British Columbia Hansard — 10 May 2018, p.m., Issue 134 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20180510pm-Hansard-n134

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, May 10, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 134 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

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

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

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

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, May 10, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 4575 Orders of the Day Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 4575 Bill 27 — Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 4575 Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018(continued) J.

Y ap Hon. D. Eby M. Lee A. Weaver Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 4608 Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 4608 Estimates: Ministry of Health(continued) J. Isaacs Hon. A. Dix C. Oakes D. Ashton N. Letnick

THURSDAY , MAY 10, 2018 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. M. Farnworth:In the gallery today and touring the precincts are 45 grade 11 students and two adults from perhaps one of the greatest high schools in British Columbia, named in honour of the most famous British Columbian ever, and that is Terry Fox Secondary. They’re accompanied by a teacher who has dedicated an awful lot of years to teaching young people at Terry Fox, Mr. Don Van Os.

I would ask the House to please welcome those amazing students, from an absolutely incredible school, and make them most welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call third reading on Bill 27. Third Reading of Bills BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT CONTROL ACT Bill 27, Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, read a third time and passed. [1:35 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I now call commit- tee on Bill 20. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair. The committee met at 1:37 p.m. On

section 29(continued). J. Y ap:I would like to pick up where we left off from this morning. We were having a good discussion with the minister on

section 29, which is a key

section of this bill, which deals with the definition and the whole aspect of minor injuries. Just before the adjournment, the minister had discussed some of the measures taken, and I’ d like to follow up on this. Other than the government’s announcement of the red- light camera, photo radar 2.0, can the minister tell us what he has planned, specifically, to address distracted driving? Because we know from many studies that 90 percent of people carry these devices, the smartphones, and regrettably, many still use them and are distracted while driving a motor vehicle.

Can the minister tell us what, specifically, he and the government are doing? Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to again take exception to the member’s attempt to stop government from preventing people from speeding through red lights in intersections — where there are more than 80 accidents on average per year, causing death, injury and destruction — by calling it photo radar 2.0 and attempting to organize people to stop this from happening.

I am astounded that that is the position of this opposition, and I find it completely irresponsible — not only with respect to ICBC’s finances but with respect to the injuries and deaths that would be caused if we didn’t begin to try to get those numbers of accidents at those intersections down with great big signs that say: “If you speed through this inter-

section and go through a red light, you will get a ticket. ” It is incomprehensible to me why the member insists on that. With that said, I’ll run through a number of the initiatives that government’s brought underway in just nine months. I’ll note that for 16 years, there was a lot of time to do work on distracted driving. That was not done. We increased public awareness of the risk of distracted driving through a new advertising campaign in September.

We talked about the red-light cameras, which the member opposes; designated distracted driving as a high-risk beha- viour under ICBC’s driver risk premium program, making distracted driving a DRP offence for the second violation. [1:40 p.m.] Distracted driving technology pilots. This is technology that a customer can put in their car, or it could potentially be used for new drivers or multiple offenders, which would prevent them from using their phones while they’re driving, or it could potentially be taken on voluntarily by British Columbians in exchange for lower insurance premiums.

We have a dangerous roads initiative, a collision reduction program to identify and retrofit infrastructure regulations and signage at dangerous roads and intersections across the province. I think I canvassed but just to underline, we are doing a full rate design review process, where high-risk drivers will pay more and good drivers will be rewarded with lower insurance rates in order to incent drivers even further to engage in good driving behaviour. The Chair:The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rises on a point of order. 4575

A. Weaver:I have some concerns about the line of ques- tioning here. My understanding of committee stage is that we’re to have questions with respect to the

section at hand here. The

section we’re discussing is not about red-light cam- eras. It’s specifically about definition and

interpretation of minor injuries. I fail to see the link between a discussion of political purposes for bringing in red-light cameras, or not, and the actual substance of this section, which is definition and

interpretation of minor injuries. The Chair:Thank you for raising your point. Members certainly have enjoyed latitude in the past. J. Y ap:We’ll move on from the cameras. Will the minister be working to increase education and services to drivers about distracted, intoxicated and, soon, high-on-cannabis driving? Hon. D. Eby: ICBC regularly advertises to the public around safe driving behaviours. I encourage the member to attend estimates, and I would be happy to go in detail around their planned spending for the year on advertising related to safer driving behaviours. J.

Y ap:Can the minister tell us how many cases since 2012 have been settled overall by ICBC? Hon. D. Eby: The people who are here in the chamber are…. There’s ICBC’s chief legal officer. We’ve got lawyers from the Ministry of Attorney General and the executive director from the Ministry of Attorney General, who are experts in this bill that’s in front of the House. I will have detailed financial information, numbers related to…. I will endeavour to recover this number for the mem- ber — the number of settlements since 2012 by ICBC — for estimates, which is what that process was set up for.

I’m afraid I’m ill-prepared to provide detailed financial or logist- ical information about ICBC, because we’re preparing here to discuss the bill, and these are the experts I have in the House here today. I would encourage the member to bring those questions to estimates. J. Y ap:We’ll follow that up at the estimates debate. With the legal experts here, can the minister tell us how many cases were settled outside of a courtroom? Hon. D. Eby:I encourage the member to bring that ques- tion to estimates for the same reason that I just outlined. M.

Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General’s comment just now, but given the comments that were made before lunch, I’ d just like to come back to a point that was mentioned. We’re trying to get at, of course, the purpose, the aim, the objective and the benefit of having minor injury caps. That’s the reason why, now, at this committee stage, we’re get- ting to these questions, which relate to: what other initiatives does the government have planned to deal with the concerns around increased accidents, the increased costs from these accidents?

Coming back to a particular point, I’ d like the Attorney General to reconfirm a statement that he made. It was, I believe, an indication that when he looks back, including over this last 12-month period, there’s been a 260 percent increase in costs relating to minor injury claims. Can I ask the Attorney General to reconfirm that statement and per- haps provide elaboration on that statement? Hon. D. Eby: In 2014, a third-party business firm was retained by government — Ernst and Y oung. They were asked to do work. “Have a look at ICBC, and tell us where the corporation’s going.

Give us advice about where to go. ” They provided a report directly to government. The report was not released in its entirety to the public, nor was it released to ICBC. In fact, the members of the cabinet — at least one has acknowledged doing this — removed seven pages from that document.

Among those seven pages that were removed before it being released to either ICBC or the public were pages that said the following. [1:45 p.m.] “ICBC has some work to do in further optimizing its operations; however, these changes alone will not contain claims growth to within sustainable levels in the medium to long term, in particular with regards to bodily injury claims costs. “In order to sustain low rates going forward while continuing to work in the best interests of policyholders, the province could consider the levers at its disposal, such as introducing limited product reform to cap benefits for minor injuries and adjusting the premium structure to ensure equity among policyholders by driving-risk rating. “This would require a bold change in policy direction, but the results observed in other jurisdictions in terms of claims cost reductions are compelling. ” The government had full notice about initiatives like this in 2014.

I think in 2014 there was an opportunity to do a very significant road safety initiative that we would be reap- ing the benefits of now, in 2018. But instead of that, these pages were cut out of the report before it being disclosed to the public or to ICBC. We are taking those steps now — four years later, unfor- tunately — after more than $2 billion in losses at ICBC. If the member is wondering where the idea came from, it was available to the previous government in 2014, and it was just as available to us when we sat down and stared a $1 billion deficit in the face at ICBC. M.

Lee: I’m familiar with the statements of the Attorney General inside this House and outside the House. I was not asking about where the idea came from. I was asking about the 260 percent increase, what period of time that relates to and the explanation around that. Hon. D. Eby:That’s from the 2000 to 2016 period that was 4576 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

in the Ernst and Y oung report that was waiting for me on my desk when I started responsibility for this file. I just noticed that we were joined by a school group. It might be helpful for them to know that we’re talking about a bill in committee stage. Members on the other side, in the opposition, are asking me questions about it. I’ve got staff here to assist me in answering those questions so that every- one in the House knows what they’re voting on and under- stands it fully. Madame Chair, here, will referee between us, and you’ll hear a very vigorous discussion of car insurance this after- noon.

I hope you enjoy it. M. Lee:In what ways will minor injury caps deal with this 260 percent increase? Hon. D. Eby: According to that Ernst and Y oung report, minor injury…. They’re called pain and suffering awards. This is a recognition by the court that the person has been injured financially, giving them some award to recognize that it’s a terrible thing to be injured by someone else’s actions. Those awards started at about $5,000 in 2000 and went up to about $16,000 over the period.

The cap on these rewards at $5,500 enables government to say: “Y es, we still recognize that it’s a terrible thing to be injured by someone else. But our focus is not going to be on a pain and suffer- ing award to recognize that. Our focus is going to be on ensuring that you have access to benefits that will get you better — that you have access to the full cost of physiother- apy, counselling, acupuncture, all kinds of different bene- fits, the full cost of that. ” Plus, we also want a system that is responsive so that you don’t have to go through years of B.C.

Supreme Court with multiple experts at huge costs to the system that are driving up insurance rates for everyone else. This limit on the pain and suffering award is squarely dir- ected at this issue of the fact that these awards have gone up so dramatically in such a short period of time. M. Lee:What is the current average cost, then, in terms of a minor injury claim? Is it $16,000 or some higher price? Hon. D. Eby:The $16,000 is the pain and suffering award. The actual cost is a little over $30,000. M.

