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Johal: That period that we’re talking about here, March 16 to May 2. In

that seven-week period, there were about 7,200 claims over the seven

weeks. That’s 50,400 fewer claims. That’s a savings of $158 million,

which means the average cost per claim is $3,135.

In 2017, the average injury paid claim was $41,800, and the

average basic property damage claim was $4,000.

Can the Attorney General help me understand what cost per claim or

what kind of calculation they’re using to project the $158 million?

Basing it just on the 2017 numbers, one would assume the savings would

be higher.

Hon. D. Eby: I can provide the member with a bit of background about how that

number was reached. ICBC’s actuaries looked at historical accident

claims in a year-over-year period and the severity of those relative

claims, divided into material damage claims and injury claims. They

looked at what they have seen in previous years, compared it to what was

coming into the claim centre and arrived at the value of $158

million.

[11:55 a.m.]

Now, obviously, it’s an imprecise science, because we’ve put a

number of road safety measures in place, and we hope to reduce

collisions and so on. But in any event, it is a very accurate number, in

terms of actuarially what was expected versus what actually materialized

in the claim centre.

There is an explanation for the variation on the average claim

value, though, that goes some distance to addressing the member’s

concern, I think. In the service plan, the average collision claim value

does not include glass claims. Those glass claims are reported

separately. Because there are so many of them, and they are at a much

lower value, they have a distorting effect on the numbers. The average

cost, in 2019, of a claim was $4,300, and in 2017, it was $3,900. So the

impact of glass claims can be seen.

The Chair: For both the member and minister, noting the hour, we’ll do a

quick question, hopefully — and, if possible, a quicker

answer.

J. Johal: That’s the challenge. I think these questions are rarely quick,

and it takes a while to answer. We’ll do our best, both of

us.

In that same press release, ICBC had stated: “More than 150,000

customers changed their insurance policies by cancelling their policy,

103,700, or lowering their rate class, 57,561, resulting in a projected

$283 million decline in written insurance premiums compared to what

would normally be received for that period.”

How does ICBC calculate the $283 million loss based on the 103,000

cancellations and the 57,000 who were insured but lowering their rate

class?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a relatively straightforward answer to the member’s question.

It’s very simply the premium that ICBC has returned to people, prorated

over the year. If you have paid for 12 months of insurance and you

cancel your insurance in month 3, then it’s nine months of premium

returned — which is added, then, to that $283 million number.

The difference here from the collision number is that this is an

annualized number, so this number could — and it’s likely to — change as

people come back on, or as their behaviours change related to the

loosening of public health restrictions and as they’re returning to

work. But the months of premium that are lost is indeterminate at this

point. So in terms of what the final number will look like, it’s not

that easy to project. It depends on what happens with COVID in the

province.

With that, hon. Chair, I note the hour and move we adjourn for

lunch.

The Chair: The minister has moved that we report progress on the

estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will see you after the lunch hour. Have

a good time. Bye for now.

The committee adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Report of Proceedings (Hansard) and webcasts of

committee proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.