British Columbia Hansard — 7 July 2020, a.m., Issue 334 (41st Parliament, 5th Session)

20200707am-Hansard-n334

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Morning Sitting Issue No. 334 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance ...........................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services...........................................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Senior Research Analyst ...................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)...........................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP).......................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)........................................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen...................................................................... Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds................................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ..............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ......................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Morning Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11861 Kim Manton Hon. C. James Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 11861 North Shore seniors care facilities and COVID-19 outbreaks J. Thornthwaite Surrey community response to COVID-19 J. Sims Tourism in Cariboo-Chilcotin D.

Barnett Small businesses and farmers markets in Esquimalt-Metchosin M. Dean Jim Ashworth D. Clovechok Nanaimo schools and education system during COVID-19 S. Malcolmson Oral Questions....................................................................................................................................................................... 11863 Government support for tourism industry A. Wilkinson Hon. J. Horgan M. Stilwell Hon. L. Beare Funding for youth community partnership program S. Furstenau Hon. M. Mark Strata insurance cost increases T. Stone Hon. S. Robinson M. Polak M. de Jong Orders of the Day

Schedule of Estimates ........................................................................................................................................................... 11869 Hon. M. Farnworth Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 11869 Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act (continued) Hon. D. Eby Bill 9 — Evidence Amendment Act, 2020 (continued) Hon. D. Eby M. Lee

TUESDAY , JULY 7, 2020 The House met at 10:04 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers and reflections: L. Throness. [10:05 a.m.] Tributes KIM MANTON Hon. C. James: I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an extraordinary woman; an extraordinary citizen; an extraordinary sister, daughter, aunt, citizen, labour organ- izer, colleague, rebel rouser, political activist and friend. Kim Manton passed away at her home on June 26, sur- rounded by her family, after a two-year journey with ovari- an cancer. Y ou often hear people described as having a sunny dis- position.

Well, Kim Manton was the sunshine. It didn’t matter how large or small the gathering was. Kim would be there with her enthusiasm, her passion, her energy and, usually, a few sparkles, some rainbows and unicorns thrown in to make sure everyone knew how excited she was. She really was larger than life in everything she did. Just being around Kim made you want to work harder, do more, reach even further to be able to make this world a better place. She cared deeply about social justice and showed that every day in her life and her work with CUPE, the Victoria Labour Council, the B.C.

Federation of Labour, the NDP , the United Way, our caucus and all of the many causes that she took on. She loved her garden. She loved sitting in her garden and having a glass of wine. She loved her hometown of Port Alberni. She loved her cats. She loved her family. She loved her friends. She took great joy in the small and the large things in life. All of us will remember her excitement when she and her dad went out to pick up her ride-on lawn mower. Everyone heard about it, and that was just Kim. She’s left us much too soon. But we’re all better people hav- ing had Kim Manton in our lives.

I want to close with Kim’s last words to all of us. She said: “Be kind, or I’m going to come back and haunt you. ” And that would be Kim. A life incredibly well lived, gone too soon. We love you, Kim. Statements (Standing Order 25B) NORTH SHORE SENIORS CARE FACILITIES AND COVID-19 OUTBREAKS J. Thornthwaite: The North Shore has been devastat- ingly hard hit from the beginning of the COVID-19 out- break in Canada. Care homes in my community were not only some of the first impacted, but the first COVID-19 death in Canada was also, sadly, at the Lynn Valley care home.

Today I would like to dedicate my two-minute state- ment to all those who’ve lost their lives to COVID. My thoughts are with their families. It was heartbreaking to hear, day after day, Dr. Bonnie Henry’s daily updates that our community was facing such a challenge in fighting COVID. I’m deeply saddened by the deaths, and my thoughts remain with the loved ones and care aides who looked after those elderly patients. [10:10 a.m.] I received many emails and calls from frantic loved ones who were worried that the care of their elderly relative was not being adequately addressed.

Communication between the family members and the facilities had broken down, and not enough staff…. In some instances, at the begin- ning of the pandemic, some staff not showing up because they feared for their own health. I thank the brave staff who continued to care for these residents during the height of the pandemic, even though they were worried about their own health. They, too, are our health care heroes. Thankfully, the outbreaks are now over, but family members were still prevented from seeing their loved ones until very recently. Some died without them by their side.