Lee:By imposing a minor injury cap, then, in terms of pain and suffering, just on the face of what was said, that’s an $11,000 difference. Where does the claimant get compensa- tion for that difference? Hon. D. Eby: All accident victims will see an increase in benefits available to them from health care professionals of various kinds. In addition, they’ll have access to additional categories of care provider that they didn’t previously have access to.

People who are catastrophically injured will have access to double the level of lifetime benefit. [1:50 p.m.] Ratepayers, drivers, across British Columbia will, we hope, be relieved of the burden of having to pay $400 each additional, per year, in order to keep up with these escal- ating costs. M. Lee: My colleague the member for Richmond-Steve- ston, before lunch again, talked about what effectively is a $3,300 average increase in benefit compensation that would be available for those 60,000 British Columbians. That’s, again, a difference of $3,000.

I’m still interested in where the $11,000 of coverage would go for a claimant for pain and suffering. Hon. D. Eby: The member is conflating several different categories, and the math is confusing at best. The combined factors of getting minor injuries out of complicated, lengthy, multiple-expert B.C. Supreme Courts and into the civil resolution tribunal, putting a limit on the pain and suffering award — not the out-of-pocket costs, but the pain and suffering award — for people with minor injur- ies at $5,500…. The combined impact of those two initiatives results in two things.

One is sufficient resources to increase all the benefits that I keep listing over and over, and the other is to get ICBC, hopefully, back into the black, with, after paying for the increased benefits, $1 billion in savings. If we did not take these actions and we just said, “Keep everything as it is. We want it keep paying out these ever- increasing pain and suffering awards. We want to go through the complicated B.C. Supreme Court process. We want rate- payers to pay for all that, ” we would have to charge $400 per driver in increased premiums across B.C.

I understand the idea that it would be good, would be great, to keep these pain and suffering awards where they are, or even to increase them, if we could give more money to people and there was no cost to that, but there is a cost to that. There is a cost to the full B.C. Supreme Court process and paying for all the experts and all these things. So we said: for minor injuries, let’s get them into a more expedited process, with a much lower overhead. Let’s make sure that the focus is on care, getting people better, paying for all their benefits, paying for their out-of-pocket expenses.

We’re going to reduce the pain and suffering award. The benefit of that is: the huge, administrative cost of this current system is so significant that we can cover people’s wage loss, we can cover their full out-of-pocket expenses for all these different categories, and there’s still $1 billion to get ICBC into the black. I saw the members vote against this bill at second reading, and I wonder what they are voting for. Are they really saying that the current system is one that they support? Are they really saying that we want drivers to pay $400 each, extra, to preserve the current system?

Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4577

I think no matter how you look at it, ICBC losing $1 bil- lion a year is not a system that works. We have to figure it out somehow, and this is the direction that we’re choosing. M. Lee: As the Attorney General has indicated, of course, the finances of ICBC, I’m sure, will be reviewed during estimates. There’ll be opportunity to do that, and I appreciate the Attorney General ensuring that that will be the case. In terms of the $1 billion loss, as the Attorney General claims is the case, that’s one thing. In terms of the savings that will be derived from this new mechanism….

Just to recap, we’re talking about $1 billion per year, plus $206 mil- lion, as we talked about, in terms of increased benefits. Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby: Y eah. The overall savings, after taking into account the increased costs of the improved benefits, is about $1 billion, projected. M. Lee: Does that include the $206 million for additional benefits? Hon. D. Eby:The projected savings include the cost of the additional benefits. I think I’ve said that. M. Lee: Back to the earlier point about the gap.

I appreci- ate the math is not that simple, but just from what I’m seeing, pain and suffering clearly is being lowered from what would be an average of $16,000 to the new cap of $5,500. The Attorney General asks: “Why is it that our side of the House is opposed to Bill 20?” It’s around the imposition of the minor-injury cap. There are issues and concerns that we’ll be canvassing at length here, not to mention the short period of time in which this has been on the floor of the House.

We are trying to gain a better understanding as to the impact on minor-injury claimants that might result from the imposition of this cap. [1:55 p.m.] Again, I’m just hearing, just from my simple understand- ing of the math that is involved here, that we’re going from a $16,000 average to, potentially, $5,500. I’m not seeing the additional compensation for pain and suffering for these claimants, other than potentially an addi- tional $3,000 of benefits on average. I appreciate that we’re dealing with averages here. But I’m just focused, of course, on pain and suffering, which is what this

section relates to. Hon. D. Eby:I thank the member for his comment. J. Y ap:Can the minister tell us how the $5,500 cap was arrived at and why it would not be placed directly in the legislation — that number? Hon. D. Eby: Three provinces have no-fault insurance. They have zero for pain and suffering awards for minor injuries. Alberta has a $5,020 limit on pain and suffering awards. Prince Edward Island has a $7,545 pain-and-suffer- ing award limit. New Brunswick has a $7,818 limit, and Nova Scotia has an $8,486 limit.

B.C. is in the middle of the pack, exactly, between the provinces that don’t give anything and Nova Scotia that has the highest cap. Every single province has addressed this except for British Columbia, and we’re right in the middle of the pack. It might help the members to know that for every $1,000 increase in the cap limit above $4,000, potential sav- ings are reduced by approximately $30 million or roughly 1 percentage point of premium rate. J. Y ap:I thank the minister for that.

But I am wondering why the minister did not set the cap to be closer in the range of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, $7,500 to $8,500. Hon. D. Eby: Because after their government’s actions, hon. Chair, we can’t afford it. J. Y ap:Why has the minister left the cap to five-year inter- vals for review and not indexed to inflation like the other provinces? Hon. D. Eby: It’s incorrect. It is indexed, and there’s no five-year review. M.

Lee:I know that the member for Richmond-Steveston has additional questions about the $5,500, but I want to come back to the point that was just made in terms of the comparison of our $5,500 proposed here in British Columbia under this bill to other provinces. Shouldn’t it be the situation, though…? Would the Attor- ney General please respond to this question? In terms of…. Shouldn’t this cap really be based on what we believe — if we’re going to put a cap on minor injuries — the appropriate level should be, as opposed to…?

Because when we talk about what we can afford, there are a lot of different things that can be done with ICBC, as we were trying to canvass earlier and we will canvass further. In terms of talking about the $5,500, I’ d just like to ask the Attorney General: on what basis is the $5,500 level being determined? Hon. D.

Eby:We’re learning from the experience of other jurisdictions who capped this a long time ago, because they understood, like we understand — unfortunately, like the previous government did not understand — that these escal- ating and out-of-control costs for these types of awards were not sustainable. The only way to pay for these awards increasing the way they have been is to increase premiums for drivers, which, by the way, the previous government didn’t do either. The gap between premiums collected and the escalating awards has now resulted in billion-dollar deficits of ICBC.

I do appreci- ate the member’s interest and, certainly, a shared interest on my part. I’ d like this award to be as high as possible. 4578 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

But what we’re trying to do here is strike a balance between ensuring that people get the benefits that they need, that they’re not out of pocket going to care providers, that they get their out-of-pocket expenses covered for their wage loss, that the full tort system is preserved for serious and catastrophic injuries and that we have a system that can deliver ICBC that’s in the black and providing affordable car insurance to British Columbians.

That’s the balance that we’re trying to strike. [2:00 p.m.] If the member has identified $1 billion in savings some- where, I would be very glad to hear him put those sug- gestions on the record this afternoon, because we’ll pursue those too and cut rates even further. I’ d love to hear about that. M. Lee: Well, the more we have this discussion, I…. We talk about balance. It strikes me that we’re…. I appreciate that ICBC, at least in the eyes of the government, needs to deal with what has been referred to as a large loss situation, which, again, we will have the discussion about.

But in the instance of what’s being proposed here, it strikes me that we’re talking about finding ways to increase savings on the backs of claimants for pain and suffering. If we’ d like to have the $5,500 level, or whatever level is appropriate for minor injury caps in this province, to be as high as possible, to the extent that it’s lower than other provinces, is the Attorney General suggesting that we’re not appropriately compensating claimants for their pain and suf- fering as compared to other provinces in this country? Hon. D. Eby:No, I’m not suggesting that. M.

Lee:Well, with respect, it sounds a bit like that. But let me just go to another question. In terms of the other provinces in this country, what has the experience been for these other provinces that have imposed a minor injury cap in terms of the effect on premiums? Hon. D. Eby:This report was waiting for me on my desk. It was commissioned by the previous government. It recom- mended to the previous government a full no-fault system. Just by way of background, so that the member knows that this isn’t some NDP-cooked-up report of some kind….

I keep hearing him suggest that the numbers around ICBC’s losses are somehow: “the member claims” and “the member says” and “we’re going to examine that. ” If the member thinks that we wiped $1 billion in income from ICBC off the books just to make a point, I’ d be startled by that suggestion. We’ d rather spend that $1 billion on pro- grams for British Columbians, instead of having it wiped off the books of the province. But I digress a bit.

