Over the last two days we have been debating two government bills designed to rescue ICBC from the financial troubles they encountered due to the fiscal mismanagement of the BC Liberals over the last number of years.

The first bill that was introduced and debated was Bill 22: Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018. The major change this bill proposed was to expand the scope of the Civil Resolution Tribunal to allow for the adjudication of disputes over certain motor vehicle injury claims. Presently, the Civil Resolution Tribunal hears strata property disputes and small claims disputes $5,000 and under.

The second bill that was introduced and debated was Bill 20: Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018. This bill provides for regulation on a few major aspects of ICBC product reform, including limiting payouts for pain and suffering for minor injuries, and allowing for increased medical benefits, to be established in regulation. In essence it takes the focus off litigation and instead focuses it on patient recovery.

Below I reproduced my second reading speeches (in video and text) for both of these Bills.

Videos of Speeches

Text: 2^nd Reading of Bill 20

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debates at second reading for Bill 20, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act. I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for his comments and the minister for introducing this bill.

Bill 20 is one of two bills, hon. Speaker, as you know. We’ve been debating Bill 22, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act. Collectively, these bills are designed to get a handle on price increases that are going forward in ICBC. You know, British Columbia is the last jurisdiction in Canada for which victims can sue for any type of injury for any amount. This is known as the full tort system. These measures are attempts to get a handle on costs.

After quite a number of years, in the words of the Attorney General — in a press scrum, he noted that ICBC finances became a dumpster fire. I think, actually, that’s a quite appropriate comment in light of the rather dramatic rate increases and budget overruns that are seen in ICBC due to financial negligence of its oversight through too many years of a government that seemed to view it as a bank account from which to withdraw money rather than as an insurance agency and public good designed specifically to actually ensure value for British Columbians and safety for British Columbians on the road.

This bill provides for regulation on a few major aspects of ICBC — product reform including limiting payouts for pain and suffering and for minor injuries — and allowing for increased medical benefits to be established in regulation. These announcements that are put forward in this bill were actually pre-announced in February.

For me, the important aspect of this bill is that it takes the onus off the legal system and puts the onus on getting a person healthy by increasing the availability of resources for them, whether they be expanded service…. The treatment, the whole focus now, is on the person. That, to me, is important.

We all know of litigative examples that one could describe as somewhat dodgy. There seems to have been an increased, growing number of these, whereby people go to courts and sue for every this, that and the other. Now, with this being put in place, it’s actually saying: “You know what? We’re joining the rest of Canada.” We no longer are going to be considered the Wild West here in terms of insurance premiums. We’re going to follow the lead of every other jurisdiction in Canada and move away from the full tort system to one that actually recognizes that costs in ICBC are going up. A substantial amount of those are associated with soft tissue injuries, and we will actually take steps to limit that.

There are a number of key changes in this bill. The most important one, as I outlined, is the focus on people and on getting better, rather than litigation. That, to me, is a critical reason why I support this. Before I go on to the changes in the bill, I’d like to summarize, again, some quick facts from ICBC and to underscore just how serious the situation is in ICBC, which is ultimately reflected in the ever-increasing premiums — despite having no accidents —that we are paying in this province.

Government had to do something. ICBC claims totalled $2.7 billion in 2016, which was an 80 percent increase in seven years. Seven years where the B.C. Liberals, historically, just watched and let this get out of hand.

The average claim paid out for minor injuries rose from $8,200 in the year 2000 to $30,038 in 2016 — a 265 percent increase in average claim payout for minor injuries. Again, under the watch of the B.C. Liberals, who let this get out of hand and viewed ICBC as a bank account from which to withdrawal money as dividends that should not have been withdrawn, because that money didn’t exist.

Over this time, if I go back to the average pain and suffering award paid out for minor injuries…. In 2000, it was $5,004. In 2016, it was $16,499. Vehicle damage costs have increased 30 percent in just two years to a total of $1.5 billion in 2016 alone.