Our party has requested an independent review to bet- ter inform regulators on the physical, medical and staffing requirements that were lacking and likely contributed to the transmission of the virus throughout these homes. A complete review of the funding model for seniors care is needed. It also must include home care as well as residen- tial and medical care. It is evident we need a better human resources strategy to meet the growing need for seniors care. For sure, we need structural changes, because four people sharing a room and a bathroom clearly speeds up transmission.

If there is a silver lining in this crisis, Mr. Speaker, it is that finally the needs and the care of our seniors will be given the attention they deserve moving forward to not only prevent another crisis but to improve the lives and care of our most valuable and vulnerable citizens. SURREY COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO COVID-19 J. Sims: The COVID-19 pandemic has definitely 11861

changed the way we work, the way we play, the way we learn and the way we live and interact with each other. This has afforded challenges — absolutely — but also some amazing opportunities. I have seen British Columbians in every corner of the province step forward and support each other, the good- ness that has welled out. It has been across cultures, across ethnicities and across socioeconomic barriers. Today I want to talk about a few of these. The Surrey Crime Prevention Society has been con- tinuing to provide and promote community safety throughout the city.

Their volunteers have been doing an amazing job of making sure safety is paramount during these difficult times. South Fraser Search and Rescue, in my riding, although it is tougher to remain physically distant during opera- tions, continues to respond to rescue missions and is help- ing those in need. Of course, we can’t forget the Surrey and BC SPCA, who have been working with a skeleton crew of staff and volun- teers while still caring for hundreds of animals, conducting animal cruelty investigations as well as dealing with large numbers of adoptions.

A shout-out to Tong Louie and the Greater Vancouver YMCA, who have provided free virtual activities for both the mind and the body for all age groups. They have launched YCamp to keep kids active and engaged during the summer. Farmers and farmworkers. Last but not least — I could go on — I really want to do a shout-out to the funeral homes: Valley View Funeral Home, Riverside Funeral Home and others. They, during these very challenging times, held our hands as we exper- ienced the ultimate losses that were experienced by many.

I know when I lost my mother, Valley View Funeral Home held our hand and guided us through the process during very, very challenging times. Thank you to every British Columbian who has stepped forward to be kind and to be supportive because that’s who we are. TOURISM IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN D. Barnett: Tourism in the Cariboo-Chilcotin is a large part of our economic well-being in the region. Virtually every sector of the local economy benefits from tourism. Rodeos, stampedes, music festivals, antique car shows and garlic festivals are just a few attractions that bring tourism dollars to our region.

So, too, are fishing on our many lakes, hiking, camping, biking or simply taking a breather. All activities benefit our region. Highway 97, Highway 20 and Highway 24 are quite often regarded as highways of gold because of the income they bring to many guide-outfitters, tour operators and the hospitality industry. Access to tourism is conducted through these highways. When one is closed, it has a sig- nificant economic impact. [10:15 a.m.] Natural disasters such as floods and wildfires, since 2017, have been the cause of many shutdowns and busi- ness failures. However, our highway crews are fabulous at their jobs.

Within a short period of time, the roads are quickly opened to allow for local traffic and the important visitors to the region. As a result of the pandemic, British Columbians are being asked to see their own province and to travel to places they have never been before. As an MLA from rural British Columbia, I understand the fears of remote communities in welcoming visitors from the outside regions. Thanks to the work of Dr. Bon- nie Henry, British Columbia is one of the safest jurisdic- tions in the world. It is time to get started on rebuilding our economy.

That means all highways, including Highway 20, must be open to benefit the whole region. It is hoped by many that the government will ensure this highway is accessible to all before it is too late for many families. SMALL BUSINESSES AND FARMERS MARKETS IN ESQUIMALT-METCHOSIN M. Dean: Where do you find the best doughnuts in Vic- toria? Esquimalt, at Guido’s Cafeé. I visited them recently. They’ve adapted their business model, have kept open safely and have so far survived COVID-19.

