Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 336

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Patty Edwards

Hon. S. Fraser

Gale Mossman

M. Stilwell

Mike Sorensen

J. Rice

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Local production of masks for coastal communities

J. Rice

Recovery from storm damage in Chilliwack area

L. Throness

Community response to COVID-19 in Maple Ridge and Mission

B. D’Eith

Daniel Fontaine and B.C. Care Providers Association

L. Reid

Bronze draft horse statue in Burnaby

J. Routledge

Skills development and value of tourism industry

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Strata insurance cost increases

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Economic recovery and local production and innovation

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

Hon. D. Donaldson

Government plan for education system reopening

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

J. Johal

Government support for tourism industry

M. Stilwell

Hon. L. Beare

D. Clovechok

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of special committee on reforming the Police Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 6 — Judicial Compensation Commission report recommendations for provincial court judges

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Motion 7 — Judicial Compensation Commission report recommendations for judicial justices

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act

Tabling Documents

Chief records officer, annual report, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance)

Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

J. Johal

Hon. D. Eby

S. Cadieux

M. Lee

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 9 — Evidence Amendment Act, 2020

Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance)

Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

J. Johal

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2020

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.

Tributes

PATTY EDWARDS

Hon. S. Fraser: I know I don’t have to convince my colleagues in the Legislature

about the importance of our constituency staff and the work that they do

in our constituencies when we are away and when we are there.

Today I’d just like to acknowledge, recognize and honour Patty

Edwards, who began with me in my constituency back in 2005, from the

very beginning, 15 years ago. She has retired. June 30 was her last day.

She threatened to retire before. She decided to stay on, and we got

another three years. I’m so thankful for the work she did.

I just want to let you know, hon. Speaker and my colleagues, that

she was recognized as Citizen of the Year in Port Alberni by the Alberni

Valley Chamber of Commerce. She’s helped thousands of people. I just

want the House to help me recognize her great work and her happy

retirement, and she just had a birthday.

Please raise your hands for Patty Edwards.

GALE MOSSMAN

M. Stilwell: I rise today to recognize and honour an exceptional individual,

Gale Mossman. Sadly, we lost this extraordinary mother, wife, friend and

community citizen on June 24, 2020.

My words cannot capture the immense sorrow of losing Gale. She was

truly a wonderful person, who cared deeply for her friends, her family

and her community. Gale and her husband, Allan, moved from Ajax,

Ontario, to Parksville, B.C., in 2004. Gale was just so genuine, warm

and kind that she quickly made numerous friends in Parksville, including

myself.

Gale cared greatly about her neighbours. She immersed herself in

helping wherever she could through community service. She was the

founding member of the Business and Professional Women’s Club, was the

chairwoman of the hospital board and a member of the police services and

United Way boards in Ajax. In Parksville, Gale volunteered on many

boards, including Milner Gardens, the community foundation and most

recently the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 49.

[1:40 p.m.]

Gale always had time to give of herself. She volunteered in my

office, especially at events like my annual seniors tea. She even

tailored my clothes. For all her dedication to community, she was

honoured with the Queen’s Golden Jubilee award.

Gale, you were a bright light. Your loss was too soon and too

fast. Your life was a blessing, your memory a treasure. You are loved

beyond words and missed beyond measure.

MIKE SORENSEN

J. Rice: I’d like to take a moment to inform the House that here in the

north coast, we recently lost an important leader. Mike Sorenson was a

paramedic and patient care delivery manager for the north, based out of

Station 684 in Prince Rupert. Mike started with B.C. emergency health

services 20 years ago in Terrace and worked as a primary care paramedic

in Masset, Prince Rupert and Vancouver before becoming unit chief of

Station 684 in 2015. The following year he was promoted to

manager.

Mike’s interpersonal and mentoring skills provided a real support

to his paramedic colleagues and in making a difference to patient

services here in the north. He loved the outdoors, often fishing and

hunting with friends.

My thoughts are with his family and with his colleagues during

this difficult time. Mike will be greatly missed.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LOCAL PRODUCTION OF MASKS

FOR COASTAL

COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: We’re facing a global pandemic not seen in over 100 years. While

we have all witnessed some isolated examples of selfishness and malice,

our communities have overwhelmingly demonstrated solidarity and

kindness.

Over the past few months, we have seen diverse and creative

expressions of solidarity. There is one initiative in particular which

I’d like to recognize here in the North Coast.

My riding has some of the most remote communities in the province,

and the isolation and lack of services makes our communities

particularly sensitive to the potential effects of a local outbreak.

When the pandemic began, health providers throughout my riding worried

about the lack of equipment and PPE in our hospitals and

clinics.

Seeing this vulnerability for his community in Bella Coola, James

Hindley, a local 3D printing expert, worked together with local doctors,

the Bella Coola Makerspace and a global online community of creators to

make hundreds of face shields and other PPE for the local hospital

staff. James spent hundreds of hours using 3D printers at the

community’s Makerspace, and on his living room floor, to make these face

shields, while all the materials were donated by local

businesses.

Thanks to the efforts of all British Columbians and his own

community, the virus has not entered the central coast, and these masks

haven’t had to be used. He has donated over 50 masks to the Nuxalk First

Nation to stockpile, and he has kept another 200 masks at home in case

the hospital needs them for a future outbreak in the

community.

James Hindley is just one of the thousands of people across the

province who stepped up to fight this pandemic and ensure our

communities remain safe. I couldn’t be prouder of his work and that of

all British Columbians who have come together, at a distance, to fight

this pandemic.

To everyone who chose solidarity and kindness over self-interest

and despair in the face of this pandemic, thank you. You are all heroes

in my book.

RECOVERY FROM STORM DAMAGE

IN CHILLIWACK

AREA

L. Throness: At the beginning of February, which seems like an eternity ago

now, there was a major weather event throughout the Lower Mainland that

caused significant damage in the rural areas of my riding.

Hemlock Valley Road, which leads to the popular ski destination

known as Sasquatch Mountain Resort, was completely washed out for more

than a kilometre, cutting off hundreds of skiers in the middle of their

recreation. Just north of Harrison Hot Springs, Trout Lake Creek jumped

its banks and made a detour down Rockwell Drive, destroying the road and

trapping residents.

The response to these local disasters was extraordinary. Resort

staff and local Hemlock Valley residents made sure that everyone had

plenty of food and a place to stay. Supplies were flown in, and some

tourists were flown out by helicopter. Emil Anderson Construction began

working immediately, and within three days — and that over a weekend —

they had the road open to alternating traffic.

A couple of days after the Rockwell Drive disaster, local

residents gathered to talk, and I went to meet them. Rockwell Drive was

impassable. I had to walk in. Heavy equipment was everywhere, and Emil

Anderson was once again working quickly to restore the road, as well as

the area’s potable water. I found resilient people reaching out to help

their neighbours, and I reached out to government on their

behalf.

[1:45 p.m.]

I want to thank Emil Anderson for its rapid response, quality work

and for listening to local residents. I also want to thank two

volunteers: Brian Murphy, of the Hemlock Valley residents association,

and Roy Molnar, who lives on Rockwell Drive, provided leadership and

worked with government to make sure that everyone was safe and service

was restored as soon as possible. I also want to thank provincial

Ministry of Transportation officials, who saw the need and spent several

million dollars to repair both of these areas.

As we have seen during the COVID crisis, it’s good to know that

when a disaster occurs in B.C., we care about each other.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO COVID-19

IN MAPLE RIDGE AND

MISSION

B. D’Eith: I rise in the House today to give praise to some of the heroes of

our pandemic — local community members who saw a need and rose to the

challenge. I’ve been incredibly inspired by the everyday stories of

resilience and compassion in Maple Ridge and Mission.

In Mission, when the University of the Fraser Valley’s emergency

student fund dried up due to increased demand, students, staff and

alumni raised $83,000 to help support their fellow students in need.

Hailey Cheema, who was raised in Mission, is using her company, Personal

Protect Solutions, to donate Health Canada–approved PPE to local Mission

businesses through the Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Tracy and Ben Driessen, of Deroche General Store, have, for

decades, been funding the Deroche Elementary School programs, and their

generosity continues through weekly food hamper supports to families

during the pandemic.

As far as Maple Ridge, you may have heard of Quinn Callander, the

13-year-old Maple Ridge Boy Scout who made Forbes ’s “Eight

Under 18.” His mother saw a Facebook post from a B.C. nurse asking for

ear guards, which make masks more comfortable on long shifts. Quinn

learned how to use a 3D printer in his 3D printing club at Hammond

Elementary, and with his dad, he has printed and delivered over 1,000 of

these mask connectors to health care workers for free. Quinn is an

impressive example of how youth can creatively use their knowledge and

education for the benefit of the community.

The amazing folks at Ridge Meadow Seniors Society, since May, have

been going to local seniors homes with a loudspeaker, streamers, signs

and a bubble machine for afternoon dances. Of course, residents come out

on their balconies to dance, and this has been a wonderful reprieve for

many of the seniors in isolation.

In a similar vein, the Ridge Meadows Association for Community

Living has been having mobile music therapy sessions for people with

disabilities. And this is with the organization Music Heals. Taryn

Stephenson, who is the owner of Once Upon a Tea Leaf, also hosts tiki

fundraising events for the Music Heals people.

I could not be more proud of our community. These are only a few

of the many stories of people who have come together in Maple Ridge and

Mission during this pandemic.

I want to thank everyone in the community who has lent a helping

hand. Your solidarity and compassion is what is getting us through this

difficult time.

DANIEL FONTAINE AND

B.C. CARE PROVIDERS

ASSOCIATION

L. Reid: I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Daniel Fontaine.

After almost eight years successfully leading B.C. Care Providers, CEO

Daniel Fontaine has taken on a new role as CEO of the Métis Nation

British Columbia.

During his tenure, Daniel has taken B.C. Care Providers to

completely new heights. When he first started, the BCCPA had only two

staff and a small office at the corner of Broadway and Granville. Today

there are 13 full-time staff and a series of popular programs and

initiatives that he has implemented. Few can argue that one of Daniel’s

legacies will be the instrumental role he played in establishing both

SafeCare B.C. and EngAge B.C. These new entities have strengthened

workplace safety and provide an integrated voice for both the care

sector and the seniors living sector under one roof.

Daniel has provided exemplary leadership and has been a strong

voice during the current COVID-19 pandemic. I’m sure all the members

join me in thanking him for his commitment, dedication and tireless

service guiding us through these most challenging times. No doubt he

will do amazing things for the Métis Nation, and we genuinely wish him

all the best with this new

chapter in his life.

BRONZE DRAFT HORSE STATUE

BURNABY

J. Routledge: A large bronze workhorse sits on its haunches at a busy

intersection in Burnaby, frozen in the act of laying down, a yoke around

its neck. Behind it, a bronze log — the chains that once attached that

log to the workhorse, now broken.

[1:50 p.m.]

