Speech - June 14th, 2002

 Bill No. 57 - The Automobile Accident Insurance Amendment Act

Mr. Wall: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise today and participate in the second reading debate on Bill No. 57 — what most people in the province, or what many people in the province are calling the PIPP (personal injury protection plan)/tort Bill. Of course the two things — one — the PIPP standing for the personal injury protection plan or no-fault insurance and the tort, of course, being the tort system of auto insurance that many provinces continue with today. This is truly a very, very important piece of legislation that has been introduced by the government this session. It literally affects everybody — well almost everybody in the province — everybody certainly that drives, everybody that wants to ensure a vehicle and drive in the province of Saskatchewan; and also motorists that travel through the province, that travel on our highways and byways, it affects them as well. So it is a, it is a very important piece of legislation.

 I think fundamentally what this legislation represents, Mr. Speaker, is a recognition on the part of this government that change was needed; that the no-fault insurance plan that was introduced by the government in 1995 in the province of Saskatchewan was failing the province. The Bill makes that statement in two ways — in two ways. It improves no-fault significantly in terms of the benefits that are available to motorists. That’s the first thing it does. So it’s a recognition of the government — even, even those members on those benches that believe that no-fault insurance is the way to go, they must too also recognize that the no-fault version we had in the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker wasn’t as good as it could be. And so this Bill sets out to improve no-fault as it will exist in the province of Saskatchewan. But it will also set out to give people a choice, to be able to move to the tort system if they so choose with their own personal decision that they’re going to have to make. And we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, why; why has the government changed its mind?

The government was, throughout the no-fault years and even throughout the review year or years, I guess, it kind of . . . the review process got away on the former minister of CIC (Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan), frankly, a little bit. But throughout the review of no-fault and the years heading into that review, the government was pretty intransigent that what they were doing was the right thing to do; that even the opposition within their own caucus by as prominent of people as the Minister of Finance currently — at the time not a minister but currently the Minister of Finance — a very prominent member of the NDP caucus, was pretty clear about his opposition to no-fault insurance, to NDP-style no-fault insurance as it was brought into the province in 1995. So much so, Mr. Speaker, that he wrote his own internal proposal to the NDP caucus. He drafted a memo. He made an argument, Mr. Speaker, against — against — the NDP’s plan to move into no-fault insurance. And of course, that memo has now . . . is now part of the public record. It has been leaked. It has been leaked to the media and we’ve certainly seen copies of it, and I’m sure you have too, Mr. Speaker. And the members that have seen it will know that it provides a very detailed, and I think, salient argument against the government of the day proceeding with the implementation of PIPP or no-fault insurance as it was first constituted and developed in the province of Saskatchewan. It was his position then — and ours now notably, Mr. Speaker, it’s ours now — that we could achieve the benefits to the tort system we want, the affordability of the tort system that we want without depriving people’s ability to sue, their access to the courts by moving to no-fault insurance. But the government of the day ignored the advice that it was receiving — at least from one MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) that we know of and maybe others — they ignored that advice and they implemented a no-fault system.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, people, people like Ralph Nader — who is well-known across this continent and arguably around the world for being a consumer advocate — other consumer groups, legal groups, and those who fight against no-fault insurance identified the no-fault system that they introduced in ’95 as the most restrictive, the most draconian, in North America, Mr. Speaker. In North America. They said that the jurisdiction, this province of Saskatchewan here, our version of no-fault was so restrictive in terms of limiting the rights of people that it was worse than any other no-fault system in that regard, in any other jurisdiction in North America, because it deprived people even of the right to sue a third party for some clear negligent act or omission of an act that had caused somebody harm. Very few, if any, other no-fault systems go that far. Their no-fault system, the NDP style of no-fault, Mr. Speaker, protected the rights of the criminally negligent in terms of vehicular crimes ahead of the rights of the victims, of accident victims. The same was true, Mr. Speaker, the same was true for impaired drivers. If someone was an impaired driver and got involved in an accident and caused somebody bodily harm, the NDP were more than happy to stand by while the victim was deprived, deprived of any right, any access to the courts to gain compensation for pain and suffering. They would even protect the rights of impaired drivers and those who are criminally negligent in some vehicular incident than they were . . . they were more worried about their rights than they were about the rights of the victim. They didn’t step in right away though, Mr. Speaker, the government didn’t. The government stuck to its party line. It said we’re going to give this five years. We’re going to give it five years. Never mind how many people’s rights are trampled on. Never mind how many people’s fundamental right to some compensation for harm done to them by someone involved in a criminal act. No matter that. We’re going to stick to this until the five-year period has run out — an arbitrary number picked by the government of the day. And then a review was going to take place. We’re going to conduct a review, an independent review, they promised.