This report, which was commissioned by the previous government, says as follows of jurisdictions that impose this: “Bodily injury loss costs in these provinces continue to be lower than levels in 2000, with decreases ranging from 10 percent to as much as nearly 60 percent in one of the provinces. By comparison, B.C. ’s bodily injury loss costs have increased nearly 85 percent over the same period. ” What would the situation have been, had the government, in 2014, not cut pages out of a report and instead looked at addressing the cost drivers at ICBC? M.

Lee: Well, I acknowledge the Attorney General for quoting from that report, but I was asking about what the experiences are in other provinces. Given that we have knowledge and understanding as to how minor injury caps have been brought in by other provinces, what has been the impact, as a result, on premium rates? Hon. D. Eby:“Bodily injury costs in these provinces con- tinue to be lower than levels in 2000, with decreases ranging from 10 percent to as much as nearly 60 percent in one of the provinces.

By comparison, B.C. ’s bodily injury loss costs have increased nearly 85 percent over the same period. ” So I would say, if the member wants a

summary, that their exper- ience was favourable compared to ours. J. Y ap:I’ d like to explore with the minister who he consul- ted with respect to the $5,500 number. Did the minister con- sult with Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Hon. D. Eby:I’m not aware of the position or the interest of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in relation to this pro- posed legislation, but certainly I’ d be glad to have my staff reach out to them. I thank the member for the suggestion. J. Y ap:Did the minister consult with Doctors of B.C.? [2:05 p.m.] Hon. D.

Eby: When we set the level, we looked at levels set in other provinces to see what was fair. A number of provinces pay zero. We said: “That doesn’t seem right. ” We looked at the high end, which was Nova Scotia, and then we looked at provinces that were more in the middle, like Alberta and New Brunswick. We said: “What would be fair in the context of what is paid across Canada, keeping in mind that each $1,000 beyond $4,000 means that drivers have to pay 1 percent more in their car insurance?

Let’s try to come in the middle of the pack, about $5,500. ” We want to recognize that someone has been injured, with the pain and suffering award. We don’t want to go to zero like other jurisdictions. We want to say: “Y ou have suffered. ” We want recognition for that. But we don’t want, and this gov- ernment will not tolerate, endless insurance rate increases for pain and suffering awards that are not connected to actu- al out-of-pocket expenses, that are not connected to health care to help people get better. That is what this definition in the bill is about, and that is why it is here. J.

Y ap:I’ll take that as a no. Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4579

Did the minister consult with a surgeon of any kind? Hon. D. Eby: The member knows we’ve been actively engaged with Doctors of B.C. because I’ve talked about it a bunch of times. I’m not sure what the expertise of Doctors of B.C. or surgeons would be in relation to pain and suffering awards and their escalation in British Columbia over the rel- evant period.

It is recognition by the court in tort law that someone has suffered a loss that is pain and suffering. “Y ou have suffered, so we’re going to provide you with this award to recognize it. ” The massive escalation in these awards from $5,000, at the start of the period, to $16,000 to provide that recognition is not sustainable. That is why a limit has been put on those types of awards while increases for health care to get people better, to get them back — increases for their out-of-pocket expenses, for their lifetime limit on these types of benefits when they’re catastrophically injured….

That was the bal- ance that we aimed to strike. M. Lee: I just wanted to ask, as a follow on to that ques- tion…. The massive increase from $5,000 to $16,000. Can I ask the Attorney General: what are the components of or the reasons for that increase? Hon. D. Eby: These are driven by decisions by the courts. The escalation in minor injury pain and suffering awards has been dramatically and significantly different than the increase in pain and suffering awards for cata- strophic injuries. M. Lee: With that being set, in terms of how that’s deter- mined, beyond $16,000….

Have there been other escalations beyond minor injuries, when we go to the next level of injury type? Has there been a recategorization of minor injuries into other types of injuries? Hon. D. Eby:The average bodily injury claim paid out for non-minor injury, according to the Ernst and Y oung report, was $38,014 in 2000 and $48,078 in 2016, an increase of 26.5 percent.

I think that provides the member with the compar- ison point. [2:10 p.m.] Staff also note that British Columbia now pays out more for minor injury claims than for serious injury claims or non–minor injury claims, 20 percent versus 17 percent respectively, and that we are an outlier in doing so in Canada because of our system as it’s currently constructed. M. Lee: Just to clarify, the outlier is that we’re paying out somewhere between 20 percent and 17 percent higher than other provinces? Is that how I’m hearing this? Hon. D.

Eby: We’re an outlier in that more of our premi- um dollars for insurance go to pay people with minor injur- ies than to people with non-minor injuries. M. Lee: Just in terms of minor injury claims themselves, has been there a change in terms of how many are being clas- sified as minor injuries versus something that’s non-minor? Hon. D. Eby: There’s no classification right now. This bill proposes to establish that classification both by legislation and through regulation-making power. M.

Lee: Just referring to the current situation in terms of looking at costs, we’re talking about, historically, going from $5,000 to $16,000 and the increase in terms of non-minor injuries, the category that’s gone from $38,000 to $48,000. I presume that that next category is the next level, going out- side of severity in terms of going from minor injury to some other level of severity. If that’s the case, I’m wondering, and I’m asking: has there been an increase in minor injuries that are being viewed to be non-minor injuries? Hon. D.

Eby: Non-minor injuries, according to the Ernst and Y oung report, are everything else that is not a minor injury. I’m trying to get at the member’s question here and provide a useful answer. There was an issue where injuries that ICBC believed to be more minor in nature and had assigned an apportioned value for those specific files at a certain level…. They re- examined. Over a length of time, they realized that they had not apportioned enough money to pay out those claims as they are required to do in setting their projections. So their costs were higher than they expected on some of these files.

That may be what the member is addressing. Certainly, there has been, recently, a re-evaluation of vari- ous files by ICBC based on projections of anticipated cost to ICBC, where more minor injuries — as they initially presen- ted, or as ICBC initially understood them to be — were then revalued later. It’s important to understand that when someone calls ICBC, and they’re in an accident, and they initiate a claim, there may be a period of radio silence for a year or more. They have up to two years to bring a claim.

This makes it very difficult for ICBC to track the claims, to know what’s happening with the claims, what’s happening with the costs during that period. They set an initial value of the claim when the file is opened, but that number may be out of date, and it may not be an accurate reflection of the actual cost of the claim. If that’s what the member means, yes, ICBC has done a full file review of older files to give us a concrete answer about exactly their financial situation is. Maybe that’s what the member is addressing, but it has nothing to do with this

part 7, “Minor Injuries, ” section. M. Lee:I appreciate that. I believe that this line of inquiry is relevant to this

section of the bill because we’re talking about minor injury claims and how they’re determined, how they’re defined, the scope of it, the extent, the dollar limits 4580 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

that government would make available in terms of the minor injury cap, of course. What the Attorney General is referring to is what I was wondering about in terms of what we understand to be a reclassification. I think it gives a sense to this House of the scope and nature of these types of reclassifications. If I can ask the Attorney General: what was the number of minor injury cases that were reclassified in this manner? Hon. D. Eby:There are three different minor injury terms that we’re bandying about here, so it’s important to define our terms.

First of all, there’s the minor injury definition that’s in the legislation that’s in front of us right now. Secondly, there’s the minor injury definition that was used by Ernst and Y oung in identifying trends in the work that they did for the previous government. The third is my descrip- tion of what happened at ICBC in relation to what initially appeared to be more minor injuries, then becoming more serious. They’re all distinct. [2:15 p.m.] The statutory definition that’s in front of us is very specific about what our intention is with respect to defining minor injuries.

As to the Ernst and Y oung definition, I have to say — with due respect to the previous government and the terms of reference that were set out there — it’s not quite as clear what they were using, about minor injuries, but it’s still very useful for understanding the trend lines around minor injuries and serious injuries. With respect to what I was talking about, I was talking about claims that initially presented and appeared to be a lower cost, then ended up being a much higher cost for ICBC — a more minor or a smaller claim in value becoming a more expensive claim because the person was more severely injured.

I hope that that clears things up for the member. As for institutional data about the number of claims that were revalued, how significant that was, the total change in the appraisal of those files, and so on, again, I would refer the member to estimates. M. Lee: I think I just heard the last part of that answer. Maybe you could just repeat the last part, if you could, please. Hon. D. Eby: I was saying that I would encourage the member to pursue this in estimates, because there are three different categories that we’re talking about.

The staff here are the experts in the legal definition that’s in front of us here, and the staff that will be at estimates are experts in the revaluation of files after ICBC did the review to ensure that government had an actual understanding of their financial picture. The number of files, the change in the anticipated cost to ICBC of those files, all those things — we can canvass in estimates. I’ll have the right staff there for that. M. Lee:Well, thank you for that.

Let me just ask this, then, in terms of this discussion around the reclassification of what ICBC had first evaluated to be a lower-cost claim to now something that is having a higher-cost claim. In the backdrop of considering minor injuries and how this will be assessed, does the Attorney General believe that ICBC has the necessary capability to determine this? Given that there was…. Again, we don’t know the exact number of claims that were reclassified in this manner.

It strikes me that the gov- ernment is proposing to define minor injuries — admittedly in a different way, as the Attorney General has just outlined — the point being that we have a situation where the gov- ernment is saying to British Columbians that claims of lesser amounts have been reclassified into larger amounts. That’s having an impact, as I understand it, on this so-called $1-bil- lion-loss situation for ICBC. I’ d like to understand what level of confidence the Attor- ney General has in ICBC’s ability to assess minor injury claims. Hon. D.