This is a new public artwork, and it’s called The Retired

Draft Horse and the Last Pulled Log . Surrounded by a rapidly

changing and rising skyline, this sight may seem out of place. It

recalls a time before Kingsway became a busy thoroughfare lined with

megamalls, restaurants, gas stations and neon signs; a time when it was

the route taken by the draft horses that drew logs from the Fraser River

or kegs of nails.

Created by Ken Lum, winner of the 2020 Governor General’s Awards

in Visual and Media Arts, The Retired Draft Horse and the Last

Pulled Log pays homage to the working people who built the city

of Burnaby. But forever frozen in limbo between laying down and standing

up, it also honours the working people who continue to transform and

modernize our city through their labour, their service, their commerce

and their commitment to community.

The next time you happen to be travelling along Kings­way,

perhaps in start-and-stop traffic or riding the Sky­Train, I

invite you to take a moment to reflect on the generations of brain and

muscle upon whose shoulders we stand. When you pass by the corner of

Edmonds and Kingsway, look for a bronze statue. It won’t be the

ubiquitous proud steed riding into battle with a general on its back.

Look for a tired workhorse.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

AND VALUE OF TOURISM

INDUSTRY

A. Olsen: Today I stand to honour part of the journey that got me here.

Community service was a value instilled in me by my grandparents. The

craft was taught to me by patient, professional people who walked their

talk.

Imagine how I felt as a 16-year-old kid, one of hundreds hired for

the summer at Butchart Gardens. When I showed up to my first shift, the

owner, Mr. Ross, was in the dish pit in the dining room. He was there to

welcome me and show me that no job in the gardens is too great or too

small, an impression so deeply lodged that I recount it with ease

today.

The hospitality and tourism industry is about impressions,

experiences, thrills, moments, emotions — the dorsal fin cresting out of

the Salish Sea, a grizzly bear or a coastal wolf fishing in a delta,

wrapping your arms around one of the earth’s most ancient creatures: a

majestic Douglas fir or a western red cedar.

It’s the industry that taught a stinking teenage boy grooming

habits and how to iron a shirt. The skills that I need in my job as an

MLA — how to fearlessly knock on doors, read the energy of a room and

how to effortlessly balance dozens of pressing issues — they all come to

me from the training and experience that I got waiting

tables.

The tourism and hospitality industry packages and delivers “Super,

natural British Columbia.” It’s one of the reasons we work so hard to

keep British Columbia super and natural. What are we without the dorsal

fins and the old growth forests?

COVID-19 has hit the hospitality and tourism sector hard. The

recovery is not a sprint but a marathon. To the people working in the

hospitality industry, thank you. I see you. To the investors who have

poured your life into creating great food and unforgettable experiences,

I hear you, and I know. Seeing you and hearing you is just the

start.

Oral Questions

STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES

A. Wilkinson: It’s a year ago this month, in July of 2019, that the first sign

of massive increases in strata condo insurance premiums showed up. It

accelerated through the rest of 2019, and the crisis is now fully

developed in 2020.

The question is very simple to the Premier. When can the 1.5

million citizens of this province who live in strata condominiums expect

some financial relief from this province?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I fully

appreciate that this is a grave situation for many countless numbers of

strata participants right across the province. It’s been a challenge

we’ve been working on very diligently for the past number of

months.

[1:55 p.m.]

The member will also know that we are in the grips of a global

pandemic. That’s not to say that we can’t do many things at one time,

but we are doing systematically the best we can to do a number of

things.

Firstly, we’re trying to make sure we keep people safe. We’re

focusing on making sure that as we rebuild the economy, immediate relief

is available for those that were drastically affected by COVID-19. At

the same time, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance put

together a package of changes to legislation to make it easier and

better for those that are struggling at this very moment.

There’s much more to do. I’m not suggesting for a second that we

have completed the task. But the task is underway, and I am grateful

that members on the other side have awoken to this issue as well. I

believe that if we work together and we put our shoulders to the

grindstone, we’ll come up with solutions for the people that are in

grave distress right now.

This is a private sector failure, hon. Member. I’m certain that

you understand that. The challenge is not just in British Columbia. It’s

right across the country. It’s grave here, and we’re going to work as

hard as we can to resolve that for the people that care about it and are

concerned about it and are counting on government to give them a

hand.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, with all due respect, that was a complete evasion. The

question is very simple. Can the 1.5 million British Columbians who live

in strata condominiums expect financial relief in the foreseeable future

from this government or not, yes or no?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think it diminishes the Leader of the Opposition to say that the

question is very simple. It’s not simple. If it were simple, we would

have resolved it by now. In fact, we would have had a bevy of ideas

coming from the other side.

I hear now that the Leader of the Opposition and his crew seem to

think that we should nationalize the private sector insurance companies.

That is a novel change from the positions that they’ve held in the

past.

It’s a serious issue. It’s not a simple issue. We’re working as

hard as we can on it. We’re going to continue to do that, through the

summer, into the fall and into next year, until we can get it

right.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Still no answer — simple question. Can British Columbians expect

relief from strata condominium insurance increases or not? Yes or no,

Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thought for the past four months that everyone was paying

attention to the world environment that we are part of. I thought for

the past four months that every member of this Legislature understood

what the consequences of global pandemic meant not just to the resources

of this province but to the resources of Canada.

To suggest that there’s a simple solution to a private sector

market failure is surprising — surprising coming from a group of people

who profess to put up the flag of free enterprise every morning, salute

it and say: “Be damned helping regular people. The market will resolve

it.” Apparently not, in this instance. That’s why we’re working so hard

on this side of the House to get it right.

T. Stone: Well, obviously, the answer from the Premier is no. There’s no

relief forthcoming.

Bob and Susan are pensioners in Kelowna. They’ve received their

insurance renewal, and they can’t afford it. It says loud and clear that

their water deductible is going up from $15,000 to $150,000. Their

premium is going from $84,000 to $387,000. The net effect of this on

their pocketbooks is an additional $200 per month in monthly strata

fees. They cannot afford it.

Now, all week the Housing Minister has boasted about just how

pleased the international insurance sector is with the government’s

strata action plan. On Monday, she said: “It’s about making sure…that

the insurance sector has some comfort in knowing that they, too, can

make money.”

Does the Premier agree with his minister’s statement?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said before in this House, this is a problem that has been

years in the making, and there have been some serious gaps left behind

by the previous government.

We tasked the B.C. Financial Services Authority to dig into this

issue and to make some recommendations, which they have. They’ve

provided us with an interim report. We are acting on those

recommendations. There’s legislation before the House. I look forward to

debating that legislation. We are going to continue to work on this

issue so that we can get it right for the people of this

province.

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

T. Stone: Well, we’ll assume that the Premier must agree with the minister’s

statement, if he’s not going to stand up and say otherwise.

[2:00 p.m.]

The fact of the matter is that the legislation that the minister

keeps referring to does absolutely nothing to provide relief that people

need today. In fact, 14 of the bill’s 16 sections are actually dependent

on the development of more regulation and consultations that the

government plans on having, which could take months, potentially years.

An empty bill is not a solution.

Don’t take my word for it. This is what the Finance Minister had

to say about this issue. Just last March she said: “Bringing forward a

bill that does nothing to address the pressures that are being faced

does not make a good solution.” Well, the government has done exactly

this. They’ve brought forward an action plan. They’ve tabled a bill that

does nothing to address the pressures that thousands of British

Columbians are facing.

Again to the Premier, will the Premier provide immediate relief

for the thousands of British Columbians who need it today?

Hon. S. Robinson: We know that people are struggling today. We know that, and we

hear them. That is why we tasked the B.C. Financial Services Authority

to work diligently, to work quickly to develop the recommendations. Of

course, there’s more work to do. There’s absolutely more work to do to

get it right. We want to make sure that part of what we’re doing is

mitigating the risk so that we can actually get the kind of insurance

that people need, that they can afford. So we’re taking steps to do just

that.

I look forward to debating the bill and getting it passed quickly

through the House so that we can get to work and we can resolve this for

the people in British Columbia. We’re expecting a final report in the

coming months. I look forward to continuing to act on this file so that

we can, again, bring relief to the people who are continuing to struggle

with the affordability of insurance products.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND

LOCAL PRODUCTION AND

INNOVATION

A. Olsen: As B.C. addresses the health crisis caused by COVID-19, the most

pressing issue becomes, like for the rest of the world, the economic

crisis and rebuilding our economy. The $1.5 billion stimulus package,

which government is preparing to spend, invests a substantial amount of

capital into our economy to precipitate foundational changes. As we

know, we can’t afford to go back to business as usual, because going

back means being unprepared for what’s ahead.

The health crisis has highlighted the many areas in our society

and economy that lack resilience. In many cases, our lack of local

technological and manufacturing capabilities has forced us to rely on

fragile global supply chains. The final report from B.C.’s first

innovation commissioner points to an opportunity to use CleanBC as an

economic driver by incenting made-in-B.C. solutions to help us meet our

climate targets. We can develop and strengthen our domestic supply

chains while lowering GHG emissions.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and

Competitiveness. Is her ministry developing a concrete proposal for how

stimulus spending can enact this recommendation to use CleanBC as an

economic driver in recovery that can also help us build greater

resilience in local supply chains?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thanks to the member for the question. I know that he’s very

interested in this topic, because we’ve actually been talking about it

over the last few months. In a short word, the answer to his question is

yes. This is very important. I think COVID-19 has shown us all, and Dr.

Winter is absolutely correct to point it out, that global supply chains

have been disrupted. We have to do more to localize those supply chains

and bring that production closer to home.

Some of the things that we already started doing, during the

height of the pandemic, was to create a supply hub. Now, the supply hub

was helping people who needed medical PPE to get medical PPE and other

types of supplies. The people that created that were right here in

British Columbia. Traction on Demand, which is a British Columbia

company headed by a young man who originated from Nelson — I have to put

that in there, hon. Speaker — put together the supply hub, in

partnership with our government.

There were other B.C. companies who were also part of this

important project. Westlab in Surrey, Breathe Medical in Kelowna,

WestBond Industries in Delta and Prototype Integrated Solutions in

Langley were all contributing to this important initiative that allowed

greater supply chains here locally in British Columbia.

Going forward, we know how important innovation, as our former

innovation commissioner pointed out, is going to be for our future

economy. We’ve already appointed the member for Delta North. He’s

already the parliamentary secretary, giving him the added responsibility

for expanding and growing our mass timber industry, as an

example.

[2:05 p.m.]

Another example. Innovate B.C. has also created 100 paid

internships with Mitacs for small and medium tech companies that are

building solutions in the COVID era.

This question of localizing our supply chains is an important

question that the new innovation commissioner is going to be looking at.

I’m very much looking forward to announcing who that person will be in

the near future.

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

A. Olsen: COVID-19 has daylighted our lack of stockpiling and local

production of personal protective equipment, and the minister mentioned

it. PPE is critical to protecting front-line workers, and we saw the

devastating health consequences when we lack supply. B.C. has a lot of

natural resources, much of which we export raw. This is not sustainable

and forgoes many local potential jobs. Now, more than ever, we need

immediate job-creating measures. Coupling our abundance of natural

resources with the strength, value-added industry, will mean a more

resilient economy and well-paying jobs for the future.

