First Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 24
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Vancouver Community College: Executive Compensation Disclosures Audit, March 2021 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Tributes
PAUL DEVLIN
T. Shypitka: It gives me great sadness to announce today the passing of one of B.C. curling’s great stars. Paul Devlin, from Fruitvale, was a curling mainstay in B.C.’s interior and across western Canada for decades.
Paul was a fierce competitor, hailing from Manitoba. He traversed the curling world, skipping in two Briers — one for Alberta and one in B.C. — and losing numerous finals. As mentioned, he was a fierce competitor to anyone he played against. He was also a great mentor for anyone he played with.
My personal curling experience with Paul was that his team of Deane Horning, Don Freschi and Grant Fines were my very first memories of the Kootenay rivalry between the East and West Kootenays. Even in opposition, Paul taught me a lot — mostly how to lose.
With his Manitoba tuck delivery and his old straw broom, Paul will be remembered for his tenacity and extreme confidence. His confidence was so strong that in the rare event that you would win a game, Paul would quickly correct you in the lounge after the match on how you actually lost. He simply was never defeated.
Paul’s passing during this week’s Brier event is complementary to the life he was dedicated to and inspired others to follow.
On behalf of myself and the riding of Kootenay East, I extend my sincere condolences to Marnie, Paul’s family and many friends. The curling world has truly lost a legend.
Rest in peace, my friend.
Introductions by Members
M. Dykeman: I would just like to take a moment to introduce Dr. Madeleine De Little from my riding. She is the recipient of the 2021 Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association’s Counsellor Practitioner Award. Would the House please join me in congratulating her.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
BY JACK CHOW IN
CHINATOWN
T. Wat: I hope that most, if not all, members of this House have visited Vancouver’s historic Chinatown at one point or another in your careers. Those of us that have will undoubtedly remember the colourful neon sign by the Millennium Gate on Pender Street, a sign that is as synonymous with our Chinatown community as any landmark in Chinatown: Jack Chow Insurance.
Born in Cumberland, B.C., Jack Chow established his iconic place of business more than 50 years ago, a business that stood as an example of his sharp business mind, his ability to think outside the box and, above all, his kindness, generosity and community spirit.
In 1962, Jack saw an opportunity to transform a slender strip of commercial property into a welcoming business for Vancouver’s Chinese community. At less than five feet wide on the inside, Jack’s unique foresight and creative way to utilize space earned his new insurance brokerage a spot in the Guinness Book of World Records as the thinnest and shallowest commercial building in the world and earned it the nickname the Slender on Pender.
Jack’s brokerage brought worldwide attention to Vancouver’s vibrant Chinatown and, most importantly, helped Jack carry out his goal of helping countless members of our Chinese community and helping to preserve this landmark neighbourhood for generations to come.
My deepest sympathy goes out to his wife, children, family and friends, who I hope find comfort in the life that Jack led as a community leader and a man who positively impacted on many people’s lives.
While I hope Jack’s business and his iconic sign will continue to shine in Chinatown for decades to come, Vancouver has truly lost an icon.
ROLE OF ARTS AND CULTURE
DURING
COVID-19
D. Routley: In these really difficult times we face, I’m reminded of my first experiences with the history of the 1918 pandemic in the historical photos in our museums — impressions by local artists of what that experience was like. I think it’s so important that we remember, at this very difficult time, that we will count on our artists to tell our story of these times, and we will count on our museums and our historians to record our history.
Our government has not forgotten the importance of supporting these organizations and people. Grants that have gone to groups in my riding and in the region from the Arts Council include the Gabriola Arts Council, a $40,000 grant; the B.C. Forest Discovery Centre, $82,000; the Arts Council of Ladysmith and District, $18,000; the Cowichan Valley Arts Council, $17,000; the Gabriola Historical and Museum Society, $7,000. It goes on.
I wish I could read it all. I wish I had the five minutes it would take. There are dozens and dozens of recipients. I think it’s so important. I want to thank them for everything that they’re doing to help us through this experience and how important they will be to the healing of our communities after we recover.
I’m reminded now of the resiliency of our arts community. The Ladysmith Arts Council recently did an online awards show, in which I participated. I was honoured to witness their online art gallery that they’ve created.
It is resilience and innovation and imagination that are represented by our arts and culture community. All of us…. I know we will never forget the importance of these people to our lives.
FRASER VALLEY
HERITAGE RAILWAY
SOCIETY
S. Cadieux: The preservation of our heritage is imperative. It provides us with insight into our past, as to how our society has evolved. Our heritage allows us to understand our history and traditions. It helps us to develop awareness about ourselves — helping us better understand why we are the way we are.
Our heritage is also an integral part of culture, which plays an essential role in our view of society, business, politics and the world. Our heritage directly and indirectly informs, influences and inspires public debate and policy.
The formation of the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society began with Mr. Jim Wallace’s vision of reactivating the old B.C. Electric Railway line in the Fraser Valley for passenger service. To execute his vision, Mr. Wallace used his personal savings to fund a feasibility study in the late 1990s. Then in 2001, the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society was established.
Since then, the organization has worked both to restore and operate heritage Interurban cars on the original B.C. Electric Railway route, through Surrey, with a view to bringing a mechanism to connect our heritage tourism destinations. The Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society hosts several events throughout the year, be it the Halloween-themed experience in October or the Electric Express, which is a journey through time to experience Christmas over 100 years ago. While the pandemic has restricted these activities, the spirit of the organization can’t be sidelined.
This year the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society celebrates its 20th anniversary. Over the years, the organization’s volunteers have worked hard to beautifully restore the Interurbans to operational condition. They are preserving the community’s important transportation heritage so it can be transformed to a legacy for the community to enjoy.
When you have the chance, ride the rails with them. It’s a great experience.
ISHTAR WOMEN’S RESOURCE SOCIETY
M. Dykeman: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour today to rise in this House to share with you an organization which does so much for those who often have no place to turn. An organization that helps countless women in our community who are faced with what feel like hopeless circumstances, who feel as if they have to choose between their life and personal safety or a roof over their head and being able to provide security and shelter for their children — something that, unfortunately, far too many women have faced.
Under the leadership of executive director Pany Aghili, Ishtar Women’s Resource Society is committed to preventing, breaking and ending the cycle of abuse. The mission of the Ishtar Women’s Resource Society is to honour, embrace and celebrate the power, resilience, courage and knowledge of all women. To fulfil its mission, Ishtar offers a wide range of programs for women and their children who are or have experienced domestic violence, including counselling, outreach services, community-based victim services and affordable, secure transition housing.
Children and youth experiencing violence of a parent or caregiver live in fear and anxiety for the next violent episode to occur. As a result of being exposed to family violence and/or conflict, some children will show overt signs such as aggression or depression. Ishtar’s program for children and youth experiencing violence is open to children and youth ages three to 18 years old and their non-offending parent or caregiver.
Shockingly, every six days a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. My community values highly the important work of the Ishtar Women’s Resource Society in preventing the tragedy of violence.
Ishtar works collaboratively for systemic change towards a world where all women and girls are safe — emotionally, mentally, financially, physically, sexually, spiritually and culturally — and where equality means inclusion, opportunity and accessibility for all.
DRIVE TO ALASKA BY GARY BATH
AND FAMILY OF LYNN
MARCHESSAULT
D. Davies: I’m going to tell a great feel-good story about good people and humanity. This past November Lynn Marchessault and her two children were driving from Georgia to Alaska to reunite with their husband and father when they experienced a Christmas miracle of sorts.