Eby: There are a number of safeguards in place, and we passed a bill relating to one of them, which is on the civil resolution tribunal. If someone has a dispute about whether or not their injury falls within the statutory defini- tion that’s in front of the House, they can go to the civil res- olution tribunal, with or without a lawyer, and dispute that. They are welcome to do that. In fact, the system is set up to make it easier, faster and more efficient than before, to resolve that type of dispute.

It’s important for the member to understand that until this definition passes, there is no such thing as a minor injury definition. It doesn’t exist in law. It’s not used by ICBC. All injuries are treated equally. The issue is the attempt to place a value on a file and to understand how much that file is going to cost the corporation. That was the issue previously. Whether or not somebody fits within the statutory defin- ition that’s in front of us here today in the House is not a process that is engaged in by adjusters or anybody else.

With respect to a dispute that someone might have with an ICBC adjuster about whether or not they have a minor injury, there’s an independent dispute resolution process through the civil resolution tribunal. A. Weaver:I have a number of questions here. It will give the members opposite a little break. I think we’re going to be canvassing

section 29 for a fair bit. They can compose their thoughts. [2:20 p.m.] I have four quick questions with respect to the issue of injuries here.

Section 29 — in 101 here — defines three types of issues. One is minor injury. It also defines permanent ser- ious disfigurement and serious impairment. My understanding of these is, perhaps, consistent with the minister’s, but I do note that there is an awful lot of con- fusion out there, in the general realm, with respect to the intentions of the minister with bringing in this legislation. Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4581

So I’ d like to pose a couple of specific examples to determine whether or not they would be covered under “minor injury” or whether, in fact, they would be eligible for further litiga- tion down the road. The one that’s been the most common is the concern that’s expressed with respect to psychological or psychiatric condi- tions. Now, my understanding of this…. I’m hoping the min- ister can correct me if I’m wrong. Let us suppose we have two individuals. The first indi- vidual is in a car crash. That first individual gets very depressed after the car crash.

It’s been declared by the med- ical practice that that depression has arisen as a direct con- sequence of that car crash. It was a depression-and-anxiety issue that responded well to medication, and six months later the person bounced back and actually was able to continue forward. That’s case 1. Person No. 2 is the same person who enters into a much, much deeper depression, perhaps with PTSD, and a year and half later they still have not been able to recover. My question to the minister is: how would both of those individuals be treated in light of the

definitions of “minor injury” and “serious impairment”? Hon. D. Eby: The second one is easier, in that it is defin- itely not within the cap. On the first one, there is a defini- tion of “minor injury” that has two parts. The first part of the definition of “minor injury” is a negative definition.

It says that it’s an injury that “does not result in a serious impair- ment or a permanent serious disfigurement. ” So if it results in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury, then it’s out of the definition of “minor injury. ” If it doesn’t result in a serious impairment and it’s a psy- chiatric injury or another type of injury that is within the second part of the definition, then it would fall within the minor injury definition.

The other types of injuries are abra- sions, contusions, lacerations, sprains or strains, pain syn- drome — we talked about a psychological or psychiatric con- dition — or a prescribed injury or class of injury captured in the regulations. The question of whether or not it’s a serious impairment is also a defined term. A “serious impairment” is an impair- ment that “(

a) is not resolved within 12 months, or another prescribed period, ” by regulation, “if any, after the date of an accident, and (

b) meets prescribed criteria, ” by regulation. Y ou’ll see there are two pieces to this, and there is space, within regulation, for additional definition. I’ve posted a paper on the Ministry of Attorney General website about our intentions related to the “prescribed cri- teria” around “minor injury. ” It might assist the member to know that next week there is a meeting with the Doctors of B.C. — the B.C.

Psychological Association has also been invited — to assist us in determining how the regulations could narrow the psychological or psychiatric conditions even further than is already the case for the current minor injury scenario. A. Weaver:Another two examples that I’ d like to give. Let’s suppose that there is somebody who was driving some- what excessively over the speed limit. Maybe they didn’t get caught, but there was some inkling that that person was at fault. That person gets into an accident with two cars. In the one car, you have an individual who has brain damage and becomes a quadriplegic.

They’re seeking pain and suffering, etc., and also legal process, as a result of this. [2:25 p.m.] In the second person, you have a few broken bones that lead to some chronic issues. Perhaps it’s a broken hip, and there are some chronic pain issues that last beyond a year. They don’t just last a few months. They last beyond a year. How would both of those be treated? Again, I’m seeking clarification for the purpose of com- municating the intent of this

section to a broader audience. How would both of those individuals be treated under the classification of “minor injury”? I suspect the brain damage and quadriplegic doesn’t apply, but perhaps the broken bones, where you actually lead to a chronic condition that lasts — say chronic hip arthritis or something — after an accident. If the minister could expand on that. Hon. D. Eby: No individuals with brain injuries or indi- viduals with broken bones are subject to the limit on pain and suffering awards or the minor injury definition. A. Weaver:Then let’s suppose the bone isn’t broken.

In fact, you have a sprain with a cut, and that cut gets infected. Y ou get a flesh-eating disease response that doesn’t leave you permanently disfigured, but it leads to a substantive, long-term injury. That infection gets into your bone. Y ou get chronic arthritis. How would that person be treated in this example? Hon. D. Eby:If it meets the definition of “serious impair- ment” — so it’s beyond 12 months and the prescribed con- ditions — then there would be no cap. In addition, I guess it depends on the laceration that resulted in the flesh-eating disease or the impact on the individual.

A permanent, seri- ous disfigurement of the claimant would also remove it from the minor injury definition. A. Weaver:My final question. Let’s suppose you have a drunk driver who’s driving along and runs into a number of people. Some people get serious injuries that are very extens- ive, a couple of other people minor injuries, as defined here, and one person has a psychological disorder as a result. How would the issue of these three different classes of people be treated under these

definitions when a drunk driver or somebody texting was involved? Hon. D. Eby:Each individual would be assessed based on their own injuries, whether or not they fell within the defin- ition of “minor injury” or not. As for the driver, anyone that was driving dangerously, 4582 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

there are Criminal Code and Motor Vehicle Act provisions relating to that — insurance consequences, potential jail time, and so on — that flow from that, if they were engaging in dangerous conduct while they were driving — drinking and driving, and so on. J. Y ap:I’ d like to get back to who the minister consulted in coming to the specific cap. I heard the minister say that the Doctors of B.C. would be consulted soon. But in regards to the cap and the amount, did the minister consult the B.C. Medical Association? Hon. D. Eby:We had a huge number of stakeholder meet- ings. I remember the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabil- ities, the injured motorcyclists association, physiotherapists, individuals injured in car accidents. What I’ d like to do is…. We don’t have a list right in front of us, but I will endeavour to get the member a list of the groups that participated in our stakeholder meetings where we discussed the cap. J. Y ap:I appreciate that. Perhaps the minister might be able to answer this. We look forward to the list with the comprehensive listing of those consulted on capping and the potential amount.

Would the minister confirm for us that medical groups were consulted as part of this consultation? [2:30 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that Doctors of B.C. has been involved in our conversations from a very early stage. What I’ d like to do is…. There were a number of groups that signed non-disclosure agreements related to stakeholder engagements, so it might be that the member thought we didn’t talk to anyone, and that may be why. What I’ll do is I’ll endeavour to get the member a list of those organizations as quickly as we can. J. Y ap:Thank you. I appreciate that.

With regard to the amount, $5,500, the minister has said that that was arrived at after comparing to other jurisdictions and looking at what could be done given the situation. So $5,500 is what the minister has said it would be. Can the minister commit, since this amount can be changed by reg- ulation, that this amount will be the cap and it will not go below this amount? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. D. Eby: This amount, $5,500, is the government’s intention. It will be linked to inflation, so the number will only be going up from there. J.

Y ap:The minister had said a few times, earlier, that as a result of these changes — I believe, primarily, the change to capping what will be defined as minor injuries and the sav- ings expected from that — there would be a substantive fin- ancial savings to the corporation. Can the minister confirm: is the $1 billion that he talked about part of the savings from capping minor injuries? Hon. D. Eby:It would be helpful for the member to think of the savings that are projected as being a global number that’s connected to a couple of things.

One is definitely a limit on pain and suffering awards, the growing and escalating pain and suffering awards, to $5,500. The second is the direction of minor injuries out of B.C. Supreme Court into a more efficient tribunal process, at the civil resolution tribunal. The third is the increase in benefits. Then, after all of those things happen, the net sav- ings are projected to be $1 billion for ICBC. J.

Y ap:It sounds like the minister was provided with ana- lyses or modelling that showed the savings that could be achieved from some of these proposals, including capping so-called minor injuries to be defined and the increase in health benefits and the transfer of cases to the tribunal. Is that the case — that there was modelling or analyses that was done on behalf of the minister? Hon. D. Eby:I can assure the member that yes, there were projections done on this.

