Q&A WITH DAVID EBY,
B.C.’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Eby is juggling several high-priority files under the new NDP administration and sat down with Rob Shaw recently to discuss his roles.
Q On ICBC, you have ruled out moving to a no-fault insurance model, but a recent Ernst & Young report focused on a hybrid idea of capping claims. Are we heading in that direction?
A The problem has been the corporation has failed at front-line response of really major claims to the point that people more and more often are hiring lawyers. So if you roll into ICBC and say the problem is the lawyers, you are cutting off the one avenue people have had to get the rehabilitation and support that they need. So that’s why no-fault is really off the table for me.
There are a number of recommendations in the Ernst & Young report around capping damages, capping pain and suffering related to soft-tissue injuries. We’re looking at those and studying the numbers to make sure they are accurate and we’re also looking at proposals outside the Ernst & Young report.
But one thing is certain, we won’t allow 20-30 per cent rate increases for British Columbians in the next three years.
Q You’ve said no to photo radar, but what about using red-light cameras as speed cameras or other speed technology?
A What’s key to me is the fairness principle that bad drivers who are breaking the rules are held accountable for that and pay higher rates and have tickets they pay. The challenge with photo radar is that it doesn’t necessarily mean the person who has been speeding is the person who has been identified who gets the ticket and higher rates and so on.
I think there’s a real opportunity around the red-light cameras to reduce collisions at intersections. I think the report recommended having them on 24 hours a day, so that is something that’s definitely on our list.
Q What is the top file on your desk right now?
A It’s hard to describe a top file when there are files as critical as ICBC’s financial solvency, the future of the electoral system in B.C. and the Kinder Morgan pipeline litigation. There are a lot of files that are critically important and then really important files that don’t get the same attention like the interaction between First Nations in B.C. and our justice system. So there’s a lot of high-priority files. And we’re doing them all at once, which is both thrilling and definitely challenging.
Q What’s the learning curve for you as AG?
A There’s a real advantage in having gone through law school and reading a huge amount of information and retaining at least some of it. Because the binders are huge and there’s a lot of reading. There’s a really sharp learning curve and I do have an advantage in being in not just law, but public policy issues around law for a while. And a couple of files — liquor and gaming — fortunately I was the critic on those and am starting with a fairly significant base of knowledge, which is helpful because they are complex files and it would be pretty major to start from zero.
Q On campaign finance reform, can you clarify if the bill comes in during this fall session of legislature, will it be retroactive?
A We’re looking at retroactivity in terms of donations that have been accepted after the last election that would be in violation of the new limits in the bill and how that money could possibly be used.
Q Could your own party have to retroactively refund donations, like the recent NDP leader’s golf tournament at Bear Mountain, if it’s over the limit?
A The retroactivity principle is meant to address the concerns that have been raised that you are not getting the big money out of politics if the bill is delayed or takes a little while longer to get it passed. So we’re looking at limiting the uses of donations accepted after the date. So it’s a question that we’re engaged with Elections B.C. around in terms of enforceability and the sort of pragmatic reality of traceability for different parties.
Q Lobbying reform, what’s that going to look like?
A There’s some recommendations from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists they’d like to see implemented and also what we’re aiming for is a broader definition of who is restricted in lobbying and from how long they are restricted in lobbying after they leave public office. The issue of course is there’s people with inside knowledge when they leave public office and have an unfair advantage when they transition to attempting to influence government and we want to restrict that.