The family had been away from staff sergeant Tim Marchessault through most of the pandemic. He is stationed in the United States Army at Fort Wainwright near Fairbanks. The Marchessaults had been on the road for six days when they were caught in a snowstorm at Pink Mountain, just north of Fort St. John. In a recent interview with the Alaska Highway News, Lynn said the roads were awful. She’d never seen anything like it, with lots of big trucks on the highway. In fact, she didn’t know how they did it.
Unfortunately, road conditions were worsening. So they decided to stop at Pink Mountain. While her kids were using the restroom, Lynn became quite emotional at the gas station, when Teena Seu noticed her in distress. Eventually, Lynn asked Teena if there was anyone she knew, possibly with military experience, that might be able to help take the family the rest of the way.
Teena reached out to Canadian Forces member Tanya Hunt, whose Facebook page caught the eye of Joe Elliott in Prince George. Joe shared the post, and through a series of coincidences and mutual connections, it got to Fort St. John’s Gary Bath, who is also a Canadian Ranger. He came to the rescue and drove the family to the Alaska border, 1,800 kilometres away. Gary said that he saw lots of people saying that they wished they were able to help if they could. He talked to his wife, Selena, and they decided that he would help them get the rest of the way.
After hitting the road, they arrived at the Alaska border three days later. As you can imagine, there are lots of incredible little pieces of this trip that I don’t have time to cover here.
Since then, Gary has become quite the star from his story being covered on many Canadian news outlets, CNN, New York Times, BBC, many commendations from different commanders throughout the United States military and, most recently, a free car from Planters Peanuts.
Congratulations to Gary. Thank you for your service to humanity.
CHARAN GILL AND PROGRESSIVE
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNITY
SERVICES SOCIETY
J. Brar: Charan Pal Gill is no more. The labour and antiracism activist Charan Gill, sadly, passed away on February 2, 2021. He was 84 years old. He took his last breath at Langley Memorial Hospital, surrounded by his family members.
Charan moved to Canada in 1967 and went on to earn a BSW and MSW from UBC. He worked in a sawmill in Williams Lake in the early days and later served as a social worker in Prince Rupert and other parts of the province. He moved to Surrey in 1973, where he lived the rest of his life with his family.
In 1980, he co-founded the Canadian Farmworkers Union and organized labour on farms, working with others — including with you, hon. Speaker — which led to significant improvements in the wages and working conditions of British Columbia’s farm workers.
In 1987, he started the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, known as PICS, to serve the multicultural community in B.C. PICS became a premier community organization under his leadership as the CEO from 1987 to 2017. The organization provides programs to newcomers, operates two senior housing complexes, adult day centre and Harmony House for women who are victims of domestic abuse. Charan also secured 2.5 acres of land in Cloverdale to build a modern long-term care home for seniors, the Diversity Village.
Charan spent over three decades fighting against racism and for the rights of others, be they farmworkers facing unfair labour practices, skilled immigrants facing employment barriers, seniors looking for affordable housing and women who are victims of domestic abuse. He made anonymous contributions to make British Columbia a better place for everyone. For all of his efforts, Charan received the Order of B.C. and the B.C. Human Rights Award, among many other honours.
He leaves behind a powerful legacy that will inspire our new generation to carry on the struggle to build a better and more inclusive society. He was a good friend and a good mentor to me during my early days in Canada when I worked at PICS under his leadership.
I, along with countless others, will miss him dearly.
Oral Questions
COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM
AND TELUS
CONTRACT
S. Bond: Yesterday British Columbians demonstrated how concerned they were about getting their vaccinations. Whether it was for themselves or they were calling for a frail, elderly loved one, they were concerned.
It quickly became clear that the province was not prepared to handle the demand, as thousands of British Columbians spent hours waiting on the phone. Many simply gave up. In fact, we saw the second-largest health authority in our province, which serves a quarter of our population, manage to register only 369 people.
It is not like this could not have been predicted. This is the most important public health effort in our lifetime. It’s clear that the government was not prepared for it, despite having a year to get ready. Instead, it descended into chaos.
Can the Premier explain why his government was so unprepared for a vaccination rollout, when they had over a year to prepare for it?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question.
I want to thank everyone in B.C. for their commitment to our immunization program, which was demonstrated, as the Leader of the Opposition says, by the response yesterday. Yesterday we opened up bookings for those over 90 in B.C. and Indigenous people over 65. We have already provided, or will have by the end of the week, about 30,000 immunizations in these categories of people. So that’s roughly 50,000 people. Yesterday 15,000 people got their appointments.
However, there were serious problems everywhere in B.C. and, as the member says, particularly in Vancouver Coastal Health. In four of the five health authorities, those problems were responded to by call centres that were in place for backup by those health authorities.
Vancouver Coastal Health was fully dependent on our call centre provider to provide services based on the contract they had signed with us and the promises they’d repeatedly made about being prepared. That contractor, the provider, Telus, failed us yesterday. For that failure, a lot of people wasted time and, I think, lost some confidence in the system — confidence that we’ll have to work hard to rebuild at every level in terms of both technical issues, which affected all health authorities, and staffing issues.
The contractor, the provider, Telus, did not meet its contractual obligations and let down people over 90 and let down Indigenous people over 65. It is unacceptable. We are taking steps, of course, to beef up our ability to work and to support independently of Telus, and Telus has made commitments that these questions will be resolved — the technical questions and the staffing questions — a.s.a.p. But we are not simply counting on that. If they are not resolved, other actions will have to be taken.
S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answer, but let’s be clear. The Premier, the minister and anyone on the other side can blame everyone they want. They can blame the provider; they can blame the health authorities. But ultimately, this government had oversight over the preparation of a vaccination rollout program for more than a year. Yesterday, even in the minister’s own words, it failed.
The Premier and the minister need to look in the mirror, because this was not unexpected. In fact, this is the beginning of the process. These are a small number of registrants. The minister is right. British Columbians have lost confidence in this process.
Let’s talk about Gail Helmcken and her 93-year-old parents, who spent much of yesterday trying to register, starting at 7 a.m., just like they were told to do. They eventually gave up. Gail says: “Sometimes the message is, ‘Thank you for calling; please call back.’ Sometimes you get a busy signal. Sometimes there’s no connection at all. It is frustrating. I am very envious of Fraser Health, which has an online booking system. I was disappointed that Coastal Health hasn’t implemented that.”
What does the Premier or the minister have to say to the Helmckens today? It should certainly start with an apology and a recognition that this government has had over a year to put this process in place.
What steps have been taken overnight to ensure that people like the Helmckens can register successfully today?
Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate the frustration that people feel, including the Helmckens. It was, obviously, a frustrating situation for everyone, including the health authorities, including our staff, who have worked, I think everyone would agree, in an extraordinarily dedicated way to address the COVID-19 pandemic. This is particularly true, I think, of the staff of Vancouver Coastal Health, who have been courageous and dedicated, have had some extraordinary successes in this pandemic, in very difficult times, and have provided support and comfort for people.
You bet I’m disappointed. You bet I understand the disappointment of the Helmckens, and lots of people around B.C., that our system did not work adequately yesterday. Some 15,000 people got appointments. It was okay, and not great, in several health authorities. It was a total disappointment in Vancouver Coastal Health.