As far as the cap goes, the mem- ber can do his own projections and understand that for every $1,000 in increase on the cap limit above $4,000, the cost for each $1,000 increase is $30 million, or roughly 1 percentage point of insurance premium for British Columbians. So he can do that as far as the impact of changes in the cap. [2:35 p.m.] J. Y ap:Will the minister be able to, at the appropriate time, release the modelling that was done that assisted in this decision? Hon. D. Eby: It’s a bit challenging for us here, given that these are legal staff and not actuarial staff or financial staff at ICBC.

What I am going to do is make sure that ICBC has the member’s request for that, and at estimates, I’ll provide him with as much information and paperwork as we feel we can around the modelling and the projections for ICBC’s finances. J. Y ap:Earlier there was some discussion in regards to the savings achieved around the country — other jurisdictions that have introduced these. Can the minister tell the House, specifically, if caps have led to lower insurance premiums in those jurisdictions? Hon. D.

Eby: I can tell the member that bodily injury costs in the provinces that have capped minor injury claims continue to be lower than levels in 2000, with decreases ran- ging from 10 percent to as much as nearly 60 percent in one of the provinces. By comparison, B.C. ’s bodily injury loss Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4583

costs, where there was no limit on minor injury pain and suffering awards, have increased nearly 85 percent over the same period. J. Y ap:In respect to administering this new system — when the legislation is passed, and we now live in a world with the new definition of minor injuries and the caps — how many additional staff or FTEs does the minister expect, and the cost to deal with this? Hon. D. Eby: I can provide a broad picture for the mem- ber, as I have, which is that there will be a shift away from staff focused on litigation to staff related to administration of claims.

As far as specifics, I’ d appreciate if the member understood that having the staff that are experts in ICBC’s human resources and financial picture at the estimates pro- cess would be the best place to get into detail. J. Y ap:The minister has made reference to savings that would be achieved from this move to caps on minor injuries and the other initiatives — the tribunal, the providing increased health benefits. Will these savings that would be achieved be shared with ICBC ratepayers? Hon. D. Eby: Our goal is to avoid a $400-per-driver rate increase. The answer is yes.

If we’re successful, then we won’t have to do that. So the savings will be shared in that way. Beyond that, we hope to provide savings to good drivers through our rate design program that we’re undertaking. That’s our goal in this bill, in two parts. One is in the enabling piece around the rate design process, and the other is in rela- tion to this minor injury and the civil resolution tribunal bill that has passed. J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister indulging me here. I’m hearing his reference to avoiding a $400 increase. I’m sure he’s referring to an average.

But the minister’s also referred to the fact that bad drivers should pay more and good drivers, pay less. Does he expect that introducing these caps on minor injuries and all the other initiatives could lead to a reduction in rates for good drivers? [2:40 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: This bill reflects one part of the multiple initiatives that are underway. We had a third-party business review of ICBC that projected efficiencies inside the corpor- ation, with $57 million as the potential savings, that we cur- rently are implementing.

We have road safety initiatives that we’re implementing to decrease the number of accidents, especially those asso- ciated with distracted driving. We have other initiatives related to dangerous intersections, with our red-light cam- eras initiative. All of these initiatives are aimed at reducing costs at ICBC. Our goal, throughout this whole process, has been to avoid an astronomical rate increase for British Colum- bians. The member is right — an average of $400 per driver to close the gap between what’s being paid out and what’s being taken in at ICBC. That’s our goal, and that’s what we’re working towards. J.

Y ap:So how can the minister be sure that these changes, after they’re implemented, will not, in fact, lead to an increase in rates for British Columbians? Hon. D. Eby: Well, I can be sure that this isn’t going to lead to an increase in costs for ICBC. These are all measures that are going to reduce some very obvious cost drivers at ICBC. But given the stated intent of the Trial Lawyer’s Asso- ciation to challenge this legislation, to attempt to get people around the cap, the behaviour of plaintiff counsel, it’s very difficult to project accurate savings.

We do the best that we can to try to understand where this is going to go, based on the experience of every other juris- diction in Canada that’s done this. We have an advantage in that we’re the last, if I can put a happy face on what is a very unhappy situation. So we are able to learn from the example of those other jurisdictions and try to make our definition as comprehensive as possible and also ensure that it doesn’t offend any constitutional prerogatives. We can do our best, and that is what we’re doing. In addition, we’re not entirely reliant on this.

We have initiatives within ICBC to reduce costs internally, a $57 million initiative over at ICBC. We have initiatives around road safety. We have initiatives with material damage suppliers. Material damage is automotive body repair shops. For example, we’re doing work on windshield costs right now, where ICBC will no longer pay to replace moldings that don’t need to be replaced and will not pay a cost beyond the original manufacturer’s cost for replacing windshields. These are initiatives that are underway. There are a num- ber of initiatives underway.

We’re not reliant on any one initiative to get ICBC back on track. It is a multi-pronged approach, because we know that there will be a movement on all of these initiatives in both directions. J. Y ap:I appreciate the minister listing a few of the many initiatives, I’m sure, that are underway, which, coupled with the proposed cap on minor injuries collectively will lead to savings. Let’s hypothetically project and give the minister the benefit of the doubt that the savings will be achieved. What does the government plan to do with these savings? Hon. D.

Eby: Well, there has been a practice in the past of governments taking money out of ICBC, which, in part, is why we’re here in this situation today — $1 billion taken out of ICBC’s reserves by previous governments. We will not be doing that. The money will be staying in ICBC. If we find ourselves in the remarkable and fortunate situ- ation of ICBC being in a surplus situation, those savings will be returned to drivers through reduced rates. I sure hope we 4584 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

find ourselves there. The goal currently is to avoid astronom- ical rate increases for British Columbians, and that’s where we’re trying to get. I have a comprehensive answer for the member’s earlier question on who was consulted with about the possibility of a cap and the potential range of a cap. [2:45 p.m.] We consulted with Doctors of B.C., the Physiotherapy Association, the Registered Massage Therapists of B.C., the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the B.C. Psy- chological Association, the B.C. Association of Kinesiolo- gists, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists and the B.C.

Association of Clinical Counsellors, the B.C. Chiropractic Association, disability advocates, the Association for Injured Motorcyclists, the Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association, the Disability Alliance of B.C., the Rick Hansen Institute, the Campbell River brain injury asso- ciation, Brain Trust Canada, the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, CONNECT, Brainstreams, Spinal Cord Injury B.C. and the G.F . Strong Centre. That’s the list that staff has provided me of groups that were consulted about that. J. Y ap:I appreciate that listing of those consulted.

I was listening intently, but I did not hear that the nurses of British Columbia were consulted. I’m wondering why. Hon. D. Eby: Fair point. I’ll check with staff about that and see if we can reach out to the nurses to see if they have some feedback for us. J. Y ap:Getting back to the hoped-for savings that will be achieved from all of these initiatives, the list which the minister shared with the House, and the proposed cap on minor injuries to be defined. Can the minister commit today — he used the word remarkable position — that if we see those savings, those savings will be passed on to British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: These days, that sounds a bit like counting chickens before they’re even laid in an egg, let alone before they’re hatched. But I can assure the member that govern- ment has absolutely no plans to do what the previous gov- ernment did, which was take money out of ICBC’s reserves. The savings will be returned to drivers. J. Y ap:Can the minister tell us who created the

definitions for minor injuries, which we see in the legislation? Was it his office, his ministry, or ICBC? Hon. D. Eby: This was drafted by Ministry of Attorney General legislative drafters. The

definitions were created in consultation with other jurisdictions that have similar caps on minor injuries, to identify their experience. Consultation is not the right word — by looking at the experience of other jurisdictions with similar

definitions. It was done by Ministry of Attorney General staff and in consultation with ICBC and actuaries at ICBC to ensure that the definition, first of all, was appropriate, and second of all, achieved the intended aims, which were savings for drivers in British Columbia. J. Y ap:The minister referred earlier to the fact that, pres- ently, no definition exists for minor injury — certainly with- in ICBC. So this is something really new. Did ICBC provide the government with input into the legal definition of what should constitute a minor injury in British Columbia? Hon. D. Eby: Take this with a grain of salt, because these provinces may have acted earlier. These may be revised

definitions. But at least as early as 2004 for Alberta, 2010 for Nova Scotia, 2010 for Ontario, 2013 for New Brunswick and 2014 for Prince Edward Island, there have been defin- itions of minor injuries. So the most recent jurisdiction is four years ago, according to those numbers. Staff are nod- ding that those were appropriate years. This isn’t something that’s new. Alberta’s had this in place for 14 years. We have lots of experience in those jurisdictions to draw from. So I disagree with the member’s premise that this is something new or innovative.

This is something that was recommended in B.C. as early as 2014, as we know of. J. Y ap:Does the minister not believe that this fairly broad definition of what a minor injury is will create fear amongst victims that he, the minister, or ICBC can arbitrarily over- rule victims and medical professionals? Hon. D.

Eby:There’s a lot in that question. [2:50 p.m.] What I can advise the member is British Columbians can have confidence, once these changes are implemented, that if they get in an accident, they’ll actually get the cost of their out-of-pocket expense for the physiotherapist they need, for the counsellor they need, for the care they need; and something approaching reality for their lost wages, something approaching reality for the expenses of being rendered quadriplegic in a car accident.