I picked up some freshly roasted coffee beans at the Esquimalt Roasting Co. and heard how they had managed to build business, important for a new company in such precarious times. Also in Esquimalt is the weekly farmers market. Anoth- er “best of ” winner, it was the first to open during the pan- demic, following all the protocols and creating a wonder- ful environment for local vendors and customers to sup- port each other. The Metchosin market opened later, with just as much success. The lineup was long, and people were very patient, waiting for their turn to buy local produce.

Farmers in Metchosin had already been finding ways to open farm stands. I was able to get our seeds for the garden in time to sow, ready for the summer. Anoth- er stand in Metchosin pivoted to making face masks. Thanks to Charmaine Welch, our local Fudge Fairy, for making handpicked designs and ten-year-old-sized masks for my daughter. Across Esquimalt-Metchosin, businesses and customers have been adapting. Penny, a View Royal winemaker, has been working long hours to keep her business open and safe. Royal Bay Bakery in Colwood often has lines outside as customers keep distant while also bringing business.

And watch out for the Songhees Nation food truck. I’m proud to support the businesses in our community and thank everyone for choosing to shop locally and safely. 11862 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

JIM ASHWORTH D. Clovechok: I’m honoured to rise here today in this House to recognize a man who is truly an inspiration and who, back home, we think is a national treasure. That’s 101-year-young Jim Ashworth. Jim was born in Cranbrook on April 13, 1919, and spent his formative years growing up in Invermere. Jim joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1941, where he received his flight training in Claresholm, Alberta, and then shipped off to Britain to become a fighter pilot. When Jim arrived, the RAF wanted him to become a flight instructor, which he felt was not in the cards for him.

He conveniently failed the instructor’s course several times and was finally sent to where he wanted to be. That was an advanced flying unit. From January 1943 to June 1944, he flew over 50 combat missions in his Hurricane fighter over Southeast Asia with the RAF No. 20 Squadron. He unfortunately ended up contracting malaria and then dengue fever, which resulted in his return to Canada. Jim is one of the oldest surviving recipients of the Burma Star Medal, which was presented to those who served in military operations during the Burma campaign.

Jim called me one morning and told me that he was inspired by his comrades-in-arms, Capt. Tom Moore of England and John Hillman of Victoria, both Burma Star recipients. It came as no surprise to me that Jim wanted to get into the COVID-19 fight and do what he could, saying: “There are not many Burma Star people left, and I decided to become the third one to get into this initiative by doing something here in our valley. ” I was proud to be able to set him up with the Columbia Valley Food Bank for what was next to come. Jim picked the goal of walking 101 blocks, targeting $1,000 per block.

To accomplish this, he decided he would walk four blocks a day from his home in Invermere, where he and his wife still live, to the Columbia Valley gardens, right near the hospital. His goal was to be done by July 5. Well, he beat it and completed his 101 blocks on June 6, which was a suit- able D-Day event. [10:20 a.m.] Jim then pulled a Forrest Gump. He’s still walking, and today he’s closing in on 200 blocks. As one of the reasons he continued, he cited: “I have to maintain my waistline. ” To date, Jim has raised almost $36,000.

Will this House join me in congratulating and thanking Jim for his continued service right here on our home front in the COVID-19 battle that we are winning so far. Thanks, Jim. NANAIMO SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION SYSTEM DURING COVID-19 S. Malcolmson: Exceptional school work in Nanaimo got us through a school year like no other. Teachers worked long hours making sure that students had a safe place to learn, essential service workers’ children were taken care of and children who stayed home weren’t left out.

Admin and tech staff juggled completely new ways of teaching and scheduling, and school workers took on new levels of cleaning and safety. Special thanks to CUPE 606 here. Parents stepped up in exceptional ways, and students rose to every challenge, including students from Dover Bay, who I didn’t mention yesterday when I was giving a shout-out to all of the high school grads. Board chair Charlene McKay saluted school district 68’s five community school workers, who have made 100,000 meals for students during this time.