Overnight we were training people to supplement the provider, because that’s necessary. Overnight we were reaching out to doctors in Vancouver Coastal Health to ensure, and to work to make sure, that people over 90 get registered this week.
Of course, we have expectations that the provider will fulfil their contractual obligations. They’re in the call centre business. They have a responsibility to deliver on contracts they’ve signed, to deliver adequate staff to make appointments. They did not do that yesterday. Should that situation continue, we will be taking action.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the minister.
This isn’t a criticism of the staff. The fact of the matter is that we have been in a pandemic for more than a year, and the hope that this government held out for British Columbians was that the vaccine was coming. The minister can continue to talk about being disappointed, and now we’re going to take some action. The time for that action was long before yesterday.
We’ve seen these same kinds of challenges, the same kind of botched technology response, with the COVID relief payments. It’s déjà vu all over again. People want and need to have confidence in the system. Yesterday this government failed British Columbians miserably.
To the Premier, can he explain why, despite the fact that other jurisdictions in this country have put in place an online booking system, there is not a provincewide online booking system that was ready to go on day one, and will he commit today to expediting the process to ensure that there are adequate resources in place to put an online booking system in place that will work for British Columbians?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. I agree with her that an online booking system will help. As noted in our immunization plan, one will be in place provincewide for April 12, when we go wider with this effort. That online booking system will be helpful.
There will still be the requirement for call centres, for those people who either do not wish to book online or have difficulty booking online. We will continue to need call centre capacity.
In this case, we were repeatedly, repeatedly promised by Telus — in any event, it’s in their contractual obligations — that they would deliver the services necessary yesterday, through this week and through the coming weeks. They did not meet their contractual obligations.
We are taking steps, of course, to beef up resources so that we can get through the appointment bookings this week — 15,000, out of the roughly 50,000 people we need to book, on the first day. We have four more days to do it. Again, I acknowledge and apologize to people who were so frustrated yesterday. I can tell them, having spoken to a number of them, that I share their frustration, and we’re going to be taking steps to improve the situation in the coming days.
T. Stone: Well, the minister has gone to great lengths today and in days leading up to the fiasco that happened yesterday to blame everyone around the situation here as opposed to simply looking in the mirror and acknowledging that the ultimate responsibility to ensure there is an appointment booking system that works for British Columbians….
That’s the responsibility of his government. That’s the responsibility of the Minister of Health. It’s the responsibility of the Premier. On that responsibility, they failed miserably yesterday.
The minister has also gone out of his way to specifically highlight failings on the part of the service provider, Telus.
I would like to ask the Premier today, in light of those comments, if he would be willing to table the Telus contract in the House and tell us specifically what services the government required Telus to provide. Were online services a part of that contract, and how much was Telus contracted to provide these services to British Columbians yesterday?
Hon. A. Dix: The contract in question was for call centre services with Telus. That is their business. It’s not the primary business of Vancouver Coastal Health, for example. They were contracted to provide specific numbers of agents and to ensure that the system worked well. We did have an overwhelming response from people, not unexpectedly but an overwhelming response.
In many health authorities, they were able to adapt, in spite of the challenges of our providers, in booking a significant number of appointments — 15,000 provincewide out of the group of 50,000 who are eligible for appointments. That was not the case, of course, in Vancouver Coastal Health.
The contract that the member refers to is for call centre services. Simply put, the responsibility for that, the problem there…. It was the responsibility of the provider. They signed a contract. They made commitments. They made promises, and they did not deliver yesterday. They have committed to me and to the people of B.C. that they will do better, but we are not waiting for that.
We’re going to be adding staffing to ensure that seniors over 90 and that Indigenous seniors over 65 get the services they deserve this week, get the appointments booked, so that we can get those immunizations done next week. We have a few more days.
I appreciate that the patience of people in B.C. was tried yesterday — people seeking appointments. I share their frustration, and we will be taking steps to improve the situation.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental question.
T. Stone: Well, the government’s lack of preparedness, frankly, betrays a level of incompetence which is shocking.
To suggest that it’s acceptable, in today’s day and age in British Columbia, that Fraser Health was able to arrange for over 8,700 bookings yesterday but Vancouver Coastal was only able to arrange for 369 bookings is beyond the total disappointment that the minister has cited in his previous answers today. It’s completely and totally unacceptable.
Now, it drives the question: what accounts for such a wide disparity in different parts of the province? The answer is that Fraser Health was the one health authority that provided for both phone bookings and online bookings. Apparently, that was left up to health authorities to determine. There was no provincewide standard.
It’s the minister’s responsibility. It’s the government’s and the Premier’s responsibility to make sure that all British Columbians have access to this booking system, that they have access both from a phone and an online perspective and that it should not matter where in the province you actually live.
The question to the Premier again: will he commit to tabling this Telus contract in the House today? Can he explain why his government, to this point, has allowed for a process of different service levels to be provided in different parts of the province instead of ensuring all British Columbians are treated equally, all British Columbians have access to both online and phone appointments so that they can arrange for their important vaccinations?
Hon. A. Dix: All British Columbians will have access to an online platform starting April 12, as we said last week.
As the member will be aware — this is not new in B.C.; it certainly was the case when I became Minister of Health — many of the health authorities have different platforms, online platforms, and health records systems in our province. That’s the reality of the situation. Improvements have been made. But this question today was not a question of that. It was a question of a call centre process.
I think it’s fair to say that using a leading call centre provider to assist in this effort is a good decision and that they did not follow through on their contractual obligation yesterday. If the member thinks that I think that’s acceptable, he’s incorrect. I think it is completely unacceptable.
In four of the five health authorities, including Fraser but also Interior Health, where the member lives, for example, they were able, because we had a backup health authority call centre, to support our provider. We were able to complete six times as many appointments in Vancouver Coastal Health.
In Interior Health and in Northern Health and in Vancouver Island Health and in Fraser Health, there were also problems. Some of the technical problems existed partly because of the overwhelming response and partly because there were technical issues which are, again, the responsibility of the provider. There were significant problems, but they met their goals and will, I think, if they continue at that level, do that this week for their populations over 90 and over 65.
Vancouver Coastal Health requires change, and change is happening. It’s our expectation that Telus will, one, take responsibility and, two, take the steps necessary to fulfil their contract, not just with the government and the province but with the people of B.C. at this important time in the pandemic and in our history.
OVERDOSE DEATHS AND
DECRIMINALIZATION OF SIMPLE
POSSESSION OF DRUGS
S. Furstenau: We lost 1,716 people to drug toxicity in 2020. We’ve already lost 165 people in the first month of 2021. People are dying every single day.
We are in the middle of two health crises, and we need to start acting like it. We must prioritize the development of systemic policy responses that are immediate, evidence-based and accessible. This is not about drugs. People are dying from drug policy.
Decriminalizing possession of small amounts of illicit drugs is a fundamental part of supporting those who use drugs in B.C., and to our most vulnerable, to death from the toxic supply. Dr. Henry called the decriminalization of drugs a necessary step in addressing this crisis. The city of Vancouver has submitted a request to the federal government to embrace decriminalization municipally. We can take direct action here in British Columbia, and we need to do it now to save lives.
My question is to the Premier. Can he outline exactly what powers his government has available in order to move forward with decriminalization of simple possession of drugs in B.C.?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. Decriminalization is a priority for our government.