I think it unfortunate that a number of people who were injured before these reforms found out that their benefits were limited to amounts set in 1993. If more British Colum- bians had known that, they would have been very full of fear that they might be involved in an accident where they would be reliant on these 1993-level benefits, because they are not enough to get the care that is needed. I think we’re actually moving to address this in a very serious way.

I can tell the member, also, that I get letters from British Columbians across the province with very real concerns that they can’t afford a significant increase in car insurance. They rely on their car for work and for family commitments, and if there’s a significant increase in the cost of their car insur- ance, they’re going to be in real jeopardy. I would say that that is definitely where the fear is, and I Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4585

would disagree very strongly with the member’s suggestion that somehow I’m going to be responsible for administering these claims. People go to their family physicians, to their existing care providers. That is the evidence that will go in front of the civil resolution tribunal to resolve disputes. Any dispute with ICBC won’t be resolved by me and my office, with a big stack of injury claims. It will be resolved in front of the civil resolution tribunal, an independent tribunal here in British Columbia. M. Lee: Just as a follow-up to that response, just to clarify again.

When we were talking earlier today about the benefits side, it’s the $6 million increase, what the Attorney General described in terms of those who need to have greater than $150,000 of lifetime benefit coverage — those who are quad- riplegic, unfortunately, from an accident, for example. In terms of the other benefits, we understood that the actual increase from that is $200 million. Has the Attorney General considered just putting in place what I think, gen- erally, we would support — the increase in benefits, in the way that has been proposed, and not imposing a minor injury cap? Hon. D.

Eby: It’s a frustrating question, because it means the member has not been listening or paying attention to the news or has any understanding of ICBC’s financial situation. I cannot believe that that’s the case, so that’s why it’s a frus- trating question. The member surely knows that ICBC’s in financial trouble. If he doesn’t, he can just check with the member down the way from him, the former Finance Minister, about the situation in ICBC. ICBC is in a very dire financial situ- ation — $1 billion losses.

To suggest that, without addressing the underlying fun- damentals that are driving these massive losses at ICBC, we would then increase benefits, which would actually increase that deficit even further, without taking the necessary steps to say: “Look, these pain and suffering awards are getting out of control…. ” We’ve got to focus on getting people better. We’ve got to focus on getting these claims out of multi-year processes in B.C. Supreme Court with multiple experts for minor injury. We’ve got to have a proportionate system.

I mean, the basis of the question is so disconnected from the reality of the situation that it’s very difficult to respond to it. M. Lee: Well, we’ve been having a great conversation throughout the life of the committee on this particular bill, and at various junctures, my colleague the member for Rich- mond-Steveston and I have been asking questions which are, in many cases, relating to the financials of ICBC — the cost- ing and the savings — and in particular, what we were talk- ing about an hour ago, in terms of the reclassification of lower claims to higher-value claims.

We are hamstrung in this committee process without the benefit of a full understanding. I’m clearly aware of what the government has been saying for the last nine months, and as we just heard, the Attorney General, through the ministry responsible for ICBC, is considering other product reform. I’m merely asking the question: given my concern regard- ing ICBC’s capacity to assess minor injuries, has it been a consideration, when we talk about benefits, separating out the benefit of increasing benefits for claimants from a minor injury cap? That is merely what I’m asking. [2:55 p.m.] Hon. D.

Eby:I’ll give the member the benefit of the doubt and say I don’t consider the 1993 benefit levels implement being delivered in 2018 to be any less of a deficit at ICBC than the $1 billion operating deficit. It is just as much a defi- cit. It absolutely needs to be addressed just as much as the $1 billion deficit. But if the core of the member’s question is, “Can you increase these benefits without doing these other reforms?” the simple answer is no, and that’s that. J. Y ap:I’ d like to continue where I was, talking to the min- ister in terms of….

We talked about the list, and I appre- ciate that he will provide that. Now I’ d like to go back to when the bill was first introduced, on April 24. The minister said, when he introduced this bill: “We couldn’t have done it without the assistance of ICBC. ” He went on to say: “They were instrumental in the process. ” How was ICBC instru- mental in the process? Hon. D. Eby:I think it’s instructive to recall that when the previous government did a business audit of ICBC in 2014, they cut seven pages out before providing it to ICBC. Why would they do that? It’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to it.

What I know is that there are a number of very talented people at ICBC, very thoughtful people that, for a while, in my opinion, knew that there was very serious trouble at ICBC, and the public in British Columbia did not know that. I am very grateful to the people at ICBC who have worked with Ministry of Attorney General staff and my office in assisting us in modelling different scenarios, assisting us in understanding the implications of different policy changes, because they have the data, because they have the systems, and so on.

Inherent in the member’s question is a lack of trust in ICBC — that they’re trying to pull a fast one. I don’t want to put words in the member’s mouth. When the member says that, that’s what I hear. Just to address that. In terms of the finances, I am as concerned as anyone who said: “Oh my god. How can it be that before the election, the projec- ted deficit at ICBC was $11 million” — they were projected to make a profit this year, if you can believe that — “and then, all of a sudden, they’re losing $1 billion?

How does that happen?” I asked that exact question myself, and ICBC provided some insight about how that happened. I said: “Y ou know what? We need to have a review of how that happened. ” 4586 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

So we brought in a third-party business firm, PwC, to do a review of ICBC’s projections of the numbers. I then said: “Well, they’re actually the auditors of ICBC, so we need someone that’s even independent of that. ” We have another review of that financial review happening. I can tell the member the unhappy news, which was very unhappy to me when it was delivered to me. The loss is real. The loss on the books, which means dollar-for-dollar it comes off of social programs for British Columbians, of $900 million last fiscal period and $1.2 billion projected for this fiscal period is real.

It is unhappy news, but I am grateful for the assistance of ICBC in helping us understand the consequences of the pro- posals that we’re bringing forward here to reform insurance to ensure that we can actually deliver two things. One is a financially stable ICBC that can deliver affordable insurance to British Columbians. The second is an ICBC that can deliv- er benefits to British Columbians at levels that we deem, as a government, to be appropriate for people’s injuries. The third is to deliver timely justice for people that are involved in a collision so they can get on with their lives.

We had a number of priorities here. I think we’re achiev- ing them. I’ll say it again. We couldn’t have done it without the assistance of ICBC. But to the member’s question and the implication in it, we were not dependent on it, and we con- tinue to scrutinize ICBC’s operations, including with a third- party business review that identified $57 million in savings inside of ICBC. J. Y ap:Can the minister confirm if ICBC also assisted in the creation of the definition of “minor injury”? [3:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:There are three people sitting with me here.

Y ou have the executive director of Crowns from the Ministry of Attorney General, you have counsel from the Ministry of Attorney General, and you have the chief legal officer for ICBC. They are assisting me in answering the members’ questions, and I’m here as well. This is an accurate reflection of the team effort of putting this together: technical assistance and actuarial information from ICBC, legal expertise and knowledge from Ministry of Attorney General, and organizational project management experience from the executive director of Crowns and Crown agencies.

This is a reflection of how the bill was pre- pared. And of course, I’m here too. J. Y ap:With that, can the minister share with the House the intention of the wording in the bill — “an injury in a prescribed…class of injury, ” even if “chronic. ” What injuries would fall under this definition? Hon. D. Eby: In 2015, there was a case in Alberta called McLean v. Parmar. The reference is A.J. No. 214 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In that case, the court found that pain lasting longer than three months was defined as “chron- ic pain” and was therefore no longer in Alberta’s definition.

Alberta had a similar issue in relation to something called TMJ, which is a joint issue in the jaw, which was not con- tained in their definition. The combination of the 2012 case related to TMJ — which made Alberta become the capital for TMJ injuries in North America — and the definition of “chronic pain” as “any pain lasting longer than three months” meant that their definition of “minor injury” and the intent behind establishing it was badly compromised.

They weren’t able to achieve the goal that we have here as well, which is to reduce the process around more minor injuries and to put a limit on escalating pain and suffering awards — not out-of-pocket awards, not health care costs, but on these pain and suffering awards. Our intent was to learn from Alberta’s example, what they’ d seen in their jurisdiction, so that we didn’t face the same issue. That is why the member finds that definition in relation to chronic pain.

It’s important to note, though, that there is a very specific “serious impairment” definition that kicks serious ongoing injuries out of the minor injury defin- ition, including chronic pain if it meets the “serious impair- ment” definition, is not resolved within 12 months and has that significant impact on people’s daily activities. M. Lee:I appreciate the reference to the Alberta case. How has Alberta changed this legislation in view of that case? Hon. D. Eby: They haven’t. But, you know, there are advocates out there who say: “Enough with ICBC.

We should privatize car insurance in British Columbia. ” I tell them that even if they’re enthusiasts for privatization, the first thing that would happen — that the private insurance companies would do in British Columbia…. They’ d show up at the door of the minister responsible for insurance law in B.C., and they’ d ask for these reforms that are happening here. Because they know, like we know, that it’s not sustain- able the way the system is going right now.

I say that because although Alberta has not changed their law, they are being lobbied by one of the federal insurance lobby groups to update their definition to include these con- ditions because of the erosion in savings that were intended by having a minor injury stream in that province as well. [3:05 p.m.] M. Lee: Just coming back to the word “chronic, ” that, at the outset of this definition, is one of the key thresholds. Just going at the word “chronic, ” though, doesn’t that suggest something that could likely last more than 12 months? Hon. D.