They’re keeping break- fast and lunch hampers running through the summer, partnering with Nanaimo-Ladysmith Schools Foundation. McKay said this will support students through the summer months, which is something new compared to other years. The need is high in our region, so school district 68 staff will be supporting those efforts. Denise Wood, who’s president of the Nanaimo District Teachers Association, described grade 7 students trans- itioning to high school being celebrated in new ways. They received virtual tours of their high schools instead of the usual visits.

Grade 12 grad ceremonies took hours of plan- ning and many, many hours to execute. At Barsby, grad took two full days, with each student honoured individu- ally with their family in attendance. The same with Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre’s grad cere- mony for Tsawalk students. I was with them on the shores of the creek in Bowen Park. Each of the five grads clustered with their family, each honoured by a team of teachers, principal James Lemmon and Elder Sally Williams over- seeing it all.

Then to finish, president of Vancouver Island University Deb Saucier wrote to every grad in Nanaimo, welcoming them to Vancouver Island University. I hear that there was an uptick in applications as a result. A special shout-out to my friend Leah, who’s going into nursing school in VIU. We need you. Congrats to all the students and the huge team of Nanaimo education workers who made all of the differ- ence at a time when we really needed you to. Thank you. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR TOURISM INDUSTRY A.

Wilkinson: Well, we all know this has been a sum- mer like no other, and the waters of British Columbia have not seen a complete absence of cruise ships probably since World War II. Our hotels often stand nearly empty, and many are still closed. And 130,000 tourism industry workers have lost their jobs. They’re wondering what their future holds. Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11863

They’re anxious, they’re worried, and they’re waiting for a government recovery plan. Unfortunately, the tourism sector was specifically excluded from the Premier’s eco- nomic recovery team. To date, all they’ve seen is a survey to fill out. We heard yesterday that the federal government has announced $46 million in funding for Quebec and Atlantic tourism industry operators. The question obviously comes to the Premier. When is the Premier going to ask for British Columbia’s fair share of $20 million from the federal government to give some faint glimmer of hope to the B.C. tourism industry? Hon. J.

Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Obviously, tourism is a fundamental com- ponent of our economy and has been a stalwart in com- munities right across British Columbia, particularly here in southern Vancouver Island.

As we go into this most extraordinary of summers, as the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly says, what we on this side of the House have done is asked British Columbi- ans to do what they can to move around British Columbia now that we’ve moved to phase 3, a cautious reopening of the economy — which was the desire of the overwhelming number of people we’ve spoken to over the past number of months, including the tourist sector — to make sure that there’s confidence and to make sure that the public feels that they can go safely to destinations with their families and with their friends and that the workers at those places also feel a level of comfort. [10:25 a.m.] Unprecedented support with WorkSafeBC, public health officials and sector-by-sector plans has put us in a position, quite frankly, that’s the envy of Canada.

With respect to the particular of the member’s question — what are we asking from the federal government? — we continue to work every week with the Prime Minister and his team. There is a restart plan in the works, a $14-and- change-billion program that will be for all Canadians across the country. The provinces are, of course, all looking for a greater share of that $14 billion. I stand ready to work with the federal government when they’re prepared to bring their package to British Columbia.

Why we have been successful, Member, and I think we’ d get majority support on this initiative, is because we’ve been collaborative. We have been working with people, whether they be sector by sector, whether they be different orders of government or whether they be with labour or business. The opposition has been of tremendous help so far, and we hope that will continue into the summer. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s cold comfort to the tour bus operator I spoke with two weeks ago whose revenue is down 97 percent since March 15.

It’s cold comfort to the events managers and convention managers I’ve spoken with whose revenue has been zero since March 15. We’ve heard the Premier talk about process, but we don’t see any results. The question arises: how is it that Quebec and Atlantic Canada managed to get their fair share of federal money and the Premier didn’t even bother to include the tourism sector in his economic recovery plan? There are 130,000 people sitting at home wondering if they’ve got a future. Some of them are employees who don’t know whether they’ll have a job to go back to.