And, Mr. Speaker, the review did occur of course in 2000, and there were all manner of troubles and problems that the government had with that. The minister had been interfering in the review process. In fact he had been interfering specifically with the chairman, the first chairman of that review process. And the chairman had enough of it; the chairman quit. The chairman didn’t want any more to do with this government’s supposed arm’s length review of the no fault system, Mr. Speaker. And so he quit the process. But the review continued anyway, Mr. Speaker, and it made several recommendations that basically gathered dust, because we understand that there was this great internal debate and squabble and wrangle within the NDP caucus about whether they would stick with no-fault insurance as it was, whether they would improve it as the review had recommended or make changes as the review had recommended, or whether they would scrap it in favour of something that would return us to a tort system. And we know, Mr. Speaker, and we understand, that the province waited and victims’ rights were denied for so many months because this caucus, this NDP government that in so many instances we’ve seen even in the last couple of weeks have clearly demonstrated their inability to govern, this same caucus couldn’t get their act together. They were wrangling and they were arguing and they were fighting over the kind of insurance system we should offer. Meanwhile we were stuck with a most archaic and draconian no-fault insurance you can find anywhere in North America. I think, Mr. Speaker . . . I think, Mr. Speaker, that they knew the current — that no-fault system — the current no-fault system was wrong. I think they knew it. I think more than the Minister of Finance knew it. The Minister of Finance clearly knew it well before they even introduced no-fault insurance, but I think many MLAs across the way understood fundamentally that the no-fault system, even for those MLAs across the way that still thought that no-fault was a good idea, I think some of them understood that this particular style of no-fault insurance was so draconian, Mr. Speaker . . .

(continued) Mr. Wall: — So what we know, Mr. Speaker, today is that there was not complete unanimity within the NDP caucus from the beginning of the no-fault process that this was the right thing to do. We know that because the then — well the Minister for Finance currently, he wasn’t a minister of the Crown at the time — but the Minister of Finance was very unequivocal in his belief that they could achieve a better insurance system for the people of the province without moving to a no fault system. We understand that there remained a debate within the organization opposite, as there was across the province, throughout the five intervening years that we could achieve some other, some other system, or at least some substantive improvements to no-fault insurance. And so I noted with interest the minister’s second reading speech, Mr. Speaker, where he clearly highlighted how this government believed that the existing no-fault system wasn’t serving the province. So even with this new choice Bill, that allows people to move away and move to the tort system, even with that they’ve made some significant improvements to no-fault, not the least of which, Mr. Speaker, relates to the impaired drivers, as I mentioned. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, it’s going to give an injured person the right to sue an at-fault and convicted impaired driver for pain and suffering. And the government is to be applauded for that change. The government is also to be challenged, Mr. Speaker, as to why it took seven years for them to make that fundamental improvement. Why in the world would it take seven years for a  government to realize how unfair it is to deprive a victim of the right to access some remedy in the courts after they’ve been injured by someone who’s been criminally negligent or an impaired driver? In addition, Mr. Speaker, the minister went on to note that an injured person will now have the right to sue for pain and suffering in cases where the driver is convicted of using their vehicle to deliberately harm the injured person. And that’s a good change, Mr. Speaker. We understand the rationale for that change, but it again begs the question: why would it take seven years — seven years, Mr. Speaker — for the government to realize . . .