Eby: The issue is whether it results in serious impairment that lasts for longer than 12 months. If it does, then it’s not a minor injury. M. Lee: I’m only suggesting that there are words in the minor injury definition that, just from the outset, suggest to individuals who have certain types of injuries as the result Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4587

of an accident that they don’t have a minor injury, or that they do have a minor injury but something that could poten- tially last more than 12 months. Some chronic condition — by definition, I would have thought — is a condition that could last more than 12 months. Hon. D. Eby:Y es, it could. J. Y ap:Getting back to the definition — and I appreciate the minister’s response earlier — does the minister not think that this wording is somewhat vague? Hon. D. Eby: This is the most comprehensive definition of minor injury in the country.

There are additional portions that are left to regulation because we recognized the exper- ience in other jurisdictions where their definition has been eroded. They forgot to include a jaw strain in their definition, which caused the entire claim to be kicked out of the minor injury regime in Alberta. We have a regulation-making power here that allows us to update in order to ensure that the definition and the intent behind the minor injury

section is achieved. J. Y ap:I wonder: does the minister not believe that it gives a lot of latitude to ICBC to determine what is minor and what is major? Hon. D. Eby: The regulations are set by the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council, which is cabinet, not by ICBC. J. Y ap:I understand that, but ICBC will be — on behalf of the province, on behalf of the executive council — out on the front lines working with claimants and having to make that determination. Does it not give those making the deter- mination, ICBC, the latitude to determine what is minor and what is major? Hon. D.

Eby: The situation today is that ICBC adjusters evaluate claims and make determinations about the value of claims. Any dispute about that goes to B.C. Supreme Court, a multi-year process, in many cases, with multiple experts on both sides — a very expensive process. We’ve said that minor injuries, instead, where there’s a dis- pute, now don’t go to B.C. Supreme Court. Y ou go to the civil resolution tribunal, which will be faster and more efficient. The intent behind that is to realize some savings in the pro- cess and administration.

We think that that will be an effect- ive dispute resolution system for when people disagree with an ICBC adjuster about the value of their claim, whether or not it’s a minor injury or accident benefits that they believe they’re entitled to but they’re not receiving. J. Y ap:What’s the minister’s intent? What is the minister trying to do with this wording, which I referred to earlier: an injury in a prescribed class of injury, even if chronic? Hon. D. Eby: In Alberta, there was a court case where somebody sued and said that they had pain that lasted for longer than three months.

The court agreed with their sub- mission that because the pain lasted for longer than three months, it was chronic pain. Because it was chronic pain, it was not in the definition of minor injury, and therefore the definition of minor injury and the intent of the Alberta Legislature in restricting process and pain and suffering awards around minor injuries was circumvented. [3:10 p.m.] Our intent here was to say that if you have chronic pain that results in a serious impairment, then that is not a minor injury.

If you have chronic pain that does not result in ser- ious impairment, then that, in combination with the defin- ition of minor injury, may mean that you are subject to the minor injury process, which is the civil resolution tribunal. There is a limit on the pain and suffering award but not a limit on the amount that you are able to recover for treat- ment to get better — physiotherapy, acupuncture, whatever it may be that will help you deal with your chronic pain. Y ou’ll have access to additional benefits, a larger lifetime benefit, greater benefits for your lost wages.

I hope that helps the member understand why that’s there and what the intent is in relation to the words “chronic pain. ” M. Lee: Just in terms of chronic pain, what is the AG Ministry’s view on how long chronic pain syndrome typic- ally lasts? Hon. D. Eby: The issue that we face is that injuries mani- fest differently for different people. So pain syndrome and pain syndromes….

Not being a doctor and not having any doctors with me here in the Legislature right now, I can advise the member that it will be a case-by-case determin- ation about whether the person’s pain syndrome results in serious impairment in terms of the minor injury definition. M. Lee:When we go into “serious impairment” and match that up against pain syndrome then…. Perhaps we can just walk through that. There will be “prescribed criteria. ” Are those prescribed criteria specific to an individual or a class of individuals? Hon. D.

Eby: The serious impairment relates to work, school, usual daily activities and a substantial interference with the individual’s ability to perform those daily tasks. We set that out in a paper on the Ministry of Attorney Gener- al website to respond to exactly the concern the member is raising about: “Okay, it says here it ‘meets prescribed criter- ia. ’ What is that?” The serious impairment evaluation is part of the definition of minor injury. It determines whether or not you fall within this category. That’s the import of it and the intent of govern- ment in relation to those prescribed criteria. M.

Lee: Just coming back at this, then. In terms of the 4588 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

“12 months, or another prescribed period” reference, why 12 months in the case of chronic pain syndrome? Hon. D. Eby:The member will note that the definition of “serious impairment” in subsection (

a) has “or another pre- scribed period. ” So if for a particular type of injury or pain syndrome or something else, we find that 12 months is inap- propriate, it could be modified to have a more appropriate time period, given what’s happening on the ground. There is flexibility here in the definition to be responsive to what’s happening. J. Y ap:Does the minister not think that by adding this sort of wording, these sweeping powers, he is perhaps treating everyone like they’re gaming the system and punishing those who are injured? Hon. D. Eby: No, I flatly reject the member’s suggestion.

Both in the terms of his question and in the idea that there are sweeping powers and on and on, I reject the whole thing. J. Y ap:Can the minister tell us why he included chronic psychological or psychiatric conditions as minor injuries, putting B.C. as the only jurisdiction to do this? [3:15 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Some psychological injuries are minor, and some fall outside the minor injury definition. It depends on the impact on the individual and the psychological injury.

That’s why there is a definition here that is two parts — that the injury “does not result in a serious impairment” and “is one of the following” — and “serious impairment” is defined as well. So it depends on the injury. M. Lee: Just working through that, then.

When the initial claim occurs and there has been a determination that there is a minor injury — that it’s not non-minor, that it involves a psychological or psychiatric condition — but subsequent to that, there is a determination that there has been a serious impairment, is the Attorney General not concerned about the stigma, the consideration of the individual involved, for that first 12-month period, where they’re suffering from a psychological or psychiatric condition but it hasn’t yet gotten to the stage of being a serious impairment?

Is that how we’re treating people who suffer from a mental injury and have a psychological or psychiatric condition over the first 12 months? Is that the intention of this government? Hon. D. Eby: Imagine a situation where someone is in an accident and it results in a serious psychological or psy- chiatric condition. They are seriously impaired. They meet the definition of “serious impairment. ” Nobody is telling that person that they are not seriously impaired or that they have a minor injury. At that point, it’s just uncertain.

If it resolves within 12 months, then it would be considered a more minor injury — devastating for the individual, but a more minor injury. If it doesn’t resolve within 12 months, then it is kicked out of the minor injury definition. It’s important to know that under the reforms, the person in that situation would be receiving additional benefits that were not previously available — namely, counselling. An individual that is in a single-car accident that results in a serious psychological or psychiatric condition currently does not have access to counselling as a paid service.

After these reforms, they will have access to counselling. In fact, the reforms that we’re proposing recognize that people need access to counselling sometimes, after an acci- dent, to deal with the psychological injury. There is no sug- gestion that it is a minor injury or that it falls within the minor injury definition until it’s clear about whether or not it’s resolved within 12 months. M. Lee: Having said that, it is putting on the same level a psychological and psychiatric condition as being a minor injury — versus a broken toe, another broken bone, which is not a minor injury.

Is the government not concerned about the signal in the way that that treats people who have those sorts of psychological conditions? Hon. D. Eby: It might reassure the member to know something that I said before, which is that we’re currently consulting with the medical community about narrowing that definition, by regulation, to ensure that it reflects appro- priately the medical community’s understanding of what should and shouldn’t be captured. M. Lee: I appreciate that. To the Attorney General: you mentioned earlier that there were various groups that had been consulted in the list.

One of them, I believe, was the B.C. Psychological Association. Have there been others in the initial consultation process that have made comment on this inclusion of this condition? Hon. D. Eby: We’re engaging in those consultations right now in relation to refining the definition of “a psychological or psychiatric condition” for the purposes of the minor injury definition. J. Y ap:Can the minister tell us what changed from Feb- ruary 6, when his own news release stated: “The new legal definition will include things like sprains, strains, mild whip- lash, cuts and bruises, anxiety and stress from a crash.

It does not include broken bones, brain injuries, concussions or oth- er more serious impairments. ” [3:20 p.m.] Why did this list change on April 24? It changed to this. “ Abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprains and strains, pain syndrome, psychological and psychiatric conditions or an injury in a prescribed class of injury, even if chronic, ” while adding the terms “will be further defined in regu- lation over the coming months. ” Can the minister explain Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4589

the discrepancy? Hon. D. Eby: Sure. I’ll point out the obvious, that one’s a news release and one is the statute. Aside from the obvious, I assume that the member…. We’re following on the discussion about psychological or psychiatric conditions. Anxiety and stress, as were included in the original press release, are examples of psychological or psychiatric conditions that have been considered by courts previously in relation to injury claims. There is no inconsistency there, if that’s what the member was suggesting. J. Y ap:Does the definition of minor injury include tears?