In addition to the work that we are doing to build a full system of care to address people’s addiction challenges, whether that’s building more beds, whether that’s standing up more supervised consumption sites, whether working on safe supply, decriminalization is part of that, particularly because if we treat addiction and simple possession of small amounts of illicit drugs as a criminal matter instead of a health care matter, it presents a barrier to treatment, particularly the kind of stigma that makes people use drugs alone. And when they use alone, tragically, they die alone.
Last year the Solicitor General asked the police force to address possession — small amounts of personal possession of illicit drugs — as a health care matter, not as a criminal priority. Last summer the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister asking the Prime Minister, because this is a federal matter, to adopt a nationwide approach to decriminalization.
The Premier put it in my mandate letter, asking me to fast-track decriminalization as a way to combat the overdose crisis and further separate people from the toxic drug supply. I’m in active conversations with the federal Health Minister now. As one of many approaches our government is bringing to combat the overdose crisis, we are optimistic that that can remove a barrier to people accessing the treatment they need.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that response.
Decriminalization is regularly painted as a federal issue, something this government likes to deflect their responsibility from. The federal government is an important leader in moving towards decriminalization of simple possession, but they are not the only ones responsible. It is a move that we can make as a province instead of always going back to the federal government.
Dr. Henry outlined in 2019 how the province can decriminalize people who use drugs, not drugs themselves, on our own. Options have been on the table for years, and government has decided not to pursue them with the urgency that this health emergency requires. Since then, we have seen hundreds of lives lost at an increasing rate. We can take measures to decriminalize drug users in this province on our own, and we have not done so.
My question again is to the Premier. There are options here in-house to stop criminalizing drug users. Why has he not used these powers to save lives since 2019?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: This is a national overdose crisis. People are dying across the entire country, tragically, particularly with the confluence of the pandemic — both the COVID public health emergency and the overdose health emergency. We have seen a tragic loss of life due to increases in drug toxicity.
We have taken action in advance. The Solicitor General has sent letters to police departments asking them to not pursue matters of personal possession as a matter of criminal priority, asking police instead to focus on true crime. We have pilot projects with three police forces where people are being connected with health care instead of with the criminal justice system.
The Premier wrote to the Prime Minister and did not receive a reply last summer. Nevertheless, conversations with the federal Health Minister…. Because this is a federal matter, this is where the responsibility sits. We are asking the federal government to take up its priority and responsibility.
As my mandate letter spells out, if we do not have prompt action from the federal government, then I am, along with some of my colleagues in government, to pursue a made-in-B.C. solution. That will be our fallback if the federal government fails to take its place and its power to lead.
COVID-19 VACCINE BOOKING SYSTEM
AND TELUS
CONTRACT
M. Lee: We hear today from the Premier and the Minister of Health, in response to my colleagues, in terms of the challenges with the vaccination rollout…. British Columbians deserve better.
This is such a critical time for the entire province. Many elderly and family members are all stressed, trying to get through to the call centres. In Vancouver Coastal Health, I know that many of my constituents have had that challenge. Yet all we hear today from this government is: blame the service provider; blame the staff.
We need leadership from this government. This is the most critical time for this province that we can give to British Columbians. We know it’s been a long period of time — for a year. We know we’ve all made sacrifices, including in this House. We need better answers.
If we look at the Telus contract…. We understand that the government, of course, has procurement processes. You would expect that through the Minister of Citizens’ Services, there would be a detailed scoping-out of the expectations that the government would have for these call centres. We are asking for transparency. We’re asking for accountability. We’re asking for this government to step up and show the leadership that this province needs at this critical time. Not to blame others. Not to continue to bungle what is the most critical vaccination rollout for all British Columbians.
The reason why we’re asking for the contract, of course…. If they’re deflecting to the contract service provider, Telus, it raises questions. Has the Premier talked to and communicated his concerns to the leadership team at Telus? What expectations did the government have about these call centres? What penalties…? What measures can be taken by this government if the service provider is not meeting those requirements?
To the Premier again: will you do a service to the government and to our province by sharing that contract so that we can see what the penalties and ramifications are when the service provider does not perform?
Hon. A. Dix: The reason I’m holding the service provider accountable is because they represent the people of Vancouver-Kingsway and the people of B.C. In this case, they need to be held accountable. They need to deliver on what they promised to deliver and yesterday did not deliver in any acceptable way.
We did book 15,000 appointments yesterday, often because of the very dedicated work of people working in health authorities themselves, and their efforts. I, of course, very much appreciate 15,000. A group of 15,000 means that we can succeed in booking the appointments for this week that we need to book. That said, we have a contract for Telus to provide call centre services, and those call centre services were inadequate yesterday, in spite of repeated promises to us and a contract that said they would be in place.
We’re taking the two steps we need to take: hold the service provider accountable and demand that staffing levels be increased, commensurate with the challenge, one, and commensurate with their contractual commitments. Two, we are actively adding our own resources so that people will not continue to have to face delays, especially in Vancouver Coastal Health, where the situation was unacceptable yesterday.
I do ask people for patience. This week it’s going to be people over 90 and Indigenous people over 65 who are able to book appointments. We believe that through the week, we’re going to be able to succeed in that. That doesn’t mean that we think yesterday was in any way acceptable. It was not, and we are taking the steps now to ensure that the situation is improved today and in the coming days.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.
M. Lee: The reason why we are taking the time here to ask these questions at this juncture is because we’re hearing from the government, as well, that the online service will be up by April 12. Presumably, there’s another contract for that service, with service expectations. We need to know what those expectations and requirements are. Otherwise, the government can just continue to deflect, to say: “Well, the service provider didn’t perform.”
We need, clearly, transparency. We need to see the contract, as well, for the online service provider. We need to have confidence that this government can actually meet the requirements to get the vaccination rollout done in terms of the scheduling and the actual procedures themselves.
Again, I would ask the Premier to answer this question. The contract with Telus presumably has set out the requirements for those call centres. The government is saying that Telus effectively has not met those requirements.
Is the government, then, taking the position that Telus has breached its contract with the government?
Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday 8,722 people booked appointments in the Fraser Health Authority, 2,456 in the Interior Health Authority, 2,345 in the Vancouver Island Health Authority, 1,007 in the Northern Health Authority — all of which had issues, in part related to the extraordinary response we saw. In Vancouver Coastal Health, which was solely dependent on our service provider, who is Telus, they booked 369. So I think it is fair to hold Telus accountable.
What I want to do today is to hold them accountable and ensure that the situation improves right now for people over 90, right now for Indigenous people over 65. That’s what we’re doing by supporting our service provider in training and ensuring that staff are in place to support those efforts so that we get those appointments booked this week and that people can do that with less frustration than they’ve seen so far. That’s one.
And two, hold the service provider accountable. We need them to deliver what they said they would deliver to us and to the people of B.C. The members have said it themselves. And 369 doesn’t cut it when other health authorities did more, only because, really, they had backup call centres in those health authorities.
Those are the steps we’re taking now — action to make sure things get better, accountability for our service provider. I think those are the two steps that we all need to take.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled Vancouver Community College: Executive Compensation Disclosures Audit from the Office of the Auditor General.
Petitions
S. Chant: I rise before the House today to bring forth a petition from a member of my constituency.
A year ago Yasmin Abidi of North Vancouver–Seymour found Lucky, an owl that was on the ground and dying. It was determined that the toxin ingested was a rodenticide, carried by a rat or mouse that had been attracted and eaten at a bait box that had been put out commercially. These insecticide bait boxes are used commercially for vermin control.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
S. Chant: This whole process interferes with the food chain of the…. Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Speaker, I apologize.
