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

As promised, the BC Government today submitted a reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking a decision on whether of not it has the right to regulate heavy oil transportation across our province. In particular, it has asked the B.C. Court of Appeal three questions:

1. Is it within the legislative authority of the Legislature of British Columbia to enact legislation substantially in the form set out in the attached Appendix?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would the attached legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into British Columbia by means of interprovincial undertakings?
3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, would existing federal legislation render all or part of the attached legislation inoperative?

As part of the submission, the province appended a potential amendment to the Environment Management Act (reproduced in the Appendix below) which it has asked the court to rule on.

The BC Green Caucus supports the government’s efforts in this regard and I append my media statement below.

Media Statement

Weaver statement on Kinder Morgan court reference case
For immediate release
April 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following response to the government’s court reference case.

“I am pleased to see the government is continuing to stand up for British Columbia,” said Weaver.

“Earlier this week, media reports uncovered further evidence that the approval process for this project was deeply flawed. It’s clear that the federal approval of this project was based on political calculation, not on evidence or the best interests of the public.

“There are significant gaps in scientific knowledge regarding the effects of a diluted bitumen spill. British Columbians are rightly concerned that a dilbit spill could significantly harm their health and safety, their local economy and their environment. Our caucus supports the government’s efforts to ensure these concerns are addressed and that our province is protected from hazardous materials that flow within its borders.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Appendix

The following Part is added to the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53:

PART 2.1 – HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE PERMITS

Purposes

22.1 The purposes of this Part are

(a) to protect, from the adverse effects of releases of hazardous substances,

(i) British Columbia’s environment, including the terrestrial, freshwater, marine and atmospheric environment,
(ii) human health and well-being in British Columbia, and
(iii) the economic, social and cultural vitality of communities in British Columbia, and

(b) to implement the polluter pays principle.

Interpretation

22.2 The definition of “permit” in section 1 (1) does not apply to this Part.

Requirement for hazardous substance permits

22.3

(1) In the course of operating an industry, trade or business, a person must not, during a calendar year, have possession, charge or control of a substance listed in Column 1 of the Schedule, and defined in Column 2 of the Schedule, in a total amount equal to or greater than the minimum amount set out in Column 3 of the Schedule unless a director has issued a hazardous substance permit to the person to do so.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance on a ship.

Issuance of hazardous substance permits

22.4

(1) Subject to subsection (2), on application by a person, a director may issue to the applicant a hazardous substance permit referred to in section 22.3 (1).

(2) Before issuing the hazardous substance permit, the director may require the applicant to do one or more of the following:

(a) provide information documenting, to the satisfaction of the director,

(i) the risks to human health or the environment that are posed by a release of the substance, and

(ii) the types of impacts that may be caused by a release of the substance and an estimate of the monetary value of those impacts;

(b) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant

(i) has appropriate measures in place to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) has appropriate measures in place to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) has sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(c) post security to the satisfaction of the director, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant has access to financial resources including insurance, in order to ensure that the applicant has the capacity

(i) to respond to or mitigate any adverse environmental or health effects resulting from a release of the substance, and

(ii) to provide compensation that may be required by a condition attached to the permit under section 22.5 (b) (ii);

(d) establish a fund for, or make payments to, a local government or a first nation government in order to ensure that the local government or the first nation government has the capacity to respond to a release of the substance;

(e) agree to compensate any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages resulting from a release of the substance, including damages for any costs incurred in responding to the release, any costs related to ecological recovery and restoration, any economic loss and any loss of non-use value.

Conditions attached to hazardous substance permits

22.5 A director may, at any time, attach one or more of the following conditions to a hazardous substance permit:

(a) conditions respecting the protection of human health or the environment, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) to maintain sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(b) conditions respecting the impacts of a release of the substance, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to respond to a release of a substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director, and

(ii) to compensate, without proof of fault or negligence, any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages referred to in section 22.4 (2) (e).

Suspension or cancellation of hazardous substance permits

22.6

(1) Subject to this section, a director, by notice served on the holder of a hazardous substance permit, may suspend the permit for any period or cancel the permit.

(2) A notice served under subsection (1) must state the time at which the suspension or cancellation takes effect.

(3) A director may exercise the authority under subsection (1) if a holder of a hazardous substance permit fails to comply with the conditions attached to the permit.

Restraining orders

22.7

(1) If a person, by carrying on an activity or operation, contravenes section 22.3 (1), the activity or operation may be restrained in a proceeding brought by the minister in the Supreme Court.