Now, you know, I don’t want correlation to imply causation, but of course, one has to wonder what the effects of eliminating those ICBC inspection stations and adjustors from actually assessing claims…. What has been the net cost to the ICBC ratepayer, again, as a direct cause of measures that were taken by the previous government a number of years back?

To the specific aspects of this bill. Some of the key changes are that provisions are now being introduced through regulation to allow the claimant to recover damages for pain and suffering from minor injuries. There’s now a legal definition of minor injury, which is included in this.

Of course, I have some sympathy for the comments from the member for Richmond-Steveston and the member for Vancouver-Langara in other debates that he’s done here — that a lot of this is left to regulation.

Again, there is some definition. There’s some language with respect to minor injury and listing abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprain and strains, pain syndrome, psychological and psychiatric conditions, or the old “injury as prescribed” in a prescribed class of injury, where that means whatever a regulation says, even if it’s chronic.

I also have some sympathy for the counter-argument raised by the Attorney General, who has suggested that in jurisdictions that have introduced legislation with respect to minor injuries, there are some very sharp lawyers out there who find exemptions to that. So rather than set it all in stone, the enabling legislation enables, through order-in-council, the government to fix any loopholes that may arise in terms of people trying to claim something’s not a minor injury when, in fact, the intent of this legislation would be that it were to be included. Again, I have some sympathy there.

One of the things that’s important is the allowance for an extended list of health care providers to allow ICBC to use for accident claims, which is actually important. You know, despite what the member for Richmond-Steveston said, there are a lot of people who aren’t covered, and it’s not easy to actually get coverage at all times with ICBC. There are limits.

The focus now is not on recovery. The focus now is on trying to avoid the courts, and that’s a problem. That’s a problem, when ICBC is more concerned about avoidance of courts and settling and litigation. In certain cases, they are more concerned about the settlement than actually getting someone better.

I do have sympathy for the Attorney General in bringing this forward, this legislation, and support his efforts in this regard.

There are a number of questions. I mean, of course, there are some mechanisms that are in this bill that allow ICBC to no longer reimburse other insurance companies, with the exception, of course, of WorkSafe B.C. and the MSP, for payments to their customers.

Of course, we know that today’s customers can receive benefits from other insurance companies, not just and not only ICBC, if they happen to have secondary coverage through work or others. They can get that after a crash. They may receive wage-loss benefits, for example, or extended health care benefits from their employer.

We know right now that most insurance companies indeed have agreements in place where the customer has to pay back these benefits if ICBC also pays for these expenses. Now, with the changes in the legislation, ICBC will not pay the other insurance company for the same benefit they have already provided. And that seems to me fair if you’ve got the additional coverage. We’re saying if you’ve got the coverage, ICBC isn’t going to pay the insurance company. They’re going to let the insurance company pay that additional amount. They’ll still, of course, cover you if you’re not covered.

Of course, there are, too, some overarching issues here. A lot of it is left to regulation. But overall, the public response, with the notable exception of trial lawyers, is quite positive. I’ll start with the negative, of course.

We know that John Rice, from the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, has suggested that the changes since February are concerning because they have widened what is considered a minor injury and, therefore, subject to the cap. He says the legislation represents “one of the most significant attacks on the legal rights of British Columbians in our province’s history. The proposed legislation goes much further than what was previously announced by Eby in February in making victims pay for reckless and distracted drivers….” He says: “Instead ICBC and the NDP….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, only referencing by riding name.

A. Weaver: Oh, I do apologize. I was reading a direct quote from the letter. Thank you for noting that. It was announced by the Attorney General, who he referred to by name, which of course, is not appropriate for me to do in this Legislature.

He said: “…by the Attorney General in February, in making victims pay for reckless and distracted drivers…. Instead,” he says, “ICBC and the NDP government want to cap even more injuries than British Columbians suffer because of someone else’s negligence.”

Now, my retort to John Rice, of course, would be that now British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada — the only one left — that is the Wild West of thou shalt sue whoever thou wants whenever there’s an accident, to see how much money you can get. I understand that there are certain trail lawyers who will be upset because they have made a livelihood out of this so-called issue.