Mr. Speaker: You don’t have to explain the entire petition. Just succinctly tell us what it is about, and then we will just present it.
S. Chant: My apologies, Mr. Speaker — learning. Thank you.
Okay, so the petition is asking for a ban on rodenticide because of its impact on the food chain. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
Deputy Speaker: If I could ask members who are having conversations to take it outside so we can get on with the business of today, I would appreciate it. I would rather not use the gavel. Thank you.
I would like to acknowledge the Minister Responsible for Housing — but for today, the Attorney General — for very exciting legislation.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know members have been looking forward to this bill. I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Bill 12 makes minor corrections and housekeeping amendments to various statutes. They’re all intended to be straightforward, non-controversial corrections and are all minor in nature. The contents of the bill, I think, when read, members will see, reflect that.
The office of legislative counsel gathers minor corrections as part of the routine revision process. The result of that work is what we have in this bill. I think it’s important to note — and a good opportunity to note, in relation to this bill — the role of the office of legislative counsel. They take great pride in the work that they do on behalf of all of us in this House.
The changes in this bill are presented before the Legislature so that we, as members, can approve all changes to statutes, no matter how small or minor those changes may appear. In other words, this is a reminder to everybody, as well, about the critically important principle that editors can’t just go in and change the law. They have to have the approval of our Legislature before any changes may be made, no matter how minor the change.
I want to thank the office of legislative counsel and all staff members there for their work in preparing statutes for us in this House and to do so with such accuracy that, happily, these corrections are so minor in nature. The changes need to be done with the authority of this House to ensure that our laws are orderly and correct.
I will take this moment to note that we do not have the former leader of the Green Party, Andrew Weaver, in the House. He took great delight in these bills and often went into some significant detail. I wanted to recognize his contribution to bills in the past, although I am glad to see a member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head from our party, of course.
With that said, I’ll take my place. I look forward to hearing the debate on this bill.
M. de Jong: As the Attorney has mentioned, these bills have become a regular feature of the parliamentary agenda, at least on an annual basis. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the work of legislative counsel, the excellence of which transcends the various governments that are sworn in from time to time through the history of the province.
I do not wish to belabour the debate in second reading, but what I will do is highlight to the Attorney, when we get to committee stage, the following sections that I will propose short questions about. They are section 3, section 8, section 15 and sections 20, 33, 40, 42 and 44. Those are the sections I anticipate having very brief questions about.
Thank you for the opportunity to make submissions at this stage of the debate.
Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I note with appreciation the bipartisan and, I’m sure, tripartisan consensus about the role of our talented legislative counsel. I appreciate the member providing a heads-up about the sections of particular interest and will be prepared to answer his questions in committee stage.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 5, intituled Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021.
BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021. The Insurance Corporation Act of British Columbia will implement enhanced care coverage, a fundamentally different auto insurance model, beginning May 1, 2021. Enhanced care will result in more affordable premiums for drivers and provide enhanced benefits to British Columbians recovering from a vehicle crash, all delivered by a public insurer that British Columbians can trust and have confidence in.
As a companion to the move to the new insurance model, we committed to establishing a new fairness officer with a legislated mandate to review and make recommendations to ICBC to resolve individual customer complaints, as well as with respect to policy and process related to customer fairness.
This amendment to the Insurance Corporation Act advances the building of trust and confidence in ICBC by providing the authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint an ICBC fairness officer for a three-year renewable term.
The fairness officer will be mandated to hear a complaint from a person who believes that the ICBC process that led to a decision was unfair. In addition, the officer will, on their own initiative, be able to identify processes that may lead to an unfair decision in the future. The officer will be empowered to make recommendations to the ICBC board when warranted. Further, the fairness officer may provide advice and assistance to a person with respect to ICBC processes.
The terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment may be set by the corporation, subject to the approval of the minister responsible for ICBC, and the necessary expenses for the fairness officer and their staff will be paid by the corporation.
Transparency is a foundational pillar in building trust and confidence. That’s why the fairness officer will be required to report on their activities to the ICBC board and to publish those reports on a publicly accessible website. In addition, the ICBC board will be required to prepare an annual report for the minister outlining ICBC’s responses to any recommendations submitted by the officer and to make that report public as well.
We have been mindful of the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we have developed this legislation. We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to the aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Establishing a new fairness officer, as Bill 5 proposes, does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration.
The changes introduced in Bill 5 will provide British Columbians with confidence in knowing that they will be treated fairly when they deal with ICBC, and that when they speak up to raise concerns, ICBC will be listening and will be accountable to them.
This legislation is a continuing part of our commitment to make the changes necessary to ensure that ICBC has the long-term viability necessary to continue to provide public insurance to British Columbians, to ensure that rates are affordable and to ensure that care is there when they need it for as long as they need it. I look forward to the debate from members from both sides of the House on this important step forward as we ensure that ICBC continues to deliver value, safety and quality care to the motorists of this province.
M. Morris: As I speak to this bill, and I listen to the member outlining his rationale and reasons for this, it’s reflective of what we have in place already. I went online and had a look. We’ve had an ICBC fairness commissioner in place in this province for decades — the same individual, actually, since 2005. I’m just going to review, for the House, the roles and authority that the current fairness commissioner has.
His role is to “investigate, conduct reviews and make findings and recommendations to ICBC management and/or the board of directors,” similar to what the minister has just reflected that this new bill addresses.
The office of the fairness commissioner’s jurisdiction deals with fairness of process or administration…. He “does not have jurisdiction to deal with disputes that relate solely to the amount of a final payment or the assessment of liability.” Same as the new legislation is addressing.
“The fairness commissioner has the power to insist on the production of any documents or other information from ICBC…and, if necessary, take evidence under oath or otherwise from the customer or a representative of ICBC.” Again, very similar processes are currently in place.
The fairness commissioner must be totally independent. In particular, the commissioner is independent of ICBC and any prior decisions that may have been made by ICBC. It says that he or she must be impartial in all respects and accessible to the public, either in writing or online, and responsive to those who write — very similar to the legislation that’s before the House here today.
Upon completion of the review, the fairness commissioner can refer the matter back to ICBC for reconsideration, can make recommendations to ICBC or can dismiss the complaint if the commissioner finds no unfairness on the part of ICBC or its employees. Again, I see two paths here, so I have to question this.
What was or what is the problem that government sees with the current fairness commissioner, with the current structure? I reviewed the reports, and again, this bill suggests that the new fairness officer will be reporting on an annual basis of what they find and the number of complaints that they have. That’s already been in place. There is a number of historical reports that are on file already under the ICBC website, under the fairness commissioner’s website.
For 2019-2020, the fairness commissioner reported that it received 411 complaints in total. We have to remember that of the 411 complaints that they’ve received…. ICBC has over three million customers. So we have 411 complaints in total, with three million customers. But out of those 411 complaints, 90 percent of them were referred back to ICBC customer services and resolved. So less than 10 percent were referred to the fairness commissioner for resolution. Out of those 44 that were reviewed by the fairness commissioner, 95 percent received the determination that there was no unfairness in the process.