Others are tourism operat- ors, because it’s overwhelmingly run by small businesses. They’re running out of money, Premier. This fall there will be thousands of them declaring bankruptcy. The question comes back to the Premier. Has the Pre- mier made the proper overtures to the federal govern- ment to get the kind of support they’re getting in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, or is this yet another opportunity to ignore the tourism industry like he did in his recovery plan? Hon. J. Horgan: I haven’t ignored anything, quite frankly, and I’m offended by the allegation from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I appreciate that this is question period and hyperbole is the order of the day, but everyone in this House is committed to making sure that British Columbians come out of this better off than we went into it. Unprecedented — we all understand that. I appreciate that we will see rhetoric go up and down in this place over the summer months, but we are as committed as anyone in this place to make sure that every industry that was adversely affected has support from this government.

We’ve been working very collaboratively with the fed- eral government time after time, to the point where, against the wishes of some Premiers, the federal govern- ment will be implementing a universal across-Canada sick pay program that will be fully funded by the federal government. That’s an assistance to every business, every worker in this province and, in fact, in this country. It came from collaboration. I hope that there’s going to be more questions on this subject. I know the Minister of Tourism is anxious to get on to this.

She is going to be able to tell you about meetings that are happening at the ministerial level today about these very issues. We are not being negligent, hon. Member. We are pro- tecting the interest of British Columbians. Y ou may have noticed that there are some communities…. Even in the statement from the Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin…. There’s anxiety in communities about people coming. There’s an overwhelming desire to keep the border closed. That’s a challenge for tour operators. There’s no question about that. We’re going to continue working with them. 11864 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

M. Stilwell: This government has had a lack of support for the tourism industry. It’s nothing new. Last year we saw a decline in attendance of the province’s most popular tourism attractions. What did the Minister of Tourism think would be a good idea? She decided to cut the marketing budget that helps support the tourism industry. I’ d like to ask the Minister of Tourism if that money to the marketing Destination B.C. has been restored. Hon. L. Beare: As the members well know, COVID-19 has impacted all British Columbians and all sectors in our economy.

Our government knows and recognizes that the tourism sector has been particularly hard hit. But I really want to remind the opposition that we have flattened our curve here in B.C. due to a really strong, coordinated pro- vincial approach and due to all British Columbians taking Dr. Henry’s advice and recommendations so serious and to heart. [10:30 a.m.] For tourism, we are focusing on response, recovery and resilience, and our government is taking action.

We did provide $5 billion in supports right away, which includes the 19,000 tourism businesses and the 160,000 jobs that people in the tourism industry relied on. We were able to redirect $6 million of Destination B.C. ’s funding to create our domestic marketing campaign. We are speaking with the federal government. I just met with Minister Joly and the western provinces’ tourism ministers last week to discuss ongoing funding and, as the previous member asked, the funding allocated to Quebec and Atlantic Canada. We’re working together moving for- ward.

We’re working with the tourism industry to hear what supports they need as we move towards recovery. We’re going to keep working together, because our government understands the value of tourism here in B.C. We’re going to continue to work with the sector as we move towards recovery. Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental. M. Stilwell: Well, that was a lengthy response with not really a true answer from the minister.

While she contin- ues to delay things, she says that she’s working together and listening to the sector, yet the sector predicts that three out of four tourism jobs could disappear. Today we will have hotel workers on the front lawns of this Legislature who are worried about their future.

Here’s what the tourism operators in the Kootenay region have been saying: “Many businesses are extremely fearful that support, if any, will come after they’ve closed their doors permanently. ” Eleven tourism operators have written to the Premier expressing their concern, express- ing their disappointment about the lack of action from this government. Minister, I believe they have waited long enough. When will the minister unveil a comprehensive plan that provides sector-specific supports for the tourism industry? Hon. L. Beare: Y ou know what?

I’m really happy that the opposition is finally realizing how important the value of tourism is here in B.C. I want to remind the members opposite that it has been almost 2½ years since they’ve posed a question about this vitally important sector here in our province. We are working and listening and hearing the industry’s concerns. That’s why we immediately provided workers and businesses supports. We provided commercial prop- erties up to a 75 percent reduction in rents. We reduced tax bills by an average of 25 percent. We provided workers a $1,000 one-time payment for those workers affected.