Our forest could provide essential bioproducts such as masks,

which will help transition the forestry industry and bring jobs to many

hard hit communities. Researchers at UBC have created a biodegradable

and compostable N95 mask made entirely of B.C. wood fibres and will

apply for Health Canada certification. Shovel-ready,

shovel-worthy.

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

Resources Operations and Rural Development. The minister has spoken

about shifting the industry to value-added instead of volume. We haven’t

yet seen many concrete changes. What steps is the minister taking to

capitalize on the opportunities in bioproducts, like masks, and making

it a reality for our forest industry?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question from the interim leader of the Third Party

to discuss innovation in the forest sector. We definitely have a focus

on adding value over volume on the use of the public resource, the

forests of B.C., and innovation is an important part of that.

Unfortunately, the forest sector we inherited under the previous

government had an overconcentration of tenure and a focus on traditional

forest products. Those factors do not lead to the stimulation of

innovation.

In Budget 2020, we allotted $13 million over the budget cycle to

the new forest economy. That’s to increase First Nations participation

in the bioeconomy and to work on the supply side around fibre, and

access to fibre, for innovators. That gets to the point of the member’s

question.

That access to fibre is absolutely essential for a company like

Harmac Pacific, who I just spoke with — the CEO and senior managers —

yesterday on the telephone. Harmac Pacific has doubled the supply they

provide to companies producing surgical gowns, for instance. So that

access to chips for that pulp is something that is important to

innovators like Harmac Pacific, and we’ve taken measures to reduce waste

in the forest and taken measures to drive logs to domestic production,

so that chips are available for the innovators and for the production of

value-added products like surgical gowns and the pulp that goes into

that.

We’ve also worked with FPInnovations. I believe the member’s

question, when it referenced that the biodegradable N95 masks that UBC

[audio interrupted].

Overall, this is important for the workers and important for

communities.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, thank you. I think we had a bit of a technical glitch

there.

GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR

EDUCATION SYSTEM

REOPENING

D. Davies: Parents and students have been patient as schools dealt with

COVID-19 and managed the uncertainty of this past school year, but now

they’re getting anxious. They want and expect the government to have a

plan in place for this fall, sooner than later.

The Premier said that June was a trial run and that they learned

from that. Now parents are looking for direction.

To the Minister of Education, will he provide students and parents

with an action plan by August?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question.

We have provided a plan for British Columbia, and it’s exactly why

we’re one of the handful of jurisdictions in North America that was able

to safely reopen schools in June. I think that has provided us with a

fantastic learning opportunity, which is now being seized upon by the

steering committee that I appointed, for the September restart of

schools.

That steering committee has met a couple of times already. It is

composed of the teaching profession, support staff, principals and

vice-principals, parent organizations — every stakeholder in the K-to-12

education system. It furthers and builds upon the work that we’ve done

as a government to have a collaborative approach to the complicated

management of safe school operation during this pandemic.

I think British Columbia is now being regarded as a leader in

jurisdictions across the world and close to us. In the Departments of

Education in Washington state, Oregon and California, they’re looking to

the plans that we’ve already developed, as a government here in British

Columbia, that safely guided our school system back to in-class

instruction in June.

The steering committee is working to provide information that will

be public, which I will announce in the coming weeks, about what stage

we will be in, what the features around health and safety protocols will

look like and what the school

schedule will look like.

What we will always do as a government, in the education system

and across government, is to have a science-led approach. The provincial

health office has to be congratulated for how it has worked with

everybody in the education system to make what has happened possible.

That will guide us into the future.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: Surely, though, the minister must understand that parents need a

plan for the return of school in September. Numerous articles that are

in the news have stated mid-August, August 20, before a plan would be

released.

Parents obviously understand the impact of the pandemic, but the

reality for families across British Columbia is that they need to

arrange child care. They need to have a plan to pick up kids from

different schools they might attend, a plan for what kids are going to

do on the days that they’re not in the classroom. It’s not fair for

families to only have a week or so to organize all of this. It sounds

like the minister has got a plan to get a plan, but families want some

certainty for September.

Again to the minister, will he ensure that parents know the plan

for the new school year by August?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m pleased to tell the member that that closely guarded secret

has been broadcast to every media organization that cared to cover me —

that we will, in the next few weeks, be giving substantive information

about what September looks like. But we will always have to check that

and update transparently, as we do as a government, against the backdrop

of pandemic management in British Columbia. We want to have a safe plan.

Safety remains the paramount concern of our government.

We published the stages document a couple of months ago. The

member knows that. He’s been briefed on that. So we’ve had a plan. It

guided us in June. A version of it will guide us, going forward, in

September. We have a collaborative plan. Every major organization has

representation on the steering committee that is planning the safe

reopening of schools in September.

Look, we should be proud, as a province, to be so further ahead of

other jurisdictions, having worked hard with 70,000 working men and

women in the school system, hundreds of thousands of parents who are

connected to parent advisory committees, to be able to have done what

other jurisdictions have only contemplated and not been able to

achieve.

I am very happy to take a question from the opposition on this.

Back in April, the opposition said we couldn’t open schools. In May,

they said we shouldn’t open schools, and in June, they said we couldn’t

open schools. We did all that. We did it safely.

Look, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from those who

participated in the voluntary return to school. Our plans, going

forward, are ones that are being co-developed with every K-to-12

stakeholder and will be shared publicly in the very near

future.

J. Johal: The Premier said the return to school in June was a trial run. I

can tell the minister that certainly in my community, in Richmond, the

participation level, I think, was 35 percent. I’m not sure who’s grading

his class, but 35 percent generally would be considered a

fail.

[2:15 p.m.]

Parents expect government to get involved and provide plans moving

forward in the fall. Instead, the minister is waiting until a week

before school returns before providing details.

Other provinces have provided clear plans that take into account

all contingencies. I have one of those plans from back east. There’s

information here on school attendance, school day routine, limits of

students in classrooms, child care and before-and-after programs — 22

pages of vital information all available online to parents. If other

provinces can do it, why can’t this government do it?

To the Minister of Education, why doesn’t he tell parents,

students and teachers what the school plans are for this

fall?

Hon. R. Fleming: These questions are very, very problematic. As the member knows,

we had a voluntary return to the school system because that’s what was

possible. You know what they had in other provinces? They had a zero

percent return to school.

We did very well. All of those that were involved…. This

tremendous exercise — which took incredible hard work, thoughtfulness

and guidance from the provincial health office and the B.C. Centre for

Disease Control — paid off in spades.

We wanted vulnerable children to be reconnected to schools, and

they were. We wanted those with special learning needs to be reconnected

with schools, and they were as well. That opportunity was available to

100 percent of families. Families that felt that it was the right

decision for their child, at the time in June, were able to take

advantage of that.

The lessons and experiences from June are informing the September

restart. We are ahead of other jurisdictions because of the work that we

put in during the pandemic and through the June restart. I think that

British Columbia…. When you look at what other provinces and territories

are inquiring of us, they’re looking at our plans to develop their

plans. I think that’s a testament to the leadership British Columbia has

provided in Canada.

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

supplemental.

J. Johal: We’re hearing from across the province that there is no

district-level planning happening and that nothing is expected for

weeks.

Now, the minister says that they’re ahead of other provinces. In

Alberta, official plans will be announced by August 1 to parents. In

Ontario, each school board is required to present a plan for schools to

return by August 4. In Quebec, schools planning to fully reopen in

September. In Saskatchewan, schools will reopen fully on September

That’s a plan. Parents know that they can plan for it and know

what’s going to happen in September. Here’s what education columnist

Patti Bacchus had to say: “The time to talk about solutions is now, not

in late August. Parents need to plan.”

Again to the Minister of Education, why won’t he tell parents what

the plan is today for the fall?

Hon. R. Fleming: To a previous question…. I know the member here is a former

journalist. I said to his former colleagues — the press gallery and

others — who joined a briefing today, in fact, that we will have a plan

published in three weeks’ time. What we have is a steering committee

composed of all of the stakeholders, including parent organizations,

working right now on that plan.

I think what you’re seeing in other provinces is that they’ve

announced dates. They’ve announced elements of what they are planning.

That’s fine. We’ve done that as well. But when you look at the national

organization of education ministries in the country, British Columbia’s

leadership is well recognized. We’ve done what other jurisdictions have

not.

We are committed, and we have behaved, as a government, in the

most transparent fashion, giving people information that is real, that

is well thought out and that is guided by science. That’s what we’re

going to continue to do, in the most timely manner possible. As I have

committed to do, we will have a more accurate picture of what a return

to school looks like in September in the coming weeks.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

TOURISM

INDUSTRY

M. Stilwell: Yesterday the Minister of Tourism tried to paint a rosy picture of

the tourism sector’s future. Except the reality on the ground is quite

different. Businesses are hurting. They can’t afford to wait for the

minister to stop talking and come up with a plan. They need support now

— today.

Here’s a quote from John Wilson of Wilson’s Transportation: “With

every passing day, it is getting tougher and tougher to see the light.

Wilson’s and the industry, as a whole, need something soon to make it

through 2020.”

To the Minister of Tourism, when can businesses expect a plan that

provides them with the support that they need to survive this

crisis?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question, because our

government absolutely recognizes the value of tourism and how they’ve

been hit extremely hard by the COVID-19 virus. Our tourism operators and

I have been working very closely over the past three months. We are

working with them on response, recovery and resilience.

We immediately, as a government, provided $5 billion in support.

We reallocated funds and launched our domestic marketing campaign so

that tourism operators can have a summer season. We continue to protect

and monitor our international markets, because we know those spaces need

to be protected because bookings come 18 months out usually.

We continue to work with the sector towards recovery to hear what

they want. We work with the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., the

RDMOs, the sector associations and the businesses. We’re working on

resilience by focusing on destination development and by focusing on

Indigenous tourism.

Here’s a quote for the member, because we are working closely with

the sector, and we’re going to continue to work closely with the sector.

This was a letter from the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., which

they provided yesterday morning. It’s on behalf of the members,

directors and partners of the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. “I

wish to express my sincere thanks for your leadership in support of

B.C.’s tourism industry as we continue to deal with the devastating

impacts of COVID.” They go on: “Thank you, again, for championing the

needs for tourism workers and businesses and communities throughout

B.C.”

What we’re going to continue to do is work directly with the

sector. What we’re going to continue to do is discuss with them what

they need for supports towards recovery, and we’ll work together towards

that.

D. Clovechok: The people in the tourism sector are being very up front, and

they’ve been very clear. They need support from the province, and they

need it immediately. They want a defined recovery plan that lays out

what the next 18 months look like. Other provinces have plans and are

making significant investments to sustain the industry, yet in B.C.,

nothing.

To the Minister of Tourism, when will the minister provide a

recovery plan that the sector is desperately asking for?