Mr. Wall: — The change that the minister referred to in his second reading speech, these two changes — and certainly there’s more than that — but these two changes: one that allows people to sue if they’ve been harmed by a drunk driver; the other that they have the right now to sue for pain and suffering where the driver is convicted of using the vehicle to deliberately harm or injure a person, are positive changes, Mr. Speaker. But why in the world would it take any government, regardless of its stripe . . . why would it take any government seven years to recognize how fundamentally wrong that is? Seven years it took for them to make the realization. And I guess some would say, well better late than never. But I think that would be cold comfort for the people in those intervening seven years that have had their rights denied because this government didn’t make the change that they knew they should make earlier in the process. I think it would be cold comfort to those victims, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there’s also a change in this Bill with respect to the no-fault part of the insurance plan that allows . . . it allows people the right to sue: . . . for pain and suffering against certain institutional third parties whose negligence contributes to a crash. And I’m quoting from the minister. And that too is a positive change. And that too begs a question. Seven years have passed. Why did it take till now to make that change? I think this is the element of the no-fault program that Mr. Nader himself was most shocked at, I believe. That’s my recollection. And my recollection is imperfect as you know, Mr. Speaker. But that’s my recollection. That’s what he was most concerned about; that was perhaps more draconian, more restrictive than any other no-fault jurisdiction in the world. That if some third party, a manufacturer perhaps, was blatantly and negligent . . . negligently responsible for an accident occurring and harming somebody, that there was no remedy in the courts; that that person could seek no pain and suffering and go before the court and make their case and win or lose, but at least the chance to make their case.  So, Mr. Speaker, this seeks to change that portion of the no-fault program. And I guess that’s a positive step, albeit seven years too late for many, many people in the province of Saskatchewan. Now, Mr. Speaker, the . . . SGI and Saskatchewan Justice, the minister noted in his speech, are also going to be working with . . . working to develop a new appeal system where the injured will have some right to access — this is even under the no-fault portion of the Bill, Mr. Speaker — will have some access to the courts, either some sort of an independent, sort of quasi-judicial, panel or Court of Queen’s Bench. And that too we think is a reasonable thing.

But more substantively perhaps in this Bill, the government has sought to give people a choice. They can either choose the improved no-fault insurance, as it will be improved by this particular Bill 57, or they can move to a tort system.  But, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to note that the tort system they’ll be moving to is also greatly improved in terms of the no-fault benefits it offers than the no-fault . . . or than the tort system that existed prior to 1995 in the province of Saskatchewan. And the reason it is improved is that the government has adopted the premier option, something that’s referred to as the premier option in Saskatchewan. And it’s referred as the premier option, Mr. Speaker, because that is the name given it by its authors, the Coalition Against No-Fault here in the province. The coalition worked very closely with accountants and with the Law Society and with different consulting firms to develop an alternative to no-fault insurance that they could credibly propose to the government, to the opposition, and to the public, and say look, we don’t need no-fault insurance. We don’t need it because we can improve the no-fault benefits available in a tort system and we can restore people’s rights to the courts. We can give them back their legal access to remedy. That was the case they made with the premier option and the work that they did. And they made that presentation to the opposition, as they did to the government, and as they did to the entire province. And they answered questions, Mr. Speaker, that we had of them. And I’m sure they answered questions that members opposite had of them about that program and about that plan. And they answered questions that the media and the public had of them about their plan. And it must have stood the test, Mr. Speaker. It must have been able to stand the light of day because it is that very premier option that is going to be the choice given Saskatchewan drivers by this government. This government is going to be saying, if this Bill is passed, they’re going to be saying look, you can choose between a no-fault program that’s improved in terms of some benefits and some rights to sue, some rights . . . some new access to the courts, and you will be able to also choose a tort system that’s improved. That tort system they’re talking about, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, is the premier option.

And I think members of the House will remember that last year about this time, as the critic for SGI, I stood in this House and asked questions of the minister and we sent out a press release and indicated what our position would be — knowing, Mr. Speaker, it wouldn’t be enough to simply criticize no-fault, knowing that we would have to develop our own plan. And we too looked at the premier option and we engaged some outside advice, Mr. Speaker, and we worked very hard with the coalition. And within our own caucus we had a debate and a discussion and we announced, Mr. Speaker, about a year ago that we would, as government, proceed with the premier option or what we were calling the modified premier option. We would make some changes. We wanted to ensure completely that it was as affordable a system as possible, that people’s rates would not go up because we went this direction. And so we made a change to the premier option. In the premier option, Mr. Speaker, there is a $5,000 deductible for pain and suffering. In other words, if someone wants to sue for pain and suffering under that system, they’re going to have to be prepared to live with a $5,000 deductible, the thought being that many of the pain and suffering claims that are made are relatively small in nature, under $10,000, but taken in an aggregate they account for a huge cost to the auto insurers — these small pain and suffering claims. And so the premier option set out to give a $5,000 deductible that people would have to incur before they proceeded or before they were able to receive their . . . the receipts of the decision in the courts. We wanted to increase that, Mr. Speaker, and we increased that deductible to a level that we thought would even further ensure the success of the tort system of the premier option. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the other change that we made was to exempt municipalities from lawsuit unless they were grossly negligent. And, Mr. Speaker, we checked into this as well. We wanted to make sure we did our homework as best as possible with the resources we had. And it was confirmed for us that there is a precedent, even in Saskatchewan statute, for being able to define this — what grossly negligent might be. And so with that comfort, we went ahead and said look, one other change we’d make to the premier option is that we would exempt municipalities — rural and urban — unless there was an indication of gross negligence, and then injured people could make their . . . could have their day in court, if that was their choice. And so that’s the position of the Saskatchewan Party.