Here we have just a small fragment of the three million customers of ICBC submitting complaints to the fairness commissioner’s office and just a small segment of that being looked at by the fairness commissioner. What was the factor that this government looked at to suggest that a fairness officer needs to be legislated into the process here? The Attorney General made a statement about a year ago that British Columbians should have peace of mind that they will be treated fairly after they have been injured in a crash. To suggest they haven’t been treated fairly by ICBC after they’ve been in a crash….
I reference the recent Supreme Court decision, where the court has assured that British Columbians can still rely on the courts to hear their issues if they decide to take them to B.C. Supreme Court to hear their arguments. Is it worth establishing a new office and government infrastructure to simply replace a process that already exists? The old saying is: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Again, I have to question the reasonableness of establishing something in legislation that is already working very well in policy with ICBC and the fairness commissioner.
The other aspect of this is if people aren’t satisfied with the results of the fairness commissioner, they have the full right to go and file a complaint with the Ombudsperson’s office. The Ombudsperson’s office has released one report regarding ICBC, and that report was dated back in 2005. Obviously, there have been no systemic issues within the current system that give rise to the fact that the current system is not working properly.
I reviewed recent activity within the Ombudsperson’s office with respect to complaints about ICBC. Again, there is minimal activity, minimal complaints, going to the Ombudsperson’s office that haven’t been resolved. Out of the over three million customers that ICBC has in British Columbia, it’s just a fraction — 0.006 percent, I believe it was, with the math that I did on that — that have had complaints submitted to the Ombudsperson’s office or to the fairness commissioner’s office.
Again, this legislation, I think, is trying to do something to replace a very effective process that is already in place. I don’t really see the need for this to be implemented. But we’ll pop the hood open on it during the third reading and see where that takes us. I’ll be curious to find out some of the rationale behind government at that time.
Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Vancouver–False Creek.
B. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do want to acknowledge that there is some work being done on the condo above mine. If it becomes too distracting, Mr. Speaker, please do let me know, and we’ll pass to a colleague.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Please proceed.
B. Bailey: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021.
Being involved in a motor vehicle accident is traumatic, and it’s stressful. Even in situations where you’re not at fault or the injury or damage is not profoundly life-altering, the experience is tough, and feeling that you can’t trust your insurer serves to add stress to the accident.
People deserve to know that they’re going to be treated fairly after they’ve been in a crash, and Bill 5 provides for the appointment of a fairness officer. It sets out the fairness officer’s powers and duties in relation to fairness complaints, and it sets out regulation-making powers of the fairness officer as well. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will appoint a fairness officer for a three-year term, and an individual can serve in this role for two such terms.
The fairness officer may, on their own initiative or in response to a complaint, investigate a decision or recommendation made, an act done or omitted, a procedure used. The fairness officer, in addition, may make recommendations to the corporation to resolve fairness complaints; make recommendations about systemic problems with the fairness of corporation process; provide advice and assistance to members of the public and other duties; and may not comment or make recommendations respecting an amount payable to the corp or the extent a person is responsible for an accident.
Section 56 does not allow the fairness officer to investigate a fairness complaint in respect of matters subject to a proceeding of a court or tribunal or a matter that was the subject of arbitration or an arbitral award.
Something that I want to highlight, because of its extreme importance in this bill, is the transparency that’s incorporated into this role and the proposed act. Specifically, section 60 ensures the publication of information both to the corporation but also to the public.
The fairness officer will be required to report the number of fairness complaints they receive and the number of fairness complaints they elect to hear, not dissimilar to the prior fairness commission. The fairness officer must publish on an publicly accessible website the rules made under section 58 and the report submitted to the corporation under section 59 and, by August 31 of each year, submit an annual report that first summarizes the corporation’s responses in the previous fiscal year to the fairness officer’s recommendations. The corporation must publish the annual report to the minister but, again, also on a public website.
I’m highlighting this because it’s a reflection of this government’s commitment to ensuring that ICBC decisions, actions and practices are transparent and they are fair. Having a new independent fairness officer position will ensure that complaints, disputes and procedural matters will be fairly addressed. Ensuring the independence from ICBC of the officer is important. In Bill 5, note that the fairness officer is not appointed by the corporation but by government.
All of this will improve the transparency and accountability at ICBC. People deserve to know that they will be treated fairly after they’ve been injured in a crash. The establishment of an impartial authority with transparent reporting requirements will help to rebuild trust in ICBC. The fairness officer role is being enhanced so it can settle disputes and also watch for trends in the way that ICBC is treating motorists.
These changes to the role of the prior fairness commissioner bolster flagging public trust in the Crown corp. More independence, more public accountability. This dovetails with other important changes to ICBC this government has moved on, moving to an enhanced care model and the resulting savings and refunds to B.C. drivers, putting financial information into plain language reports so that ratepayers can see where their dollars are going.
All of this is leading to an insurance system that works for all British Columbians, insurance that is more affordable and provides the care and coverage needed if the consumer is involved in a crash. It really comes from a commitment to fairness, fairness that is reflected in the move to a driver-based system where at-fault crashes will be tied to the driver rather than the individual who owns the vehicle, fairness that ensures that good drivers are no longer paying more to cover costs for those who cause crashes or present higher risks on our roads. Each driver’s experience and crash history will play a bigger role in determining premiums, as has previously been discussed.
Another area that’s been reviewed and changed through a fairness lens is the ability to pay privately for the cost of an at-fault claim, which is a unique feature that many insurance companies do not offer. The problem was it masked the driver’s risk to the public. Keeping the repairs out of the ICBC system, to a limit of $2,000, allows for this to occur only in relatively minor claims and stops the ability for wealthy drivers who can afford to pay for repairs privately to dodge the implications to their insurer. Bad drivers should pay more than good drivers. Fairness.
In addition, there are now new discounts for safer drivers graduated over a longer period of time. There are discounts for vehicles with automatic emergency braking, AEB, and for vehicles driven less than 5,000 a year as well. This transition to enhanced care coverage is coming this spring.
In sum, the new fairness officer is part of a more fair insurance system that works for everyone. The new fairness officer introduced in this bill, Bill 5, is more independent and will provide increased transparency. This, along with a number of other changes, some of which I’ve outlined here, will give British Columbians the confidence of knowing that ICBC is accountable and that they will be treated fairly.
M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation Amendment Act.
I would say, listening to the comments from the member for Vancouver–False Creek…. I welcome her to this House in that manner. We are close in proximity in terms of our Vancouver ridings.
I will say that my remarks this morning about Bill 5, I hope, will be helpful to the members of the House so that they can put in perspective this so-called fairness officer under ICBC’s thumb. As the member for Prince George– Mackenzie went through in great detail, we have concerns and questions about that role — the jurisdiction, the duties, the responsibilities and, indeed, the lack of independence of this fairness officer.
I would say to my colleague across the aisle, the member for Vancouver–False Creek…. I would invite her and other members of the House to closely look at this bill in the context of the Insurance Corporation Act and the no-fault regime that the government brought forward, which we debated at length last summer in this House, so that she can better inform herself in terms of the lack of fairness that we are going to be seeing under this new regime that’s to be implemented on May 1.
Like many things that the government has brought forward in this COVID-challenging time…. There are many priorities of government. We know, as we just talked about in question period, the importance of the vaccination rollout and the continued challenges that this government has had with that rollout. But I question what we’re going to see with the no-fault rollout, as well, on May 1. This is the one bill that the government has brought forward at this juncture to deal with a component of the no-fault regime.