Hon. L. Beare: It’s really unfortunate that the members are painting this

picture. We continue to work with the sector. We have already secured

and provided investments, and we will continue to do that. We provided

$10 million in marketing money for community destination marketing

organizations. We provided $400,000 to the tourism associations so that

they can have marketing plans ready. We provided $130,000 to visitor

network services. We provided money for smaller CDMOs to work with

Destination B.C.

We know that the tourism sector has been significantly hit. We

have worked with them to address their concerns to date, including

wholesale prices of alcohol and pieces like that. We’re going to keep

working with them together, moving towards a recovery in the future. I’m

going to continue, as I have been for the past three months, working

extremely closely with the sector and with the direct businesses to hear

what it is they need.

[2:25 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

ON REFORMING THE

POLICE ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act be

appointed to examine, inquire into, and make recommendations to the

Legislative Assembly on the following:

1. Reforms related to independent oversight,

transparency, governance, structure, service delivery, standards,

funding, training and education, and any other considerations which may

apply respecting the modernization and sustainability of policing under

the Police Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367) and all related

agreements.

2. The role of police with respect to complex social

issues including mental health and wellness, addictions, and harm

reduction; and in consideration of any appropriate changes to relevant

sections of the Mental Health Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

288).

3. The scope of systemic racism within British

Columbia’s police agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

independent municipal police and designated policing units, and its

impact on public safety and public trust in policing.

4. Whether there are measures necessary to ensure a

modernized Police Act is consistent with the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), as required by

section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act (S.B.C. 2019, c. 44).

The Special Committee shall undertake the above examinations as it

deems appropriate with regard to relevant reports, studies, and

examinations.

The Special Committee shall have all the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition is empowered to:

(

a) appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee;

(

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

(

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

e) retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee.

The Special Committee shall report to the House by May 14, 2021, or

following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case

may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption

of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The Special Committee is to be composed of Nicholas Simons

(Convenor), Garry Begg, Bowinn Ma, Rachna Singh, Jas Johal, Mike

Morris, Ellis Ross, Michelle Stilwell , and Adam

Olsen .]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are going to go to Motion 6.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 6 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion No. 6 standing in my name on the orders of the

day.

[Be it resolved that pursuant to

Section 6 (2) of the Judicial

Compensation Act , the Legislative Assembly:

a. rejects the following recommendations of the Judicial

Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report as laid before this Assembly

on February 24, 2020 for the reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed

Response to the Judicial Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report in

Respect of Provincial Court Judges, filed in this House; and

b. sets the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to

be substituted for the remuneration, allowances or benefits proposed by

the rejected recommendations; as follows:

1. The recommended salary for puisne judges for

April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 of $287,000 is rejected. The salary for

April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 is set at $276,000.

2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 of $297,000, is rejected. The salary for

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 is set at $282,250.

3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for

April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 of $307,000 is rejected. The salary for

April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 is set at $288,500.

4. Recommendation 13, that government pay 100% of the

reasonable costs of the legal fees and disbursements of the Provincial

Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, including the costs for

experts, be rejected.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations

in respect of Provincial Court judges contained in the report.]

I’d like to take a few moments to speak to this motion respecting

the compensation that is paid to the province’s provincial court

judges.

As members may know, the process that is followed to determine

judges’ compensation is necessarily different from collective

bargaining. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice

system. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law —

namely, that anyone who is accused of a crime or challenges government

before the courts can be sure that their case will be decided by an

impartial judge. As such, it is a constitutional requirement that

judicial remuneration must not become the subject of negotiation between

government and the judiciary. Instead, government and the judiciary make

submissions to an independent commission. In British Columbia, the

Judicial Compensation Act, JCA, establishes the process for the

independent, objective and effective Judicial Compensation

Commission.

Every three years the Judicial Compensation Commission reports and

makes recommendations on judicial remuneration to government after

considering the statutory factors set out in the JCA. The government and

this assembly are not bound to accept the commission’s recommendations,

but if the assembly wishes to depart from them, the assembly must give

legitimate and rational reasons compatible with the common law and

constitution and that rest upon a reasonable factual

foundation.

[2:30 p.m.]

The commission’s recommendations must have a meaningful effect on

the process of determining judicial remuneration. They must be

considered by the government and given weight. Overall, the response

must respect the commission process and ensure that the process has been

effective.

Before I address the proposed response, I want to take the time to

recognize the valuable work of the Provincial Court and the Provincial

Court judges. The Provincial Court has jurisdiction over most of the

criminal cases in this province, as well as the majority of family law

matters. The court also adjudicates small claims matters from $5,001 up

to $35,000. In 2018-19, there were over 112,000 cases initiated in the

Provincial Court in B.C.

In addition to the court’s caseload, the Provincial Court,

including its judges, has continually adapted processes to improve its

level of service to the public and meet the needs of the justice system.

Government especially commends the Provincial Court on its efforts

during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the court functions as

effectively and efficiently as possible in these unprecedented times.

Government is dedicated to ensuring that Provincial Court judges are

supported to continue to demonstrate their innovation, flexibility and

hard work when carrying out their important work of dispensing

justice.

Turning now to government’s proposed response to the Judicial

Compensation Commission 2019 final report, let me first express my

thanks to the 2019 commission members who undertook their

responsibilities faithfully: commission chair, the Hon. Thomas Cromwell,

a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; Vern Blair; Michael

Marchbank; Robin McFee, Queen’s Counsel; and Lisa Southern.

Before I get into the specifics of government’s proposed response,

I want to make one clarification to a statement in government’s proposed

response with respect to Provincial Court judges. The proposed response

states that Crown counsel will receive an increase that is 1.27 percent

greater than any increase received by the judges. I have been informed

that that is not necessarily so, as Crown counsel salaries are a matter

of ongoing negotiation.

The commission’s report makes nine recommendations concerning the

remuneration, allowances and benefits of Provincial Court judges. As set

out in the motion, government proposes that the commission salary

recommendation for Provincial Court judges be rejected and that the

commission’s recommendation that cabinet seek to enact a regulation to

cover 100 percent of the reasonable cost of legal fees and disbursements

of the Provincial Court Judges Association, the PCJA, also be

rejected.

In making this proposal, I can assure all members of this House

that government has looked carefully at what the commission recommended.

Detailed reasons are contained in the government’s proposed response

document, which I tabled in the House a few days ago. The proposed

response appropriately addresses and gives weight to the commission’s

recommendations as well as the statutory factors set out in subsection

5(5) of the Judicial Compensation Act. The proposed response respects

the commission process and ensures judicial independence while

recognizing that government is accountable for the expenditure of public

funds and must analyze the cost of the commission’s recommendations and

responsibly balance the competing demands on public

resources.

In regard to salaries, government proposes rejecting the

commission’s salary recommendations for the reasons set out in the

proposed response, including:

(1) The economic conditions in British Columbia and the financial

position of the government. Subfactors 5(5)(

e) and 5(5)(

f) in the

Judicial Compensation Act have changed significantly since the

commission issued its final report and recommendations.

(2) The commission misapplied subsection 5(5)(

d) of the Judicial

Compensation Act: “changes in the compensation of others paid by

provincial public funds in British Columbia.” The commission’s

conclusions concerning the province’s economic position and the

government’s financial position must be considered in light of the new

reality of the province’s economic position.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unanticipated public health emergency

that arose after the commission issued its final report. The COVID-19

pandemic has had and will have a significant impact on government’s

forecasted spending and revenue. Accordingly, the proposed substitute

salaries account for the significant impact COVID-19 is having on

British Columbia’s current and expected economic and fiscal

position.

The proposed substitute salaries also account for the government’s

view that the commission did not appropriately weigh the changes in

compensation of others paid by provincial public funds. The assembly is

entitled to re-weigh this factor alongside the others, and it is

proposed that the assembly do this. In government’s view, giving greater

weight than the commission did to changes in compensation of others paid

from provincial public funds is appropriate and militates in favour of

lower salary increases than were recommended by the

commission.

Others paid from provincial public funds are generally being held

to raises of 2 percent per year and, in some cases, 2.25 percent, on

account of government expenditure management policies. The size of the

judges’ salaries increases should be considered in this

context.

[2:35 p.m.]

Judges’ salaries in 2019-20 are currently $270,000. Government’s

proposed salaries would represent a three-year increase of 6.85 percent

above the 2019-20 judges’ salary, compared to the 13.7 percent increase

recommended by the commission. The estimated fiscal impact of the

commission salary recommendations is approximately $14,341,555 over the

three years addressed by the commission’s report. The proposed

substituted salary increase has an estimated fiscal impact of

$6,521,061, which government regards as a significant saving. The

proposed salary, as estimated based on available salaries for 2019 and

2020, puts B.C. fifth compared to other provinces’ provincial court

judges.

In regard to the costs incurred by the Provincial Court Judges

Association for participating in the commission process, government

proposes rejecting the commission’s recommendation that government pay

100 percent of those costs. Instead, we propose that the formula for the

payment of such costs contained in the Judicial Compensation Act be

applied — that government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and

two-thirds of the cost between $30,000 and $150,000.

The objective of putting a cost formula into statute was to create

certainty around the cost payable to the association, having regard to

the fact that government is not in a position to control these costs as

they are incurred.

Further reasoning for the government’s position is set out in our

proposed response document. That concludes my remarks on this motion. I

recommend the proposed response to the House, and I look forward to

hearing from other members.

M. Lee: The opposition will be supporting this motion as it seems to be a

reasonable response from government.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will now be going to Motion No. 7.

MOTION 7 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR JUDICIAL JUSTICES

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion No. 7, standing in my name on the orders of the

day.

[Be it resolved that pursuant to

Section 6 (2) of the Judicial

Compensation Act , the Legislative Assembly:

a. rejects the following recommendations of the Judicial

Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report as laid before this Assembly

on February 24, 2020 for the reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed

Response to the Judicial Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report in

Respect of Provincial Court Judicial Justices, filed in this House;

and

b. sets the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to

be substituted for the remuneration, allowances or benefits proposed by

the rejected recommendations; as follows:

1. The recommended salary for judicial justices for

April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 of $138,000 is rejected. The salary for

April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 is set at $125,750.

2. The recommended salary for judicial justices for

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 of $142,000 is rejected. The salary for

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 is set at $129,500.

3. The recommended salary for judicial justices for

April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 of $146,000 is rejected. The salary for

April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 is set at $133,500.

4. Recommendation 13, that government pay 100% of the

reasonable costs of the legal fees and disbursements of the Judicial

Justices Association of British Columbia, including the costs for

experts, be rejected.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations

in respect of Provincial Court judicial justices contained in the

report.]

In speaking to this motion, let me state that the process for

setting compensation for judicial justices is the same as for Provincial

Court judges. As with judges, judicial justices exercise functions that

require judicial independence.

The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court is authorized under

subsection 11(1) of the Provincial Court Act to prescribe the

jurisdiction of judicial justices through an assignment of duties. The

2019 assignment of duties identifies a broad range of jurisdiction for

judicial justices, including traffic and bylaw hearings, considering

police applications for search warrants and production orders under the

Criminal Code of Canada, hearing applications for detention or bail and

conducting small claims payment hearings.