I also have some sympathy with respect to government trying to deal with this, because costs are getting out of hand. We know that those costs are coming for settlements on soft tissue, for example. And there are other costs associated with increased motor vehicle claims. But again, to members here, it seems to me that we are the last jurisdiction for allowing this full tort system. It’s not unexpected. Nor is it, really, frankly outrageous. Nor is it, actually, uncommon for one to expect that it’s time for us to get with the program. I commend the Attorney General for actually stepping up and doing this.

There are, of course, many other comments that are on the positive side. I received many emails in this regard. A couple of key ones, of course, are…. Giovanna Boniface, from the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, says:

“Unbelievably, accident benefits haven’t been increased since 1991. B.C.’s occupational therapists have been helping injured drivers return to activities of daily living for decades and have seen declines in access to vital and necessary treatment for years. By raising the amount covered and expanding the variety of treatments that are eligible, these changes will allow more people to have access to the treatment and adaptive equipment they need, thereby fostering quicker recovery and return to meaningful, daily activities. “

This is important because I know, only too well, the problems that have arisen with people trying to get benefits from ICBC. You’re allowed to make two claims. In the first claim, they’ll pay your expenses, but they won’t pay your other medical expenses until the second one, which is when all is better. The problem is, ICBC is incentivizing you to go to a lawyer.

If you have a difficult time paying those expenses…. I know people very close to me who have had to pay thousands of dollars in expenses. They’re not going to see lawyers, because they want to actually get better. But they have to pay it up front. They can pay it up front, but what about the person that can’t pay it up front? The person who doesn’t have the hundreds and hundreds of dollars to spend on ongoing physiotherapy? So they make their claim after a couple of months and realize that they need many months more of physiotherapy and, say, chiropractor and massage therapy. They have to pay it and hope that perhaps they’ll get reimbursed at the end. But sometimes they can’t, so they go to a lawyer. And the lawyer’s office says: “You know what? Get yourself better. We’ll cover the expenses We’ll open a file.”

As soon as the lawyer opens the file, guess what. We know the settlement is going through the roof. Here, what is so welcome to me in this bill, is that the focus is on the patient and getting the patient better. That is the number one focus. And for many, having the ability to get better is what they want. So again, I applaud government for bringing this forward.

Another commentator is, of course, Jane Dyson, from Disability Alliance B.C. Jane says:

“Disability Alliance B.C. has been advocating for improvements to accident benefits for 12 years.” Funny, that — 12 years. That’s less than 16 years. “The doubling of the overall allowance for medical care and recovery is a significant improvement. We welcome these long-overdue changes that will mean that people who are catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents have better supports available to them to help them rebuild their lives. Moving forward, DABC” — that’s the Disability Alliance B.C. — “looks forward to continued dialogue with ICBC and government to help ensure that British Columbians accessing accident benefits receive the treatment and financial support they need.”

Then, of course, there’s Louise Craig, who’s a Vancouver-based physiotherapist, who says this. She is also a spokesperson for the group Rights Over Arbitrary Decisions — ROAD, an interesting acronym — for British Columbians. She said this: “It’s good that government keeps talking about increasing medical benefits for those involved in a crash, but the loose definition of minor injury in Monday’s bill remains concerning. I think they are expanding it so that minor injuries encompass the vast majority of injuries that occur and make the exception, say, a fractured bone or spinal cord injury.”

I think this is the concern raised by a number in this House over the previous bills we’ve discussed as well. Again, I accept, at this stage, the argument put forward by the Attorney General that, in fact, the definition is meant to be a little loose in that one is hoping to refine it through regulation as time moves on to ensure that minor injuries are actually captured as minor injuries and not to ensure that, in fact, there are loopholes that people can actually get away with and kind of avoid the tribunal process, for example, or the maximum coverage.