And that’s the filter through which we’re looking at this Bill, at Bill 57. And it’s interesting to note because you know, what I think this Bill represents, it’s . . . this is a government, and certainly a minister, that prefers PIPP. The minister’s made no bones about it, that he prefers the no-fault insurance program. The president of SGI says he thinks no-fault’s better for the province. And I don’t know how many people on the benches over there agree with that, but clearly the lead minister and the president of the company, they like no fault. Fair enough. We asked them in committee well, why would you recommend that there be a choice system if you feel, if you’re convicted — this was to the president, Mr. Speaker — if you feel convicted that no-fault is the right way to go, why don’t you make your improvements to no-fault? Why would you recommend choice? Did you recommend it? He said, well, we listed all the alternatives to the government and the government chose the alternatives led by the minister. But the minister said that he also prefers no-fault. So that makes us wonder, well why are we now debating a Bill that provides choice, that does both? Was it driven politically, Mr. Speaker? The government was taking a lot of heat from the Coalition Against No-Fault, from the victims of no-fault, from the families of no-fault. There may have been some discord within their caucus.

And so they’ve come up with this choice system. And the question a lot of people have, Mr. Speaker — because we will be the first to have it — the question a lot of people have, the earnest question they have is, is it going to work? Can it work? Can you have your cake and eat it too, with respect to auto insurance? We’re not sure that you can. We’re not sure that you can. The Law Society is working on studying this. We’re interested to see what they think of the workability of the plan.  I’ve talked to insurance companies that are very concerned about this. Is it workable? Is it worth sort of trying to figure out . . . to stay in the province and try to figure out? I mean these are all very, very important questions. Because on any public policy initiative, you’d like to be able to give the people their cake and let them eat it too. But you know the nature of government is choices and you make those choices not because you want to sometimes, Mr. Speaker, but because you’re the government and you have to. And that particular debate or discussion needs to happen with respect to this Bill, is we have to be sure that this will work — that it will be workable for our brokers in this province, that it will be workable for SGI itself, that it’ll be workable for other insurers in the province of Saskatchewan, that it’ll be workable for municipalities. We need to make sure that’s the case. And that is what we intend to do in this debate, Mr. Speaker. Other members of my caucus are . . . of our caucus, my colleagues, are going to want to speak to this Bill, Mr. Speaker. And they want to do that during second reading. And then it’s going to get to committee and it . . . We just want to serve notice to the minister that we will have very many questions about this particular Bill and its workability, and how sure we will be, and what are some exit strategies. If it isn’t working, Mr. Speaker, if it’s letting motorists down, if it’s resulting in rate fluctuations, how are we going to deal with that as a province. We’re going to need to talk a little bit about that. We’re going to need to talk about how, have we done enough to exempt brokers from liability in this. Let’s recall . . . Let’s remember that most of us are going to go to our brokers and rely on their advice as to which system to use. I will be. We have excellent insurance brokers in Swift Current, Mr. Speaker, and I’m going to be relying on their advice. And I know that they’re pleased that the government, that SGI has committed to help provide some training. And I guess I’m pleased about that too and we are — as the critic — and we’re pleased as an opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that SGI follows up on their word because, frankly, they’ve been a little suspect in that lately. They’ve been letting people down lately in terms of their promises to Saskatchewan people made either through the minister there, Mr. Speaker, or through their Crown president. And so we are a little worried about that. We’re a little worried about what will happen with the brokers and we want to be conscious of the fact that they have . . . they’re . . . they’ve committed to do the best job they can. And SGI’s committed to help them do that and we want to hold SGI to that. So these are the kinds of things that we want to talk about in second reading debate as well as in committee. But I know that many members on this side of the House wish to speak to this Bill, and so at this time, Mr. Speaker, I’d move that we adjourn debate. Debate adjourned.