We provided $10 million towards 59 B.C. community destina- tion marketing organizations so that they can support the local businesses as we are welcoming guests across B.C. once again. So $400,000 is going to 15 tourism associations — these include farmers markets, ski associations, mountain bik- ing — to ensure that they have health and safety and mar- keting plans. And $130,000 is going to community-owned visitor networks, visitor centres, as part of our visitor ser- vice network to ensure that they have physical distancing and sanitation measures in place.

We have $1.5 million going to smaller CDMOs so that they can work with the sectors and participate in Destination B.C. ’s co-op market- ing program. These are just some of the examples of the work being done to date and how much our government values tour- ism. We know, absolutely know, that there’s more to be done. That’s why we’re continuing to work with the sector. We’re going to continue to identify their priorities as we move towards recovery together with the sector. FUNDING FOR YOUTH COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM S.

Furstenau: As a result of COVID-19 and the sub- sequent economic slowdown, we have seen well over 140,000 young people become unemployed. If we do not immediately address this level of unemployment in our youth, the negative effects personally to those affected and economically to our province will be felt for many years to come. Recently the government announced the creation of 500 green jobs through the youth community partnership pro- gram — a number far too small, but we’ll get to that issue shortly. [10:35 a.m.] First my question is to the Minister of Advanced Edu- cation, Skills and Training.

The government press release Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11865

and subsequent coverage makes it unclear as to the source of the funding for this youth community partnership pro- gram. Could the minister please break down for us how much money for this program came from the federal gov- ernment and how much from the province? Hon. M. Mark: I’ d like to thank the member opposite for the question. Y outh programming is deeply important to me and our government. One of the first things that we did was eliminate and make it free for students to get adult basic education. We launched the first tuition waiver program for former youth in care.

We fund the BladeRun- ners program, which is a provincewide program that helps at-risk young people. We’re deeply committed to having young people enter the trades. We’re working with the Industry Training Authority to get young people in the trades, and 7,000 young people accessed training in pre- apprenticeship programs. The member opposite is asking a question about our workforce development agreement, which was negotiated with the federal government. It was to provide British Col- umbia with the flexibility that we need to be responsive. Just for the record, we are still in the middle of a pan- demic.

We’re in the middle of COVID. We have been plan- ning and working and funding and supporting programs for youth from day one. The announcement that was made last week with my colleague the Minister for Poverty Reduction and Social Development is about partnerships. It’s about building environmental stewardship programs throughout the province, getting young people into the labour market. We have to remember that some of these 15-year-olds are getting their first job. The needs of 27-year-olds might be different.

So the program is really about getting young people out there. “Build back better” are words that we’ve been using — building those trails that people are using throughout our province, building those patios that we want people to be accessing. The member opposite was just talking about tourism and the fact that we’re in the middle of the recovery phase. We’re in the middle of trying to get people back out of their homes and into the jobs, getting that work experience. So I appreciate the question from the member opposite. There’s always more to do.

One of the things that I’m most proud of in Budget 2020 is our B.C. access grant, which is going to support young people to go back to school and get up to $4,000 to train at public post-second- ary institutions. We know that there’s always more to do, but for the time being, we’re going to get through this pandemic together, and we’re going to do it by not leaving young people behind. Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental. S. Furstenau: I recognize and commend the minister for the many programs that she’s itemized. However, that wasn’t the question I asked.

The program that was announced last week, this youth community partnership program, provides 500 jobs. Now, we have a situation where we have over 140,000 youth unemployed in British Columbia, which would mean that 500 jobs would account for less than 1 percent of employ- ment for those youth. However, it is employment in sec- tors that would really help with a recovery to COVID, to the pandemic that the minister speaks of, because it would promote not only economic growth, skills training and job opportunities but also restoration of the environment, which is much needed across the province.

I guess I’ll come back to the original question that I had for the minister. In the announcement, it said that the funding is being provided by Advanced Education, Skills and Training, $2 million, and Ministry of Social Develop- ment and Poverty Reduction, $3 million. However, what it doesn’t identify is how much of that funding came from the federal government and how much from the provincial government.

If it was indeed $5 million from the federal government, I’m wondering about how the province can leverage more of that money by adding funding from the province so that we can see far more jobs created for youth, which are sorely needed. My question, again, is to the Minister of Advanced Edu- cation, Skills and Training. Could the minister tell us how much of that funding came from the federal government and what she will do to leverage that so we get far more than 500 much-needed youth jobs in this province? [10:40 a.m.] Hon. M.