Again, long overdue for reform with ICBC. I’m very pleased that government is stepping in to douse this so-called dumpster fire with some water to ensure that ratepayers are protected, because something had to be done. We could have done a couple of things. We could have scrapped ICBC, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and gone with a full private insurance system as some jurisdictions have done. We could have gone to a complete no-fault insurance system, as other jurisdictions have done. I think what government has done here is stand back and say: “You know what? We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want to ensure that we keep this jewel, this jewel called ICBC. But we also want to ensure that we reform it, reform it in a way and a means that actually ensures that ratepayers are getting value for their investment in the ICBC auto insurance plan and to ensure that we clamp down on false claims or those who are, in some sense, using the system for their financial advantage through claiming of injuries that are not actually as serious as would otherwise claim.”

I’m a very strong supporter of this bill, and I thank the minister for bringing it forward — recognizing, of course, that it won’t be without some concern and controversy elsewhere. I thank you for your attention, hon. Speaker.

Text: 2^nd Reading of Bill 22

A. Weaver: I stand and take my place in second reading of Bill 22, Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018.

As has been mentioned, this bill implements changes that were previously announced by government on February 6. The major change in this bill, of course, is expanding the scope of the civil resolution tribunal to adjudicate disputes over certain motor vehicle injury claims.

Such additions are not without their controversy but profoundly needed in the province of British Columbia. We’ve watched year after year the financial issues within ICBC escalate to the point where, now, ICBC is literally well over $1 billion in debt.

If we look in specific details at some of the facts with respect to ICBC right now, we know that injury claims total $2.7 billion in 2016, which was an 80 percent increase in the last seven years. We know that the average claim paid out for minor injuries has risen from $8,200, in the year 2000, to $30,038 in 2016. That’s an increase of a whopping 265 percent.

At the same time, we also know that the average pain and suffering awards paid out for minor injuries have risen from $5,004, in the year 2000, to more than $16,499 in 2016. Vehicle damage costs have increased 30 percent in just two years, to a total of $1.5 billion in 2016 alone.

So, the use of the civil resolution tribunal for minor injury dispute resolutions means that claimants who don’t use a lawyer will actually be able to keep their entire settlement rather than paying a portion of their fees. It actually doing so means that the province of British Columbia is the last province in Canada to abandon a system which is essentially known as a full tort system. That’s one where anyone can sue anyone with respect to motor vehicle accidents.

I do commend the Attorney General and his office for bringing such legislation forward in a timely fashion to get a handle on the escalating costs within ICBC.

As was mentioned, this is not without its controversy. There will be, of course, trial lawyers who are concerned about what this means in terms of their livelihood. There’s nothing in this legislation that says: “You can’t hire a lawyer.” In fact, section 16, I believe it is, specifically says that lawyers will be allowed to represent parties in vehicle claims — as ICBC will be represented by experienced adjusters. I recognize that there may be some concern within trial lawyers.

Again, I come back to the point that British Columbia is the last province in Canada that still has a full tort system here, where everybody can sue anybody whenever they want.

The civil resolution tribunal’s scope is not only expanded profoundly in the area of motor vehicle injury claims, but also there’s some tightening and expansion and identification of rules and regulations where the civil resolution tribunal can also be used — or Strata Property Act disputes, things like condominiums or bare land stratas — as well as some small adjustments to small claims in here. There are also some adjustments to the area of cooperatives, which are modified slightly in this act.

Overall, I recognize that a lot is left to regulation, but in this particular case, while more generally I get concerned when a lot is left in regulation…. I understand in this case that we’re talking about a rather fundamental shift in the way motor vehicle claims are dealt with in the province of British Columbia.

There’s a danger, that if too much is done in legislation, government could not respond nimbly to changes that might be required — particularly, as has been identified by some pundits, when lawyers are able to find ways around the intent of the legislation, to find other additional means of still engaging claims in Supreme Court, by finding various loopholes in the means and ways claims should be processed.

Overall, this is a piece of legislation we’re proud to support. We look forward to exploring some of the details in committee stage, and also the concomitant legislation which makes a cap on claims, which I believe will be