If the tear cannot be seen or diagnosed right away, how would the minister and ICBC handle this? Hon. D. Eby:I wonder if the member could provide some clarification about what exactly he’s referring to. If it’s an abrasion, a contusion, a laceration, a sprain or a strain, then the question would be whether or not it results in serious impairment. Beyond that, the member’s welcome to provide additional clarification for us about what he means by a tear. J. Y ap:Sure. If someone tears a labrum or an ACL as a res- ult of a crash, will they be treated as minor injuries? Hon. D.

Eby: Its intention, with respect to sprains and strains, which I think is what the member is talking about, is an injury to one or more tendons or to one or more liga- ments, or to both tendons and ligaments, including TMJ — that jaw injury I was telling you about — but excludes third- degree sprains, where all tendon fibres are torn away, requir- ing surgical intervention. That’s where we’re headed. Maybe that’s what the member is talking about, in terms of tears.

If it requires that surgical intervention because all the muscle fibres are torn, then that is not what we’re talking about here in the minor-injury definition. J. Y ap:Can the minister tell us if he has spoken with psy- chiatrists and psychologists regarding the inclusion of those conditions within the minor cap? Hon. D. Eby: No, we wouldn’t talk to them about tears, if that’s what the member’s asking. If he’s asking about wheth- er we’re consulting with them about psychological or psychi- atric conditions, I think I’ve answered that a few times now.

We have meetings, in fact, this week with Doctors of B.C., to which the B.C. Psychological Association has also been invited in terms of setting the regulations for that area. J. Y ap:Can the minister walk us through what he had in mind when including these afflictions under the minor cap? I mean the psychological and psychiatric. Hon. D. Eby: I’ve answered that question a few times. There’s case law out of Alberta. There’s the concern, as the member cited from my own press release, around anxiety and stress resulting from a crash.

These are some of the examples of what we were hoping to identify here in the minor-injury category. J. Y ap:This government has stated that mental health is a priority, but if I were looking at the

definitions included in this bill, I would think otherwise. How can the minister square that circle for the public? Hon. D. Eby: Under the previous administration, if you were in a car accident and you were suffering anxiety and stress from a car accident, you would not have access — or any other psychiatric or psychological condition — if you were in

part 7 benefits, to a counsellor. [3:25 p.m.] The simple reform of providing accident benefits, to indi- viduals, of counsellors, in

part 7, is an indication that we take this seriously, that we think people need access to the resources they need to get better and that we will provide those resources to them to ensure they get better. It doesn’t matter whether their injury is physical or psychological. M.

Lee: Just in saying that, just to clarify again, we were speaking earlier about minor injury, including “a psycholo- gical or psychiatric condition. ” For the first 12-month peri- od — before we reach the timeline on “serious impairment, ” where it’s not resolved in the 12 months — just to confirm: that individual would still be treated as if they had a minor injury. Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby: They would be treated the exact same as anybody else with an injury. Y ou only settle your claim once.

If you had a serious impairment, you wouldn’t be settling it within the first 12 months, because there’ d be a determination about whether it fell into the minor injury definition or not. M. Lee: But how do you know at the outset whether you have a serious impairment? Hon. D. Eby:Y ou don’t, until you know whether or not it’s resolved within 12 months. J. Y ap:Getting back to psychological and psychiatric con- ditions, does the minister believe that depression is minor? Does he believe that anxiety is minor? Does he believe that PTSD is minor? Hon. D. Eby: These are all very serious conditions, hon. Chair.

So the question that we ask in the minor injury defin- ition is: does this psychological or psychiatric condition res- ult in serious impairment or not? That’s what we’re looking at. I hope that assists the member. 4590 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 10, 2018

J. Y ap:What psychological conditions does the minister think should be classified as minor? Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important to recognize that the question is whether or not the injury — whether it’s a physic- al or a psychological injury — results in serious impairment.

I accept the member’s suggestion that you could restrict this definition by saying: “These particular conditions are in, and these particular conditions are out. ” Y ou could also limit it by saying: “Okay, if it lasts a certain period of time, as far as psychological or psychiatric conditions, then that is con- sidered not a minor injury. ” There are a number of ways to do it. We’re increasing in consultation right now with the Doctors of B.C. next week — and the B.C. Psychological Association is invited, as well — to assist us in ensuring that the definition reflects what we intend to achieve. J.

Y ap:What about psychiatric conditions? What psychi- atric conditions does the minister think should be classified as minor? Hon. D. Eby: It’s the exact same answer as the last ques- tion. J. Y ap:I wonder if the minister sees the irony in the fact that his government has made mental health a top priority, with a complete ministry — I’m glad to see the minister is here in the House — yet he has, with this definition, defined psychological and psychiatric injuries as, potentially, minor. Hon. D. Eby:I do see some irony here, hon. Chair.

I see a lot of irony here today, but that is not an example of the irony that I see. J. Y ap:How will the government address delayed-onset PTSD caused by acute stress disorder? Hon. D. Eby: This is a species of the same question that the member has been asking now for the third time. The answer is the same. [3:30 p.m.] We’re consulting with Doctors of B.C. this week, around ensuring that we have an appropriate set of regulations around psychological or psychiatric conditions. We’ve invited the B.C. Psychological Association as well.

Regard- less, whatever the physical or psychological condition is, it would be a question of serious impairment or not: is the per- son seriously impaired by the condition, or not? J. Y ap:How will the government address other delayed- onset psychological and psychiatric disorders? Hon. D. Eby: What we’re doing is we’re consulting with the Doctors of British Columbia, as soon as this week, and ensuring that we have appropriate regulations relating to psychological or psychiatric conditions. I think it’s appropri- ate to be relying on this expert advice. J.

Y ap:How will the government consider anxiety exper- ienced solely while driving? Will this only be considered as major if they require driving as part of their daily duties? Hon. D. Eby: Regardless of the regulations, if you’re not able to work, that falls within the category of serious impairment. J. Y ap:Has the minister or ICBC considered the cost to the health care system should costs for psychological or psy- chiatric impairments not be covered under the cap, should the government deem them minor? Hon. D. Eby:Absolutely, we consider that.

That is why, for the first time, we’re including counselling as one of the ser- vices available to people covered by car insurance — coun- selling for people who suffer psychological or psychiatric conditions as a result of a car accident — not just a portion of the cost but the actual market, out-of-pocket cost of coun- selling in order to deal with psychological or psychiatric conditions. It’s totally appropriate that the car insurance sys- tem cover these kinds of psychological injuries, something that did not happen until these reforms that we’re about to implement here. [L. Reid in the chair.] J.

Y ap:I thank the minister for that. I’m curious how psy- chological and psychiatric injuries came to be placed under minor injuries, noting the work that’s been done by the WHO indicating the loss of productivity to disability and premature death from these conditions. It’s greater in Canada than cardiovascular disease. Hon. D. Eby: I’m trying hard not to be repetitive. Someone has an accident, and then they have generalized anxiety and stress resulting from the accident.

That injury alone, which they suffered as a result of the accident, would be sufficient to put them outside the definition of minor injury and to get them outside of this whole effort by govern- ment to stream more minor injuries into a simplified process and to put a limit on pain and suffering awards — under- mining a number of initiatives we have to increase benefits and reduce costs and provide more affordable car insurance. That is how this ended up in here. I’ve advised the member five or six times now that we are consulting with the Doctors of B.C. next week, and we’ve invited the B.C.

Psychological Association to ensure that the regulations reflect our intention here, which is not to capture serious impairment in terms of psychiatric or psychological conditions. J. Y ap:Can the minister tell the House what modelling or Thursday, May 10, 2018 British Columbia Debates 4591

work has been done to ensure that those with psychologic- al or psychiatric impairments would be covered? And can he commit to ensuring they will be fully covered? Hon. D. Eby: The member is going to have to be clear about what he means by fully covered. For the first time in British Columbia, in

part 7 benefits under ICBC, people with psychological or psychiatric conditions as a result of an acci- dent will have access to counselling as an accident benefit. That is, yes, for the first time in B.C. Other than that, I’m not sure how much clearer I can be for the member. [3:35 p.m.] J. Y ap:Did the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions or her ministry staff have any input when this definition was decided? Hon. D. Eby: We’re consulting with the Doctors of B.C., and we’ve invited the B.C. Psychological Association to con- sult on these regulations. J. Y ap:I’ll take that as a no. Will the minister have future input when the

definitions are narrowed or changed? Hon. D. Eby:Any regulations under this act are passed by cabinet. All cabinet ministers have an opportunity to discuss regulations in the cabinet process. J. Y ap:What message does the minister think this defin- ition sends to those suffering in silence with mental health afflictions, knowing that their government just defined men- tal health afflictions as potentially minor injuries? Hon. D. Eby:The member’s question ignores the answers that I’ve provided to him on the past 15 questions. J.

Y ap:Would the minister consider using some of his extraordinary powers in regulation to exclude psychological and psychiatric conditions from minor injuries? Hon. D. Eby: I explained to the member why the defini- tion is in there. Someone suffering generalized anxiety and stress resulting from a car accident…. That injury visited on them by the car accident

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20180510pm-Hansard-n134
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20180510pm Hansard n134
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d7cc983f730f05ac1dfd8afef186fde26f3d457a

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