While judicial justices’ jurisdiction is more limited than that of

Provincial Court judges, they are very important components of the

operation of the justice system in British Columbia. They are required

to dispense with the matters before them quickly while ensuring that

their decisions are fair and just. As with judges, judicial justices are

essential to ensuring the court functions as effectively and efficiently

as possible to meet the needs of the justice system.

Government commends the efforts of the Provincial Court judicial

justices to adapt processes to improve its level of service to the

public, especially during these unprecedented times. Government commits

to continuing to support judicial justices to carry out their important

work of dispensing justice during the COVID-19 pandemic and

after.

The 2019 commission’s report makes eight recommendations with

respect to Provincial Court judicial justices. As set out in the motion,

government proposes that the commission’s salary recommendations for

judicial justices be rejected, along with the commission’s

recommendation respecting participation costs for the Judicial Justices

Association of British Columbia. Government has carefully reviewed the

commission’s report, including the analysis and findings that underlie

its recommendations. Detailed reasons are contained in the proposed

response document appended to the notice accompanying this

motion.

Government proposes rejecting the commission’s salary

recommendations for the following reasons. Reason 1, the economic

conditions in British Columbia and the financial position of the

government. Subfactors 5(5)(

e) and 5(5)(

f) of the Judicial Compensation

Act have changed significantly since the commission issued its final

report and recommendations. Reason 2, the commission misapplied

subsection 5(5)(

d) of the Judicial Compensation Act: “changes in the

compensation of others paid by provincial public funds in British

Columbia.”

[2:40 p.m.]

Government’s reasons for rejecting the salary recommendations for

judicial justices are, therefore, the same as those described in the

previous motion respecting government’s response to the recommendations

respecting judges. One important distinction between the response

respecting judges and the response respecting judicial justices is the

issue of recruitment for judicial justices.

The commission concluded that there is a pressing recruitment

problem with respect to judicial justices, noting that from 2010 to

2019, there were only 11 applicants for new positions and only five new

appointments. At the same time, the commission found that provincial

court judges are increasingly used to cover shifts for judicial

justices. For example, judges covered 10 percent of weekend shifts and 3

percent of midnight shifts in 2018.

The commission also noted that judicial justices in British

Columbia are paid less than all other provinces and territories except

one. The COVID-19 pandemic has required government to balance the

commission’s finding relating to judicial justice recruitment and the

need to improve judicial justices’ salaries comparative to those in

other jurisdictions with the impact of COVID-19 on B.C.’s economy and

financial position.

The significant unanticipated expenditures and the significant

anticipated loss of revenues has led government to conclude that while

it will support increases in salary, government will not at this time

prioritize significant wage increases as a response to the recruitment

issue and comparative salary issue identified by the

commission.

Government’s proposed salary, a 9.42 percent increase in salaries

for judicial justices over three years, represents a higher increase

than most others paid from provincial public funds, as government wants

to ensure, even during the COVID-19 crisis, that it is moving to improve

and not exacerbate the problems identified by the commission. However,

it is the government’s view that the increase proposed by the JCC of

19.67 percent over three years cannot be justified in the current

economic and fiscal climate resulting from the COVID-19

emergency.

The estimated fiscal impact of government’s proposed salary

increase is $633,610 over three years addressed by the commission’s

report, compared to the commission’s salary recommendation, which has an

estimated fiscal impact of approximately $1,616,958.

In regard to the participation cost of the Judicial Justices

Association of British Columbia, government proposes rejecting the

commission’s recommendation that government pay 100 percent of those

costs. Instead, as with a similar recommendation in respect to the

judges association, government proposes that the formula for payment of

such costs remain as contained in the Judicial Compensation Act: that

government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of

the costs between $30,000 and $150,000.

That concludes my remarks on this motion. I recommend the proposed

response to the House, and I look forward to hearing from other

members.

M. Lee: The opposition will also be supporting this motion, as it seems to

be a reasonable response from government.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures

Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED

MEASURES

ACT

Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act, read a third time and

passed.

[2:45 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Kang: I have the honour to present the Annual Report of the Chief

Records Officer .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2020.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(VEHICLE INSURANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

J. Johal: I have a few other broad questions that I wanted to ask the

Attorney General.

[2:50 p.m.]

The minister has referred to this particular proposal as an

enhanced-care model. Is there any difference between this and what is

traditionally referred to as no-fault?

The Chair: Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good to see you again.

I think I’ve been clear, a few times, in various media interviews:

this type of system — where you don’t go through the tort system in

court for compensation or for rehabilitation costs — falls under a group

of policy approaches that opponents of them typically call “no-fault.”

The reason why opponents of these kinds of programs like to call it

“no-fault” is that they want to imply that fault doesn’t

matter.

Under this proposal that we’ve put in front of the House in this

bill, fault is a significant factor. If you are engaging in criminal

conduct while you’re driving — drunk driving, other Criminal Code

offences — you can still be sued. If you cause a collision, your

insurance premiums will still go up. I think it’s an inaccurate term to

describe this bill or this program. I think it is a term that is used by

opponents of these kinds of systems to cause people to believe that

at-fault drivers are getting away with something under these

systems.

The interesting piece about that is that under our current system,

in fact, it’s the at-fault driver who gets their lawyer paid for by the

insurance company, and the person who is not at fault who has to pay for

their own lawyer out of their settlement. So I guess, in some senses,

our current system is better described as a no-fault system. But that’s

neither here nor there. Opponents of this have described it as a

no-fault system; the member is correct. I don’t think it’s an accurate

term, though.

J. Johal: The minister has in the past, to my recollection, mentioned the

Saskatchewan model and the Manitoba model. One, would he view those as a

no-fault system? Two, if this is not a no-fault system, is there a

system that is similar to the one that you want to introduce, anywhere

else in Canada?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I think that opponents of Saskatchewan’s and Manitoba’s

systems, as well, describe them as no-fault systems. This system is very

heavily based on Manitoba’s and Saskatchewan’s systems. They have public

insurers. Their statutes and their experiences were heavily consulted

and considered by drafters when preparing this. I would describe our

system as an evolution of those models.

I don’t consider myself an expert at all in those systems — the

system I know best is the one that we’re proposing to this House — but I

can advise the member that there are some differences. In some of those

systems, you can choose whether to participate in the tort system — the

court system — or in the enhanced-care-type system that they have there.

Another example is that you may not still sue someone who engages in

criminal conduct while behind the wheel in some of these

systems.

[2:55 p.m.]

I don’t know what the impact on rates is if you’re an at-fault

driver in those systems, but I can tell the member that certainly, the

experience in those jurisdictions was a heavy inspiration and a

precedent for much of what we’re doing here. The reason for that is

quite straightforward. They have public insurers, as we do in B.C. They

deliver the lowest rates in Canada to their drivers. In fact, Manitoba

issued a very significant rebate that was planned before COVID because

they simply took in too much money from drivers.

Their operating costs are much lower, yet they deliver

significantly better benefits than we do in British Columbia. Better

benefits and lower costs through a public insurer are why they have

provided the inspiration here. Other provinces — Alberta, Ontario;

private insurers through a tort system, a hybrid tort system or a hybrid

no-fault system — were also looked at, but they were not used as

inspiration because they are not delivering affordable rates or good

benefits. That’s why we looked to the provinces that were having success

for our approach here.

J. Johal: The minister says that they borrowed heavily from Saskatchewan and

Manitoba. Is it fair to say that those two public insurers refer to

their coverage as no-fault?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the House that Anne Foy and Nina Bindra from the

Ministry of Attorney General…. In case there are questions related to

ICBC, Jason McDaniel and Doug Gormican are available as well.

I am advised by this panel of experts that’s advising me that

Manitoba refers to their program as a personal injury protection plan.

Saskatchewan, I’m advised, does in some areas describe their plan as a

no-fault plan.

J. Johal: The plan that we borrowed heavily from — in this case,

Saskatchewan — does refer to their system as, in some cases, a no-fault

plan. So that’s [audio interrupted].

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s what I just said.

J. Johal: Yesterday the minister had talked about fairness and broadly

explained how the system would work, which I appreciate. He had talked

about the CRT. He talked about a fairness officer and how those

decisions, when made, could be potentially reviewed.

What’s the likelihood that those two agencies would help decisions

to be reconsidered if an individual didn’t agree with whatever an

adjuster had come down with in regard to their decision? What’s the

likelihood of ICBC reconsidering their decision?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In relation to a rehabilitation matter or a medical care matter,

the person’s physician or caregiver is prescribing a course of

treatment. If the claims adjuster did not accept that recommendation, it

would be overturned by the civil resolution tribunal, because in this

system the care provider determines what is needed for the patient’s

rehabilitation. If it was a non-medical matter — a value of a vehicle,

or so on — there’s an internal review process within ICBC; there is a

fairness commissioner process, which are non-binding recommendations;

and then, of course, there’s the CRT, which are binding

recommendations.

It’s very difficult at this time to know what the success rate of

various applications would be. But if the CRT ordered ICBC to change

their decision, they would have to, so it would be 100 percent of the

time that ICBC would be required by law to follow the CRT

direction.

J. Johal: I’m looking for a bit of clarity on this, because this is an

integral part of the system, and I’m sure the Attorney General would

agree.

Could the Attorney General walk me through the process. Let’s say

I was an accident victim and was told by an adjuster that I do not need

treatment A, B or C. How would a victim challenge that

decision?

Hon. D. Eby: Just before I get into detail, I’d like to clarify with the member

that in his scenario, a physician or other qualified caregiver has

prescribed a course of treatment, and the adjuster has refused to honour

that with the appropriate benefits as required. Is that correct, that

this is prescribed treatment? See, because that’s an important detail

about whether it’s coming from a physician or some other

source.

J. Johal: What I’m trying to get to is: if an individual is in an accident

and the adjuster says that a certain treatment isn’t needed, what would

be the process to challenge that decision?

Hon. D. Eby: What the member is describing is a failure of training. The claims

adjudicators will be trained that when there is a medical recommendation

for a course of treatment, the client has a right to that

treatment.

[3:05 p.m.]

If the claims adjudicator refused that treatment, there would be

two avenues available to the client. The first would be an internal

review process, to go to a manager at ICBC or to file a complaint

through ICBC’s internal process. But it’s not a requirement. That’s one

option. The expectation would be that the manager would have been

properly trained — that when a physician is recommending a course of

treatment, that is what happens.

The other route is to go to the civil resolution tribunal, and

ICBC would lose that hearing because ICBC has an obligation to provide

that care under this system.

J. Johal: Can the minister touch on the consultation process that’s been

ongoing with stakeholders? So much of this still has to be fleshed out.

Can he give us a sense of the consultation process and where we are in

regards to stakeholders?

Hon. D. Eby: Meetings have been taking place with a range of health care

providers and disability advocates since February. This has been on

everything related to the design of the system itself to the regulations

that will govern the various pieces of the system.