(2) The making of an order by the court under subsection (1) in relation to a matter does not interfere with the imposition of a penalty in respect of an offence in relation to the same contravention.

Offence and penalty

22.8 A person who contravenes section 22.3 (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $400 000 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

Power to amend Schedule

22.9 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, add substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts to the Schedule and delete substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts from the Schedule.

2 The following Schedule is added:

SCHEDULE [section 22.3 (1)]

Substance: Heavy Oil

Definition of Substance:

a) a crude petroleum product that has an American Petroleum Institute gravity of 22 or less, or

b) a crude petroleum product blend containing at least one component that constitutes 30% or more of the volume of the blend and that has either or both of the following:

Minimum Amount of Substance:  

The largest annual amount of the annual amounts of the substance that the person had possession, charge or control of during each of 2013 to 2017.

Today in the legislature I took the opportunity during Question Period to ask the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology about what his Ministry is doing to encourage integration between BC’s tech and mining sectors.

British Columbia is blessed with a wealth of natural resources, and many communities rely on these resources for their livelihoods. But British Columbia will never compete head to head in digging dirt out of the ground with other jurisdictions that don’t internalize the social and environmental externalities that are so important us to. We have to be smarter, more efficient and innovative. In doing so, we’re not only able to sell our resources, but we’re also able to sell the knowledge and value-added products that arise from them.

Rather than adopting a race-for-the-bottom approach to deregulation, we have an incredible opportunity here in British Columbia to integrate our tech sector and our extractive resource industries.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: British Columbia is blessed with a wealth of natural resources, and many communities rely on these resources for their livelihoods. But British Columbia will never compete head to head in digging dirt out of the ground with other jurisdictions that don’t internalize the social and environmental externalities that are so important us to. We have to be smarter, more efficient and innovative. In doing so, we’re not only able to sell our resources, but we’re also able to sell the knowledge and value-added products that arise from them.

Rather than adopting a race-for-the-bottom approach to deregulation, we have an incredible opportunity here in British Columbia to integrate our tech sector and our extractive resource industries. B.C.-based companies like MineSense, a company that creates digital mining technology, exemplifies such innovation.

To the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Partnering our resource industries with B.C. innovation is an easy choice with obvious returns. What is this minister doing to encourage these partnerships?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I share the member’s optimism about the power of technological discovery and innovation to transform very traditional resource industries. And in fact, that’s what we’re doing by appointing the innovation commissioner and expanding the mandate of Innovate B.C. to support emerging technologies that will assist in transforming our resource industries.

MineSense is a very good example that illustrates the point, I think, extremely effectively. MineSense is a company which won an award as one of the world’s top-100 new clean-tech companies. What is does is it’s a technology which assists in sorting mining ore through a sensor system, which makes the process more efficient and therefore more profitable, but it also reduces the use of water, reagents and other aspects of the mining process, and it reduces CO2 emissions, therefore making the entire process more energy-efficient and, in effect, greener.

That’s the kind of transformation that’s coming about in the sector, and that’s what the innovation commissioner and the innovation commission are setting out to continue and to enhance, building future prosperity here in British Columbia.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: For far too long, government has ignored the potential for innovation within the resource sector. A race-for-the-bottom approach to resource extraction may benefit a few corporate elite, but it’s not in the best interest of communities across our province struggling to attract and retain well-paying, long-term jobs.

It’s not our raw resources that can be profitable in the global markets; it’s our innovation too. Rimex, for example, is a B.C-based company that designs and manufactures innovative, cutting-edge industrial tires. Their products are efficient and reduce risk, and they’re also a prime example of B.C. innovation that’s gone global. The manufacturing base and corporate headquarters for Rimex are both located in the Lower Mainland, and there are over 200 Rimex employees in British Columbia.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is this: what is the minister doing to foster the growth of B.C. mining sector innovation in this global marketplace?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Again, I thank the member for the question. The government, the Minister of Energy and Mines, has appointed a mining task force, and those issues that the member raises are precisely some of the issues that that task force will raise — how to integrate British Columbia’s leading innovation and technology sector with the traditional resource industries in order to make sure that they can compete globally.

Another example of a B.C. company that is transforming the mining sector is LlamaZOO, which by using data analytics and visualization technology, enables those proposing a mine to create a digital double of the mine and to plan the extraction of the ore in a more efficient way. That technology has attracted wide interest in the mining sector, and that company is, understandably, doing very well.