Mark: I guess I would just say to the hon. member that we’re in a very challenging time. It’s not for a lack of people wanting to return to work. We need to make sure that the working conditions are safe. We need to make sure that we are working with the provincial health officer and WorkSafeBC to make sure, again, that the conditions are safe for young people. This isn’t just a program to help 500 young people. Our ministry is helping offer a suite of programs to young people like BladeRunners, as mentioned earlier, for at-risk youth to get skills and training.

The workforce development agreement is $685 million negotiated between the province of B.C. and the federal government to allow us the flexibility to meet the needs of the community and to be responsive. We’re not just supporting young people to work on the environmental stewardship program. We want young people to enter the trades. We need young people to enter the trades. We are moving the dial to have young people involved in the trades as well as going back to school, trying to make it more affordable for young people to go back to school.

The B.C. access grant was the first lift in a decade after the former government cut 11866 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

it. We are deeply committed to making sure that we open the doors to opportunity. We recognize that this is a very challenging time. My daughter is 16 years old. These young people are graduat- ing in the middle of the health pandemic. We know that there is more to do. This is a temporary measure, across a continuum of services, that we know young people are signing up for. We helped 4,200 young people last year that were at risk get funding through this workforce develop- ment…. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Perhaps I could remind ministers.

I’m sure every British Columbian appreciates the fullest answer possible, but we want to weigh that against making sure we give appropri- ate time for the opposition to ask questions. I’ve noticed in the last few sittings that there’s been a significant imbal- ance here. So just a friendly reminder — if those responses can be as full as possible yet as short as possible. Thank you. STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES T. Stone: In question period yesterday, the Housing Minister mentioned over and over how important it is to work really closely with the insurance sector to build “a robust insurance framework” in B.C.

She went to great lengths to talk about how concerned she is about the finan- cial well-being of the insurance industry. Y et we have thou- sands of British Columbians who are facing soaring strata insurance costs, and the minister has not put any relief on the table to help those many British Columbians. Arla writes: “This is totally unfair for the majority of people who live in condos, especially for persons with dis- abilities, seniors and those on a fixed income. ” My question to the Minister of Housing would be this.

Where is the relief for Arla and the thousands of other strata owners who desperately need some help? They need that help today. Hon. S. Robinson: This is an urgent problem for thou- sands of people living in condo and strata buildings, espe- cially when we’re in this very difficult time of COVID. This is an extremely complex issue in the private insurance industry that has been years in the making.

We have been working together with the sectors to bring forward some legislation, which is on the order paper — I look forward to the debate — in order to bring the relief that people that live in condominiums and that are struggling under the weight of the private insurance sector need. Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental. T. Stone:Not much in that response to address the con- cerns that thousands of strata owners have at the soaring strata insurance costs under this government’s watch.

Perhaps the Premier, who seems like he has a few things to say, might stand up and actually talk about these soaring strata insurance costs and what he’s going to do to provide relief. He’s been missing in action on this issue. [10:45 a.m.] Y esterday the Minister of Housing said that she wants to ensure…. Just wait for this, Premier. The minister said it’s important that “the insurance sector has some com- fort in knowing that they, too, can make money. ” She even mentioned how pleased the insurance industry is with her plan.

Now, I’m pretty certain that the thousands of British Columbians that have been hit hard with soaring strata insurance costs are going to take cold comfort from those comments from the minister. These are people that are facing huge increases in their monthly strata fees. They’re facing deductibles that, in many cases, are higher value than the actual value of their home. Some of them are even at risk of losing their homes. The glaring reality is this: the minister and her government have put nothing on the table — no relief for British Columbians hit hard today. We heard from Heather.

Heather writes: “I’m afraid I might lose my home. I’m almost a senior, but as a result of these increases, we won’t be retiring anytime soon. ” Again to the Minister of Housing, where is the relief that Heather and Arla so desperately need from this govern- ment — not months and years from now, but relief that they need today? Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson himself said that there’s no silver bullet here. What I find quite fascinating is that the oppo- sition is trying to pretend that they didn’t have a hand in this at all. Let’s be really clear.