The goal is a system in which people can have confidence that

their health care providers and their advocates are supportive of

because they helped design it, and they know better than anyone what

people need to recover and what they need when they have been injured to

the point of permanent disability.

This whole program is rooted in that engagement process. The

member is right. It’s very important, and it’s been going on, on a

regular basis since February.

J. Johal: Could the minister provide names of the organizations,

specifically, that the ministry is speaking to?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m trying to think about how to put this. What I might propose is

that I could provide a list to the member rather than to read it into

Hansard . That would be my preference. I wonder if the

member would be agreeable to that.

J. Johal: I think I would agree to that.

Can the minister tell this House when he believes this

consultation will be completed?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The expectation is that the nature of these consultations and the

committee will be a permanent feature of the new system — that the

consultations will go on through implementation and through the system’s

maturity. The reason for that is that I expect there will be some bumps

along the road, and we want to be able to identify those as quickly as

possible.

The people best placed to advise us about what they’re seeing

that’s not working will be the health care providers and the disability

advocates, because they’re the ones who are participating in the system

and who see the people who are going through the system who are most

affected. So our hope is to maintain that for as long as possible. It’s

meant to be a permanent feature.

J. Johal: I just want to get back to my previous question. This is not asked

in a confrontational manner, but I do want to ask as to why the list of

those particular organizations that the ministry and ICBC are currently

engaging with cannot be made public?

Hon. D. Eby: It can be made public. But I would like to provide it to the

member in writing because my interest is in ensuring that those folks

who are helping us put the system together are not subjected to any sort

of political campaigns by opponents of the system.

Now, I know I can’t guarantee that. They’ve been incredibly

generous with their time. They understand the heightened political

nature of the changes that we’re making — that there are many people who

are financially dependent on the system as it stands. You know, it’s a

heightened environment.

So it can be made public. The list that I’ll give to the member

can be made public. It’s not secret, but I’ll leave it to the member’s

discretion about how he uses that information.

J. Johal: I understand where the minister is coming from. Have these

organizations been asked to sign an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement,

because of this heightened interest?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that yes. The current work is on the regulations to

support the system and, as a result, because of the sensitivity of the

regulations, they have been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement

with respect to the content of the regulations.

They are not subject to a non-disclosure agreement in terms of

making statements about the system, whether they think it’s the right

direction, wrong direction, good for patients, bad for patients or any

of that kind of stuff. But they do have access to sensitive information

in preparing this, and also, knowing the content of the regulations

before they’re publicly released is also sensitive information. So they

are subject to an NDA with respect to the regulations.

[3:15 p.m.]

J. Johal: When you have a public insurer that has been around since the

early 1970s, and now we’re looking at a wholesale change, a very

significant change, the transition involves HR. A transition may include

software. A transition, many would argue, would involve a cultural

change as well.

Can the Attorney General provide some context in regards to what

that transition looks like? Is there a price that can be put on the

significant changes that are coming, in regards to just software, in

regards to people? Can you give us a sense of what that looks

like?

Hon. D. Eby: I apologize to the member. We don’t have those numbers immediately

at hand. But what I can commit to the member is we have estimates coming

up in a couple of weeks for the Ministry of Attorney General and ICBC.

We’ll have the numbers there. I’ll make sure that we have a good

summary

of the expected costs.

What I can tell the member is that the estimated savings annually

are likely to exceed $1 billion or be in the neighbourhood of $1

billion. The costs will be a fraction of that first-year savings. The

costs have already been accounted for in the projected rate savings for

British Columbians. British Columbians will be seeing those rate savings

independent of the cost of the project.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that I don’t have the

numbers with me, but I will have them, or at least some numbers for the

member, in the estimates process.

J. Johal: Can the Attorney General confirm that…? As I’ve said earlier, this

is a significant change for the corporation, and I appreciate that we’ll

have some numbers by the time we get to estimates. But can he confirm

that there is going to be hiring of management consultants and

significant equipment to make this change and HR changes? I mean, I’m

trying to get a sense of what that will entail.

He may not have the numbers, but in regards to some of the systems

that will change, I want to get an idea of what this transition looks

like.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. This is a significant project. It involves

computer system updates and training costs. There are about 300 people

working full-time on this project right now. There are 28 different

insurance products that are impacted by it. There are new estimation

tools being prepared. Certainly, change management costs are a part of

that.

I want to put some specificity around the projected savings. It’s

$1.5 billion in projected savings. I think that gives a bit of

perspective about what’s happening in terms of the implementation of

this new system.

J. Johal: I thank the member for that response. I just have a couple more

questions before I hand it over to my colleague from Surrey.

ICBC, off the top of my head, has about 5,200 employees, give or

take a hundred here or there. Can the Attorney General give me a sense

of staffing numbers in regards to the FTE, full-time-equivalent, after

this transition is done? It was 5,200, I think, the last number that I

saw. Are we going to have 100 more employees, 500 more employees, 1,000

more employees? Will there be redundancies? Will there be layoffs as

well? Can he give me a sense of what ICBC will look like in regards to

employees after this transition?

Hon. D. Eby: Just for the record, I’ll note that that 5,200 number includes

people working driver’s licence standards — ICBC services unrelated to

insurance.

At this point, ICBC doesn’t have projections that they’ll be

significantly bigger. It’s important to note two things. One is that the

number of employees is highly dependent on the number of accidents. The

other thing to note is that we will be…. Essentially, the projection is

about a decade, but I think the bulk of the cases from the old system

will be through in about five years.

[3:25 p.m.]

So from May of next year for about five years, we’ll be working

through all of the cases under the old system. There’ll be two systems

running in parallel, which is why it’s difficult at this stage to

project five years out from implementation date what ICBC will look like

in terms of the overall number of employees. The experience in other

jurisdictions is that on transition they delivered significant savings

to people in those provinces. The savings tend not to come from the

employee composition of the insurance companies themselves but rather

from controlling escalating costs associated with litigation.

I often hear people concerned about senior management salary costs

at ICBC, which is why we got rid of the bonus program and contained the

number of managers as well as salaries. But as sensational as those

stories are, the big cost drivers of the insurance bill that people get

are, in a significant part, of the order of about $1½ billion of these

legal costs.

I definitely understand the member’s question — it’s an important

one — on how we manage this transition, how we ensure that ICBC delivers

services efficiently. It’s also important to recognize that what we’re

doing is taking $1.5 billion out of the system with this change and

distributing it to drivers through two mechanisms: reduced rates and

improved benefits.

J. Johal: This will be my final question, just a follow-up to what the

Attorney General was saying. This is a significant change. But I just

want to get a sense of…. I understand the savings. The minister has

mentioned $1.5 billion a few times now, but the employee composition, I

think, is important. I think British Columbians should get a sense of:

is there going to be a significant increase in the amount of employees,

a significant decrease, 10 percent? Perhaps there’s some historical

context in regards to other jurisdictions. When they have brought in a

system like this, has there been a decrease?

I’m hoping the minister can provide a bit more context to that

particular question, because I think it’s important for all of us to

understand that once this system is brought in, is it the same amount of

employees that we need, or will we need significantly more? I understand

the cost savings, but I’m just trying to get a sense of the amount of

employees that will be required and the costs with that as

well.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that Manitoba and Saskatchewan’s insurers

did increase their employee count on implementation. But ICBC is of the

belief that because they implemented their systems more than a decade

ago, there are significant learnings from what they have gone through

and significant new technologies available to ICBC to reduce the

dependency on increasing employees, which is why, at this point, they’re

not projecting a significant increase in the number of employees at

ICBC.

Now, that may change, but at this point they’re not projecting

that, and it is very dependent on collision rates in the province. The

more accidents there are, the more claims there are, and people need

responses within a certain period of time. It underlines the importance

of government’s collision reduction programs. Pre-COVID, last year, we

were down about 20,000 collisions year over year thanks to our road

safety initiatives. COVID, obviously…. The member knows — he’s been

talking about a silver lining, I guess, of COVID and people commuting

digitally — that collisions are down again quite significantly this year

and that those trends seem to be holding even as we reopen the province.

I hope they hold for longer.

So it’s incredibly variable. The biggest factor is the number of

collisions, and at this point I can advise the member that ICBC is not

projecting a significant increase in the number of employees.

[3:30 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Could the Attorney please tell us — or enlighten me — on average,

how many catastrophic injuries are there in British Columbia each year?

As well, knowing that those cases take a number of years to settle, on

average, how many cases settle every year?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that it’s somewhere between 400 and 500

catastrophic injuries a year. Of interest, certainly to me, when I first

took over the file, was that 35 of those folks every year will eat

through their lifetime benefit

part 7 limits. That’s where you’re in a

one-car collision — through a moment of inattention or a bad decision,

you were at fault in a collision. These are people who are

catastrophically injured, received their maximum $150,000 in benefits

and then were cut off and now live in poverty.

We doubled that to $300,000. Even then, I think the member can

appreciate the costs, if you’re catastrophically injured, of

rehabilitation, never mind retrofitting your home or your vehicle and

potential care if you’re quadriplegic. This is a huge expense, so people

will blow through that $300,000 limit as well. The problem is that when

you blow through it, then you’re cut off under

part 7. This is why it’s

these 35 people per year that, definitely, I think about when I think

about this new system — the woman I met who ran into a moose and was

rendered quadriplegic and used up her lifetime benefit very

quickly.

The 400 to 500 people who have catastrophic injury…. I acknowledge

that it really depends on how you define “catastrophic.” We had a big

debate about “minor injury” previously, so it’s obviously a very

sensitive area. But in ICBC’s perspective, there are 400 to 500 a

year.

The member also asked about what percentage of claims settle. The

data that I’m given is that about 99.9 percent of claims settle. ICBC

settles about 30,000 injury claims per year, and a handful do go to

court.

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the Attorney General for that. Certainly, I think I

know better than most in this House what the costs of a catastrophic

injury are and how it affects one’s life. Certainly, from my past

experience outside of the House, I did have some understanding of the

number of injuries that occur every year. Certainly, it is distressing

to know that there are 400 people a year that would be categorized as

catastrophic injuries.

[3:35 p.m.]

I can appreciate as well, from the minister’s comments about the

no-fault benefits — the current

part 7 benefits — that the amount is

inadequate. It has been for a very long time. When that change was made

last year, I acknowledged that it was long overdue and, frankly, still

inadequate. So you won’t get an argument from me on that.

But I do have a question. If there are 400 or 500 people a year

having a catastrophic injury, a good proportion of those people,

currently, will have the option to sue through the tort system to

receive benefits relating to the injury that occurred to them through no

fault of their own.

With the stakeholder consultations that are underway and the

preparation of this massive change to the structure of the insurance

system for British Columbia, how many people with catastrophic injuries

who have proceeded through the tort system have been consulted and are

being consulted on an ongoing basis as a part of that

consultation?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for bringing her personal experience and

knowledge to the House. I remember and I acknowledge and appreciate her

comments around our modest increase to the

part 7 benefits, which I also

agree are still not adequate.