That’s just one example of what innovation and the support that’s given to it by the government of British Columbia will do to transform the mining sector and enable it to continue to be a world-leading sector here in British Columbia.

Today in the Legislature I rose to pay tribute to Elliot Eurchuk, a former constituent, who tragically died from an accidental overdose of opioids at just 16 years of age.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the short tribute.

Video of Tribute

Text of Tribute

A. Weaver: Today I rise with profound sadness to convey my deepest sympathies to the family of Elliot Cleveland Eurchuk, who tragically passed away on Friday, April 20, from an accidental overdose of opioids at just 16 years of age.

Elliot and his family are constituents, and Elliot was a grade 11 student at Oak Bay High School. He loved sports, hiking, books and hoped to study medicine in the future. He was known for his wit, humour and profound kindness.

I cannot imagine the grief his family and friends are experiencing. His school and our collective community are grieving together with his family.

His parents, Rachel Staples and Brock Eurchuk — Brock, a longtime friend of mine, who I graduated from high school with — have bravely spoken out to tell their story and warn other youth and parents about the danger of prescription opioids.

Every day in British Columbia we are losing youth in our communities. The B.C. Coroners Service reports that the number of overdose deaths among ten- to 18-year-olds almost doubled, from 12 in 2016 to 23 in 2017. One life lost is truly heartbreaking, yet the scale of this emergency could hardly be articulated in a way that respects and reflects the grief felt around B.C.

To Elliot’s parents and family, please accept my sincere condolences for your tragic loss. I’m sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in this chamber when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with you at these difficult times.

Right after question period on Thursday of this week, the MLA for Abbotsford West (and the former House Leader when the BC Liberals were in Government) rose, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to seek leave from the Speaker to “make a motion for the adjournment of the House … for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance … “.

In his statement, the MLA for Abbotsford West argued that it was urgent to discuss:

“the necessity, advisability, and consequences of referring to the Court of Appeal the question of British Columbia’s ability to regulate or limit the transportation of energy products on federally approved and regulated pipelines and rail lines“.

During the 40^th Parliament (prior to the May 2017 election) I stood three times pursuant to Standing Order 35 seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance (all of them occurred in 2015).

The first sought a debate on whether or not in light of a preponderance of recent weather extremes, and in the lead up to an upcoming United Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris,  we, as legislators, were acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change in British Columbia.

The second sought a debate on the recent failure of the contaminated soil site stormwater containment and clarification system at the South Island Aggregates — Cobble Hill Holdings — South Island Resource Management operations near Shawnigan Lake.

The third sought a debate on an economic backup plan for British Columbia given the  collapse of this government’s strategy on LNG and the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy.

In all cases the Government House Leader (now the MLA for Abbotsford West) spoke against the need for such debates. As he pointed out,

“It is the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the matter itself”

that is important.

Both the Government House Leader (Mike Farnworth) and I spoke against the need for the present emergency debate. The reason of course is that the issue had been extensively canvassed in Question Period and Budget Estimate debates. Below I reproduce the video and text of my rationale.

Video of my remarks

Text of my remarks

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the application for Standing Order 35. We were informed of this about a minute ago when this was put on our desk, so we’ve had a quick caucus meeting here.

I will suggest that I do have a lot of sympathy for the arguments brought forward by the Government House Leader.

I will also remind you of precedent. In the previous government, I rose pursuant to Standing Order 35 and I pointed out that it was critical at that juncture for the House here to have a debate on the issue of climate change in the lead-up to the Paris agreement, because government was deliberating on what it was going to do there. And both sides of the House, at that time, suggested that the urgency test had not been met.

I have been talking about the issue of Kinder Morgan for five, six years now. I would argue that the urgency test is not met either, in light of the fact that I listened to estimates, in light of the fact that I’ve been here in this chamber for the last number of weeks and there has been time after time after time where this has been debated. Some of the motions in private members’ time, some of the statements, are on this topic. We’ve had ample opportunity to discuss this.

Again, I come back to the precedent. I come back to the application of Standing Order 35 in the last parliament, when I rose precisely on an issue similar to this and the Speaker at the time ruled that it was not a matter of urgency. I would argue that the parallels are very similar. The argument at the time was that the issue of climate challenge had been debated in question period, it had been debated in estimates, and it had been debated in statements on Monday morning.

The analogy is direct. So our advice, hon. Speaker, as you make your decision, is that we find it difficult to see how this test of urgency is met.