Before turning to the construction of Bill 5 — of the fairness officer — I would say that if I need to, I’d like to take the time, as the designated speaker on this bill, if I may, and take a brief moment to talk about the road that has led us to this point. As I mentioned, I’ve spoken to at length and raised my concerns in the past in this House about the conflicting hats that our Attorney General was asked to wear by the Premier with respect to his dual role as Attorney General and, as he was formerly then, the minister responsible for ICBC.
We just saw the new minister responsible for ICBC, of course, speak to this bill in this House. Again, I dare say that that minister needs to carefully consider how this fairness officer — the role, the office itself — is positioned within the new regime that the government has brought forward that took away the ability of injured British Columbians to pursue their rights. What did they replace that with? Well, in part, they replaced that with an enhanced fairness officer. So they say, but we will look at that in more detail.
They replaced that with the civil resolution tribunal or greater jurisdiction for the CRT. And as I, and many of my colleagues, have had the opportunity over some years now…. We’ve had many debates about the civil resolution tribunal, their jurisdiction, the setting of the minor injury definition and the expansion of that minor injury definition by regulation to include brain injury and concussion, even when the Attorney General assured those who suffer and those families of members who suffer from brain injury and concussions that the minor injury definition would not be expanded. That definition was expanded by regulation.
I’d like to also speak to the context in which the government brought forward 107 pages of regulation last Friday. This is important to understand the context in which the fairness officer is operating. That minor injury definition was expanded to include, as the Attorney General has stated to myself and others in this House, 80 percent of all motor vehicle injuries that one could seek recovery from.
Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The Premier put the Attorney General in a dual role in 2017. The Attorney General, of course, as the chief legal officer of this province, of this government, must represent the interests of justice on the one hand and, as the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, was asked to look out for the financial interests of ICBC. That is the problem. We are seeing now, again, the clear indications from our own judicial system that there is a problem.
First our courts deemed the rule limiting the use of expert reports to be unconstitutional. This is one of a series of court decisions where the courts have had to beat back the Attorney General of this province for taking decisions and coming up with policies that were not constitutional. Now we see, just in this past week, our province’s chief justice has ruled again that another set of laws is unconstitutional.
How many defeats does it take? How many resources of our province does it require for us to be in court for this government to be losing court decision after court decision after court decision? Just this past week, the chief justice ruled that parts of the civil resolution tribunal are unconstitutional. Those are the main parts of that jurisdiction. Quite simply, our chief justice said that the people have a constitutional right to access the courts and that what our Attorney General sought to have the CRT do eroded that constitutional right.
The importance of this decision needs to be highlighted. It starts with basic principles. The job of an Attorney General is to advise the government on the constitutionality of laws that it wishes to pass. When a law is vetted by the Attorney General and subsequently denied or deemed unconstitutional by the courts, there is no clearer indication that the Attorney General has failed to properly carry out his duties.
This is the rub. The Attorney General either did not know that the laws he was making were unconstitutional, or he knew, and he did them anyways. I don’t know which is worse. When it happens twice, it’s even more troubling. This is part of the continued pattern that we see from this Attorney General and this government. When you consider the way in which the Attorney General was allowed to operate in the last few years, it becomes even more concerning.
When this NDP government came to power, they had a unique idea that bucked tradition. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, this government thought it would be a good idea to give the Attorney General — who, again, is in charge of protecting the rights of British Columbians, the legal rights — the power to also handle the responsibility for ICBC, which, as we’ve discussed numerous times in this House, is one of the primary litigants in our province.
He changed the rules of court, of evidence. That was ruled to be unconstitutional. He shifted the jurisdiction to the CRT. That was ruled to be unconstitutional. I do acknowledge that the government has communicated its intention to appeal that decision, but the fact remains. The chief justice of our courts here in this province has repeatedly ruled the laws that this government has put forward to be unconstitutional.
Historically, there has been no other Attorney General that has worn these two unique hats simultaneously. And as I said, there was significant debate in this House about this. The Premier chose to overlook those concerns.
I raised those concerns repeatedly. The last time I had that opportunity, in the summer of 2020, the member from Point Grey seemed puzzled as to why I was spending so much time discussing it. But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. This is not a side issue. It is the primary issue. It is where we are going to start with every single piece of legislation that this government brings forward to change the way in which ICBC works, because every ICBC-related bill that our Attorney General has touched has been tainted by the underlying conflict that has existed.
When each bill was simultaneously being conceptualized…. And again, we have a situation where the no-fault regime was being done in parallel. We have an Attorney General that was trying to reform ICBC but then doing this in the back, divided in the way that he was seeing the rights of injured British Columbians.
Again, we cannot lose sight of the significance. Essentially, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was asked by the Premier to do two things: get ICBC’s costs down, at least in the manufactured way that they presented, and pass constitutional laws to protect the legal rights of British Columbians.
As I mentioned, with his ICBC hat on, the Attorney General came up with the unusual cost-saving plans that require sweeping legislative changes. With his Attorney General hat on, he vetted the legal changes that would be necessary to turn his innovative ideas into reality. Of course, traditionally, those two hats, those two responsibilities, would be worn by two different individuals, two different members of the executive council.
The changes that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey put forward may reduce ICBC’s costs, but they don’t protect the legal rights of British Columbians. In fact, by design, they strip British Columbians of their rights. He was asked by our Premier to do two objectives that are diametrically opposed to one another. He was asked to do a job that is normally, for good reason, done by two different people. It is no wonder that his laws are now being found to be unconstitutional.
As I mentioned earlier, when you look at the wasted tax dollars…. Think about it. This government has created a new, state-of-the-art system, in addition to the work that the Leader of the Official Opposition did when she was the Attorney General of this province in putting in place the civil resolution tribunal. That was for strata disputes, societal-type disputes, not the kind of disputes of the complex nature of brain injuries, concussions, chronic pain, motor vehicle injuries. That was not the initial intention of that CRT.
As I said, when you’re defending these constitutional losses and these court challenges, it’s not cheap. It can be very expensive, these mistakes that come forward from this government. Well, the member from Point Grey doesn’t seem to care about the wasted tax dollars, though. The first thing he had to say to the media about the recent court decision, the loss, is that this will have no impact on ICBC rebates that are coming because it wasn’t factored into the cost-savings formula to begin with.
Let me just say, though, to pause, that the CRT was designed to save on costs by diverting expensive court cases out of the litigation court system and forcing those same cases into the cheaper online world of the CRT. So one could wonder: how could this not possibly have been factored into the cost-savings formula?
In any event, when the member from Point Grey makes a statement like that, isn’t he essentially saying: “Don’t worry. I predicted this outcome, so I had the foresight not to include it in the formula for calculating rebates”? It’s almost as if he predicted that the legislation he championed would not withstand judicial scrutiny. The wasted tax dollars are just collateral damage.
Well, our Attorney General seems to think that access to a quick decision is more important than access to a fair decision. He has lost sight of what access to justice truly means. In the words of Supreme Court of Canada Justice Russell Brown, “access to justice is not merely access to a resolution. After all, many resolutions are unjust. Where a party seeks a rights-based resolution to a dispute, such resolution is just only when it is determined, according to the law, as discerned and applied by an independent arbitrator.”
This distinction may be subtle, but it is something that makes one wonder: if the Attorney General wasn’t being pulled in two opposing directions, would he have seen the issues more clearly?