The member asks about, in terms of engagement, how we are ensuring

to hear that voice from the people who have been disabled by car

accidents, received injuries that have caused them permanent disability

and then proceeded through the tort system. I don’t have a number for

the member. But I can advise that we have very active disability

advocates involved in the planning of this system who have spoken out in

support of these changes. Their membership certainly includes people who

have been very badly injured in collisions and proceeded through the

tort system.

I can tell the member that the system that we have is one where if

you’re a passenger in a vehicle, like a child or a spouse, and your

partner or your dad or your mom is driving and they make a bad decision

when they’re driving or they hit a patch of black ice and go off the

road, or whatever, and you’re catastrophically injured, you have to sue

your own parent. You have to sue your own spouse. Public Guardian and

Trustee does that work for children in the province.

It’s an incredibly problematic system. Not only are you very badly

injured and facing challenges that come with this disabling injury but

also a litigation battle where you’re actually suing your own parent,

your own husband or your own wife. It’s another example of how this

system does not help people get better and why we believe that this

system will be a significant improvement for people.

S. Cadieux: I take from that probably none. The reason I say that is because I

know a number of the organizations and advocates that are being

consulted.

[3:40 p.m.]

They are very good people, very good organizations, ones that I’ve

worked with very closely in the past, some of them. But that does not

replace the lived experience of people who have experience with the

system.

Now, I anticipate, given the minister’s commentary regarding

individuals who have been injured by their own fault, in some cases, and

can only access

part 7 benefits, that he has a great deal of sympathy

for them — as do I, as I’ve said. Clearly, he’s listening to those

people and to the advocates that speak for them, but is he listening to

people who have gone through the system?

Using the example that he did of having to sue a parent, for

example, to receive adequate support to recover and live well is,

understandably, difficult. Understandably, it leaves people with some

questions that they have to deal with. However, it isn’t really the

individual; it’s the insurance. You’re suing ICBC. It’s ICBC’s lawyers

that you engage with through the process — through the mediation

process, if that comes to fruition, and/or through court.

I would argue that certainly, if it was me who was the at-fault

driver and my family member was injured, I would want nothing more than

for them to access whatever compensation was required. So I don’t think

that his example is a particularly good one. While I agree that going

through the process is by no means fun for anyone, the reality is that

there is a closure that comes from the tort process. There is a closure

to the traumatic event and an ability to gain independence and to take

responsibility for making positive choices for one’s own

future.

I think there is huge value in that, in a person’s personal

recovery and ability to move forward. Now we’re looking at moving to a

completely paternalistic system, whereby individuals who are injured,

regardless of who was at fault for that injury, are going to be forced

at every turn to request, from someone else, the right to receive

medical treatment, a prescription, a piece of equipment or a home

modification. I can go on for days about the aspects of life that are

changed as a result of injury and what it means to have to ask someone,

for them to approve an expense so that you can get relief from

pain.

Certainly, in the first number of years, one relies greatly on

experts, because you are relearning your world. You are relearning your

body. You are learning all sorts of things all over again. But I can

tell you, as well, that by a number of years into the process, the best

person to decide what is needed for an individual — in terms of pain

relief, rehabilitation, what works and what doesn’t work — is that

individual themselves.

Certainly, through this process, through this change, we are now

going to say to people, and government is saying to people: “We know

that other people know best what you need for the rest of your life.” I

do not find that particularly appealing, but perhaps the minister could

explain to me how that will be better for a person like me.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you again to the member for bringing her personal

perspective to this important issue. I think the member’s comments

really underline the importance of the work that’s being done on this

system to ensure it’s designed in partnership with people with lived

experience.

I can tell the member that…. She assumed from my answer that it

was zero. I think that’s not the case, but there is a good point that

she raises that she may know people that should be involved, that have

knowledge to bring to the table.

There’s an injury recovery design panel that’s working right now,

chaired by Jane Dyson. I’m advised that they’ve already had some

preliminary discussions about identifying individuals with lived

experience to come and present to them about their experiences in the

system. If the member has names to suggest of people in addition to

those folks who are already being identified, I’m certainly glad to hear

those. It’s an open invitation to members. I welcome that kind of

feedback. That’s the intent of the design process.

Where I can tell the member that I think this system is superior….

The member and I are going to have to disagree about the benefits of

suing your spouse or your mom or your dad and going through the

examination-for-discovery process. I don’t know if the member heard me

say that we’ll be working through cases from the old system for the next

five to fen years. The reason why we’ll be working through them for the

next five to ten years is that there are cases that don’t resolve for a

decade. I don’t think that’s a great system.

I can tell the member some very specific examples of why I think

this is a better system. I can’t say what’s better or not for her, but

why I think it’s a better system overall. Every system has its pluses

and its minuses.

The benefits of this system are that in the current system, you

are dependent on the insurance policy limits of the person who hits you.

First of all, they have to hit you. I think the member and I agree that

that is a problem. But whoever hits you.... You can talk to lawyers who

work in this area. Claims tend to settle for the value of the insurance

policy. If you have $1 million in coverage, if you have $200,000 in

coverage, if you have $2 million in coverage, it tends to settle for

that amount if you’re catastrophically injured. You’re dependent on how

much insurance the person who hit you bought.

A lot of people buy just basic insurance in the province, but the

average is closer to $2 million. So you’ve got your $2 million that your

claim is going to settle for. Your expenses for the rest of your life

have to fall within that $2 million, less the lawyers’ 30 percent. So

that’s $1.4 million, less the disbursements. If you’re catastrophically

injured, there might have been a lot of expert reports. Let’s just say

$1.4 million. It’s $1.4 million for the rest of your life.

It sounds like a lot of money, but keep in mind that the new

system has a minimum of $7 million in benefits for people who are

catastrophically injured, just by contrast. So it removes that

dependency on policy limits.

The second is that under the current system, the court or an

expert or an adjuster or somebody has to guess what your future care is

going to be. “We think that you’re probably going to need this kind of

care, or you’re probably not going to be able to work for this amount of

time. Even if you do work, you’ll probably be working at about this

capacity.” It tries to put a number on that.

[3:50 p.m.]

Well, maybe they’ll guess too much, which would be fine. But maybe

they’ll guess not enough. Maybe your condition will get worse over time,

in a way that people didn’t expect. So you’re assuming that risk on

yourself in the current system. In the new system, if your injury gets

worse, gets more complicated, unexpected complications, you still remain

covered.

It removes a significant amount of risk from the person who is

injured. I think this is a benefit. The member may not. But you don’t

have to go through the litigation process to access the benefits that

you’re entitled to. ICBC, instead of having a legal obligation, as they

do now, to represent the at-fault driver against you in court, will have

a legal obligation to assist you in understanding your benefits and in

assisting you in accessing those benefits.

S. Cadieux: So why not just fix…? If we know that no one carries adequate

insurance, why not fix that? If we know, from the minister’s earlier

comments, that they’ve modelled this on the Saskatchewan system and the

Manitoba system and that those systems have the…. At least the

Saskatchewan one, I believe, has the ability for people to choose which

model they prefer. Why are we not being offered choice?

You know, taking away my right to choice is a problem for me. It’s

a problem for me that we are going through this redesign process

without, I believe, adequate input from people who have lived through

the experience. I think the input is heavily weighted towards the group

that is currently underprovided for through

part 7, and I think that

that, again, is legitimate. So fix that.

But now the minister wants us to believe that he is going to

miraculously save everyone who has a catastrophic injury from the

heartbreak and the turmoil of the tort system, which, frankly, while

difficult, certainly does provide the results it needs to. We’re going

to now make people dependent on other people’s decisions on their behalf

for the rest of their lives, with the promise of “yes, but there will be

so much more money and everybody will be eligible for all the money they

ever need.”

Well, I don’t see how that is possible. I don’t see how it’s

possible to offer everybody more, to offer everybody whatever they need,

yet require them to go through multiple people to access any of that

money and still say to drivers: “You’re carrying inadequate insurance,

but it doesn’t really matter. And oh, by the way, we’re going to save

everybody more money on their car insurance.” I just really don’t see

how this is going to solve the problems that are legitimately there with

ICBC that we all hear about and we all know about.

I am really concerned about the minister thinking that a switch —

taking away choice and taking away that closure on an injury — is

somehow better. I don’t think, as the minister says, that there’s a

perfect system. Every system is going to have pluses and

minuses.

[3:55 p.m.]

I certainly would hope that the minister is taking a great deal of

time and that his 300 people that are working on this transition are

taking a great deal of time to talk to people who have lived through

this process, with all of its warts, and are having that conversation

with those people, and not just with individuals who, by virtue of their

position with an organization, profess to understand what it is like for

those individuals. Because there are going to be individuals, I believe,

like me, who think that the system we have, with its warts, is the

better way to approach this.

Needing reforms, absolutely. Needing changes, absolutely. But

there is value in the processes and the system that we have.

I am appreciative that the minister has offered up the opportunity

to present some names, through to him or to someone else, of people who

may have input to provide. But I think at this stage, the minister has

made up his mind of what’s better. He had the opportunity to get that

information and have those conversations before and chose not to do

that.

So while I still appreciate it and hope that people will be asked

for their opinion, I certainly think you’ll find there are a lot of

people who do not think that having the right to sue versus having the

obligation to seek approval for every expense for the rest of your life

is an improvement.

With that, I will cede the floor to my colleagues again to take up

the rest of their questions for the day.

Hon. D. Eby: The member wanted to pass to someone else, but I did definitely

want to respond. I understand if the member thinks that I need to do a

better job engaging with people. I will absolutely endeavour to do that.

I would welcome any suggestions of people she thinks I need to engage

with.

What I do need to put on the record is that Jane Dyson is an

unbelievable British Columbian who is committed to the rights of people

with disabilities and ensuring that their voices are heard regardless of

circumstances. She does not purport to speak on behalf of all people

with disabilities. She never would. That is totally anathema to her

work. I just wanted to clarify that.

[4:00 p.m.]

The member likes the Saskatchewan model, where you get to choose

which system she thinks to…. One of the benefits of that is you get to

choose. You’re free to choose. It’s true; in Saskatchewan you do get to

choose. Less than 1 percent of people in Saskatchewan choose the tort

system. In order to keep it the same premium as their no-fault system,

the way they do that is by limiting benefits. Otherwise, you can’t do

it. So if you have a non-catastrophic injury, the maximum amount you can

recover for rehabilitation cost is $30,000. If you have a catastrophic

injury, the maximum amount you can access is $200,000.

You know, it is theoretically a choice, but really, for people in

Saskatchewan, when they look at the benefits under what is their version

of enhanced care, which they call a no-fault system, and when they look

at the tort system, they choose the no-fault system. So 99 percent of

them do.

The second piece is that the member suggested that every expense

would have to be approved individually. The experience of people under

part 7 is not that the approval process, or working with the person who

is managing their claim, is the problem. The problem is that they run

out of money. Regardless, there’s a permanent-impairment payment that

comes in a lump sum if you’re catastrophically injured. A huge number of

the expenses are all pre-approved, because it is what it is, in terms of

the situation that you face.

The member doesn’t believe the numbers. How could it possibly be

that you could offer better benefits and lower rates? The reality is

that there are huge amounts of legal costs in the system. They are

dramatically expensive. When you remove them from the system, it does

free up the money to do this kind of thing. That’s why Manitoba’s and

Saskatchewan’s systems have been so successful and why, despite

successive changes in government, they haven’t changed back to the tort

system. It’s because it’s working for people in those

provinces.

If you look at what Manitoba just did, pre-COVID, issuing a rebate

to people of hundreds of dollars, because their system is working so

well — and they already have dramatically lower rates than B.C. — you

can see what’s going on.

Finally, the member says: “Well, if the issue is people driving

around underinsured, with basic insurance, why don’t you just require

people to buy more insurance?” Even $2 million is not enough. To get to

the level of coverage that would be required, B.C. would have the most

expensive insurance premiums not just in Canada but probably in the

world. That’s why we can’t just do that — just increase the benefits for

everybody and keep the tort system.

I do understand the member’s skepticism; I do. It is critically

important that we have the safeguards in place to ensure that this

transition is one that happens in a way that treats people who are

injured with respect, that treats people who are injured with dignity

and the knowledge that they are the ones who, with their care providers,

are directing the care. It shouldn’t be an adjuster. It should be that

person, working with their doctors and physicians and occupational

therapists and others, to get better.

That’s the design of the new system. It’s not a paternal ICBC

bureaucrat who’ll be deciding these things. It is the person working

with their care providers to get better.

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to this topic, around the details of this

no-fault insurance scheme. When we look at Bill 11, I think it’s very

important, at this juncture, to have the kinds of overall understandings

of the nature of the bill, in the ways that my colleagues from

Richmond-Queensborough and Surrey South have tried to get a better

understanding from the Attorney General. The reason for that, of course,

is that when we look at the bill itself, by my count, there are 119

items, terms, to be prescribed — terms like “catastrophic injury.” As

the Attorney General had acknowledged, that’s a pretty important

term.

[4:05 p.m.]

My colleague from Surrey South has just gone through the

importance and the damage and the concerns from those who suffer

catastrophic injuries. That’s a pretty important understanding that we

don’t have. There are 118 other items and terms to be prescribed by

regulation after this bill passes. There are 41 provisions which are

also subject to regulations. Those provisions include a

section that

we’ll come to, of course — subsection 169(5)(d) — which says that the

government may make regulations that allow ICBC to establish procedures

or decision-making bodies for the provision of benefits.

ICBC will just keep making up the rules as we go forward here,

rules that have not yet been determined. We’re being asked to pass a

bill right now where we don’t even know those procedures. We don’t know

the decision-making bodies that are going to be determining the

benefits. There is a complete lack of detail here in this

bill.

How does the Attorney General expect members of this House to have

sufficient clarity and understanding of this bill in order to vote on

it?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member has already voted against the bill. So it would

be an accomplishment if I turned him around in third reading, after

committee stage, given that the member has already made up his mind. In

any event, the entitlements to benefits are all in the act. In the

current act,

part 7 benefits are all by regulation. The reason why we

made the decision to put the entitlements to benefits in the act was

exactly that member’s concern.

People need to know the minimum level of benefit that they’re

going to get under the new system. So we’ll put it in the law. Now, it

would be preferable, in many ways, to put it in the regulations so that

you could adjust for changing circumstances, but it also opens up the

possibility that it’d be easier to change it downward without having to

put it in front of the Legislature. Now with it in the act, if a future

government ever wanted to reduce benefits, at least there would be a

debate in the House about it. This is actually an improvement over the

existing system — to the member’s point.

Another point — this is an important legal principle — is that a

regulation that’s drafted can’t override the statute. The whole thing

here — the whole bill, the significant bill that’s in front of this

House — cannot be undone by regulations. It just can’t

happen.

[4:10 p.m.]

The last pieces. It’s not a secret what our intentions are with

the regulations. They’re very technical in nature, and they’re very

important. So we have released an intentions paper outlining what our

plan is with the regulations, to be transparent about what our

intentions are. That is forming the basis of our consultations with the

people who know best about this stuff — the doctors, the occupational

therapists, the disability advocates and others.

That work, that consultation and co-development of the regulation

process, is underway right now. It’s not a secret. The intentions paper

is there for the member, and I’ll be providing the member with a list of

the groups we’re engaging with so he knows where the feedback is coming

from.

It’s not a conspiracy, Member. It’s the sound development of

effective regulations that work for community. Then, if they’re not

working as intended, it’s relatively easy to fix those regulations to

make sure that they’re addressed right away. I hope that

assists.

M. Lee: There’s a lot in what the Attorney General responded with. But

certainly, just to start off with, if he heard my speech on second

reading, he understands the reasons for which I voted against this bill.

One principal feature was the fact that there’s a complete lack of

details in this bill. How can we possibly vote in favour of a bill that

we don’t even understand and appreciate the details that will impact

British Columbians? When we’re talking about a fundamental change to a

system that’s been in place for decades, we need to understand those

details.

I know the Attorney General won’t completely appreciate that,

because we saw, when this government tried to make another fundamental

change to our electoral voting system, that British Columbians were

being asked to vote on a significant fundamental change without the

details. British Columbians said no. It’s one of the reasons why they

said no. Over 60 percent said no.

Well, British Columbians don’t have the opportunity to vote on

this fundamental change to how their compensation might be dealt with in

this province in a motor vehicle injury accident. We do. But as

Legislative Assembly here, we lack the details — the details that the

Attorney General says are spelled out in the intentions

paper.

I’ve looked at that intentions paper. The figure that the Attorney

General is referring to, I believe, is set out in

section 128 of this

new act. But the provisions I’m talking about are undefined. Where are

the 119 items and the 41 provisions to be subject to regulations? Where

are they spelled out in this intentions paper?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t have a list of whatever the member’s talking about. But we

are, fortunately, at some point, going to turn our attention to the bill

and go through it. For each instance that the member has identified

about an area where he would like additional detail, it’s available to

him.

As a side note on the pro rep question, I note that one of the

core critiques of the opposition was that there was too much detail and

it was too hard to understand. But now, apparently, it was that there

was insufficient detail. Neither here nor there.

But the member says he doesn’t understand the bill. I think that’s

unfortunate. We offered him multiple briefings — people available to

answer any questions that he had about it. I’m glad to, as we go through

the bill, do my best to explain and to connect pieces to the intentions

paper, which the member apparently hasn’t read. I’ll do whatever I can

to assist him in understanding the bill.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: Once again, there’s lots in that response. I have the intentions

paper in my hand. I certainly have read it. I am not seeing the amount

of detail that’s left out of this bill — as I mentioned, the 119 items

and the 41 provisions. I said the very same thing about the referendum.

All of those details were to be left to be determined after the vote.

It’s very clear.

But having said that, the Attorney General has referred to the

consultation process with stakeholders. I appreciate that he has offered

to my colleagues here to provide us with a list of those organizations.

We recently, yesterday, had a discussion again about process and

stakeholder consultation, and that was in the course, of course, around

the minor injury definition. That is a situation where it was very clear

what the government’s intention was.

In fact, the government spelled it out. The government said, on

February 6, 2018: “ICBC will develop a clear, legal definition of what

constitutes a minor injury in British Columbia. The new legal definition

will include things like sprains, strains, mild whiplash, cuts and

bruises, anxiety and stress from a crash. It does not include…brain

injuries, concussions, or other more serious impairments.” That is a

direct quote coming out of a government website news release.

When there was further legislation, when proposed legislation had

been undergone in first reading on Bill 20 and Bill 22, the Attorney

General made a subsequent announcement. “The most serious of

whiplash-associated disorders will not be included in the definition,

nor will third-degree sprains, strains, broken bones or brain

injuries.”

Here we have, in that situation, the government spelling out in

great detail what will not be included. We went through the bill process

like we are doing now with this bill. In that case, we had specific,

clear pronouncements from the government. In this case, we don’t. Where

is it defined as to what catastrophic injuries are going to be defined

as? We don’t have that definition. But it doesn’t matter, because, as we

saw with minor injury, they did exactly, by regulation, what they said

they would not do, and in the face of all of the stakeholders, the

disability groups and others that they talked about with this proposed

change of minor injury.

When the Attorney General assured these stakeholder groups that

there would be no such change, which is consistent with the public

announcements, this government passed by regulation to extend and expand

that definition to include brain injury and concussion.

I raise that as an example as to the concern around the lack of

details around this full no-fault scheme. How much is to be determined

by regulation after the fact? So I’d like to ask the Attorney General….

In response to a question raised by my colleague the member for Surrey

South, he indicated that the ongoing discussions with stakeholders are

also in development of regulations. Can the minister advise this House

what the status of those regulations is?

Hon. D. Eby: The work is ongoing. I will note that the member tried to make a

similar point yesterday about brain injury, when I pointed out to him

that the minor injury definition, what is counted as a minor injury, is

a concussion where the disabling effects last less than 16 weeks. I

understand it’s the member’s position that that is a significant

departure from our commitment that brain injuries wouldn’t be in the

minor injury definition. A concussion that lasts less than 16 weeks was

a real surprise to him.

[4:20 p.m.]

I understand his position, obviously, that flows from that — that

someone who has a concussion that lasts less than 16 weeks should go to

B.C. Supreme Court and have access to unlimited pain and suffering

awards. I don’t take anything away from the seriousness of a concussion.

People that have concussions should treat that very seriously. It can

have lasting effects, which is why it’s only 16 weeks. But I do not

think that someone who has a concussion that lasts less than 16 weeks

should go to B.C. Supreme Court and have access to unlimited pain and

suffering awards.

One of the reasons why that changed was…. The white paper we

issued was for the purposes of consultation. We went out, and we

consulted on it. We were asked: “Is it actually your intention that

someone who has a concussion that lasts for a limited amount of time

should be going to B.C. Supreme Court and accessing unlimited pain and

suffering awards? It seems weird that you would have that but you

wouldn’t have that for some of these other categories of minor injury.

It doesn’t line up.” That’s a good point.

The intentions paper is the basis of engagement and consultation.

It is not the regulation. The intentions paper is available to the

member. I’m glad he has read it. This is good news. That is our

intention. It is the subject of the work that is ongoing right now in

developing the regulations.

M. Lee: Thank you to the Attorney General for confirming, at least, that

the intentions paper does not set out all of the missing items from this

bill. I think the member did that.

When we look at what’s in the intentions paper and when the

Attorney General cites what happened with minor injury, it clearly is a

case where, regardless of what the government says, you can’t rely on

it. It changes. Further discussion, further review.

Well, how is it that there is a consultation process going on

right now to design these regulations, which we have not seen and will

not be privy to in this House, yet…? The intentions paper that this

government is using certainly doesn’t mean anything, because it can

change. There could be another white paper. There could be another

consideration.

Whatever is being put in front of the stakeholder groups that this

government is currently consulting with will change. It has been

demonstrated. This is the track record of this Attorney General and this

government. You can’t trust t