I just want to turn to the set of regulations that was issued by Order-in-Council 1/13 last Friday, March 5, 2021. As I mentioned, this regulation, known as the Permanent Impairment Regulation, is to be effective May 1, 2021.
The member from Point Grey has denied this before. There is a term that is used, that others have used, which is that there is, within ICBC, some form of internal meat chart system. This has been a concern that has been raised for some years now. When I raised this term with the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, he took great offence.
Well, when you look at the Permanent Impairment Regulation…. I do invite all members of the House to do that. I think when you’re looking at this Bill 5, short as it is, four pages, you should really consider the companion document, the 107 pages of regulations that set out the various forms of injuries, percentage of injuries, percentage of loss and determine what a British Columbian is entitled to under this new no-fault regime.
Well, when you look at this set of regulations, it really just appears as a codified version of what is a corporate policy. Essentially, how this works is you go to the schedule…. I don’t mean to be insensitive with terminology here, but, literally, it’s set out very clearly. You look at the schedule, you pick a body part, and you figure out what it’s worth. It’s broken down into two main categories, catastrophic and non-catastrophic injuries.
Let’s go to the worst of the worst type of catastrophic injury. Again, I don’t want to be insensitive about the nature of these injuries. But the fact of the matter is that when you set it out in the manner in which this is set out in the regulation, this is what is required under the no-fault regime. This is their version of enhanced care.
If you’re rendered a complete quadriplegic, for example, you get just over $264,000 from the meat chart. The most traumatic and severe accident you can imagine will get you $264,000.
Well, what is a complete loss of taste worth? I mean that in the context of a motor vehicle accident. This one is a non-catastrophic injury, so you start by taking the base rate of $167,465, and then you apply it against the percentage value that the schedule allots for this type of injury. The schedule says it’s worth 1 percent of the base rate, so a complete loss of taste is worth $1,674.65.
Under this schedule, the loss of a toe is worth the same. A loss of all five toes would get you just over $8,000. If you lost, instead, your entire foot, you’d get just under $42,000. A lost hand would get you $75,000. Again, I do not want to be insensitive in terms of the nature of these types of injuries, but this the listing. This is what’s listed in the 108 pages of the regulation.
The government — the Attorney General, the Premier — have been characterizing this new system as an innovative enhanced care model, but it doesn’t seem to be all that innovative when you look at it, when you look at the details. Last summer myself and members of this House on the opposition side quizzed the government — the former member for Richmond-Queensborough, the member for Surrey South and myself — about the nature of the no-fault bill. The answers that we got back were the regulations. So much was to be determined by the regulation.
That is: “Let’s just pass this first.” This fundamentally changes and takes away the rights of British Columbians and determines everything to follow. At the time when we had that debate, we didn’t have these details. What do we have now? We have a four-page bill that purports to talk about fairness.
As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie just set out in his speech to this bill, there is really no change in this. There’s no greater authority and powers of this fairness officer. In fact, as I’ll speak to in a moment in my comments, the independence of the fairness officer is highly questionable, given the nature, the structure, of the office; the reporting mechanism; the funding; and the budget requirements. As well, the powers of the fairness officer itself are quite limited.
As we come back to these regulations, this permanent impairment regulation schedule is very similar to the permanent disability evaluation schedule. For those who know what the permanent disability evaluation schedule is, well, that’s a WorkSafeBC schedule. We’ve said that when you look at this model, it’s very similar.
The WorkSafe schedule is broken down in much the same way. There are 21 categories. For instance, both documents start out the same, with part 1 on the subject of upper limbs and part 2 on the subject of lower limbs. If you look at wrist and hand amputation, we can see that under ICBC’s system, you get 45 percent of the base rate, where WorkSafeBC pays you 54 percent for the same injury.
The loss of taste that we talked about earlier gets you 1 percent under ICBC’s system. WorkSafe pays you between zero and 4 percent, depending on the severity. The worst type of pelvis fracture gets you 2 percent under ICBC’s system. Under WorkSafe, it gets you 10 percent. An above-knee amputation gets you 35 to 40 percent under ICBC’s system, depending on the cut. Under WorkSafe, it gets you 50 percent.
We know that there is a lot of trauma involved in injuries, so I think it’s worth mentioning, as well…. What about a person with a milder psychiatric condition who takes medication and attends counselling less than once per month? That gets you a flat 5 percent from ICBC, whereas WorkSafe would pay you 0 to 25 percent, depending on the severity.
Well, I could go on with other examples comparing the two regulations between WorkSafe and this ICBC permanent impairment regulation. But my point is that this is not a new and innovative system at all. Quite frankly, it’s simply WorkSafe on wheels. If anyone wants to know what life will be like under this new system with ICBC, they should ask any British Columbian who has had to deal with WorkSafeBC after an injury at work about what their experience was like. To expect that this system will somehow yield a different feedback is naive.
This is the overall context which we come to when we look at Bill 5. On the surface, as the member for Vancouver–False Creek spoke to, it’s entitled a fairness officer. It talks about fairness. It talks about fairness complaints. It talks about something that the minister responsible for ICBC talked about in his second reading speech.
You can make recommendations about systemic problems with the fairness of the corporation’s processes. You can make recommendations to the corporation to resolve fairness complaints. Well, the problem is that this fairness officer is really just window dressing, for reasons that I’ll get to in a moment.
When you look at this office, what is most concerning to British Columbians is that this model will be run by the same adjusters who have been working at ICBC for decades. This should be even more concerning since the architect of no-fault in these regulations, the Attorney General, stood before a press conference on January 29, 2020, and said: “I think it is no secret that many British Columbians don’t trust ICBC.”
He was right. That is the case. You talk to any British Columbian, and they will tell you of their challenges in dealing with ICBC: being denied treatment, being cut off disability benefits, ICBC putting them under surveillance, the adjuster ignoring them, and so on. So why would the NDP be giving ICBC over the complete control here? ICBC now, as of May 1, will have complete control over the lives of injured British Columbians. What recourse would these injured British Columbians have if ICBC continues in its historical pattern of being unfair to British Columbians?
In that same January 2020 press conference, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said: “British Columbians should have the peace of mind they will be treated fairly after they’ve been injured in a crash.” This is very true.
But what is that peace of mind? The NDP said: “Don’t worry. We’re creating a fairness officer.” The member said: “With this change, British Columbians can have the confidence that the fairness office has greater independence” — greater independence from ICBC — “and has the impartial authority to review the fairness of their situation and the ability to make recommendations to ICBC.”
Well, that sounded like a promising initiative over a year ago, that the NDP would create an independent officer that has the power to make recommendations to ICBC to ensure fairness. Well, let’s just see how this played out. A year ago the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said that the fairness office will be independent from ICBC, which is important. You don’t want ICBC overseeing ICBC.
Well, you turn to subsection 55(3) of Bill 5, and it says that the Lieutenant-Governor will appoint the fairness officer. It is the ICBC board that may, subject to the approval of the minister, set the terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment including remuneration.
The Lieutenant-Governor will pick the fairness officer, but ICBC will set the terms and conditions of that fairness officer’s appointment, meaning they will be able to tell the fairness officer what to do. Even better, the ICBC board will be able to decide how much the fairness officer gets paid.
Of course, when you’re talking about pay and compensation, you’re talking about performance review. You’re talking about expectations — of the board, the leadership team of ICBC — that they would have in the nature of that corporation.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Are we running up to time here?
Interjection.
M. Lee: Okay. Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment of the debate.
M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.