They created a depreciation report loophole, and condominium owners like Heather are pay- ing the price because they created this loophole. I find that it’s outrageous to think that they have had no hand in this. They made a choice, and they chose to allow condo own- ers to not do depreciation reports. In fact, I find it actually quite interesting. In a recent letter to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition said that he now supports changes that would require a yearly depreciation report… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. S.

Robinson: And it’s [audio interrupted] to me that the opposition recognizes the value in this. But yes- terday the Liberal member for Penticton tweeted that the loophole should remain, and stratas should be allowed to defer these reports endlessly. Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11867

I feel for the opposition, as they continue to struggle to figure out exactly where they stand on this issue and others. M. Polak: To hear the minister talk, it’s all about depre- ciation reports and lack of maintenance. That’s just not the case. I can show you row upon row of absolutely brand- new townhomes in Langley that are struggling to get insurance. And when they do finally get it, they find that the deductibles are about the same cost as purchasing their home in the very first place. This isn’t about depreciation reports. It’s not about maintenance.

I’m hoping that today the minister has a much better answer for these desperate homeowners than to just raid their reserve fund. Maybe she could give that a try today for us. Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind everyone that we do have a bill on the order paper, and it’s a comprehensive bill that does a number of things. Because even as the members opposite recognize, there is no silver bullet to resolve what’s been a growing problem, so there are many different component parts to the bill. Maybe, for the record, it’s time to read that in, and I look forward to debating it.

Through amendments to the Strata Property Act and the Financial Institutions Act, we’re going to end the prac- tice of referral fees between insurers or insurance brokers and property managers or other third parties. We’re going to set out clear guidelines for what strata corporations are required to insure to help the strata councils make informed decisions on their insurance policies.

We’re going to require that strata corporations inform owners about insurance coverage; provide notice of any policy changes, including increasing deductibles; and allow stratas to use their contingency reserve fund, when necessary, to pay for unexpected premium increases. We’re also going to protect strata unit owners against large law- suits from strata corporations if the owner was legally responsible for a loss or damage but through no fault of their own Furthermore, the legislation will allow us to identify when stratas are not required to get full insurance cov- erage…. Interjections. Hon. S.

Robinson: And there’s a whole range of other things. I look forward to the debate. Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a supple- mental. M. Polak: All she’s proven with that recitation is that her bill offers zero immediate help for these people who are absolutely desperate. [10:50 a.m.] There’s nothing. There’s zero in this bill that’s going to provide any immediate help. In fact, we’re hearing from homeowners that the bill actually makes things worse.

Here’s what Cathy had to say, from Langley: “Instead of a life raft, they’ve thrown us an anchor. ” To the minister, where is the immediate relief that these people need? It’s not in her bill. Hon. S. Robinson: It actually is in the bill. This is a first step to resolve what has been a growing problem for a number of years. It’s about fixing what the previous gov- ernment left and created. This is an opportunity to change legislation that needs to be done and to continue to do more to make sure that we can address these surprising insurance increases.

Now, I think it’s important to note that experts are say- ing that these initiatives that we are taking are going to have a positive effect for consumers. This is from Tony Gioventu, the executive director of the Condominium Home Owners Association, who said so on CKNW . We also have Aaron Sutherland from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who said that this is going to help with the afford- ability and availability of strata insurance. Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West, and we’ll allow your supplemental question if it goes over.

M. de Jong: Well, it’s thrilling to hear that the minister is still quoting from the international insurance sector and how pleased they are. But I’ll tell you who’s not pleased. This week 120 families are going to meet in Abbots- ford. They are residents of one strata development. They’re going to look at two pieces of paper. They’re going to look at the piece of paper that was their insur- ance cost for last year. It was $80,000. Then they’re going to look at the second, which is the invoice for this year, which is $540,000. They’re going to see that their deductible is going up from $25,000 to $250,000.

That’s more than most of the units in the building are worth. They’re going to realize that the strata fees are going to go up $350 a month, and they can’t afford it. I hope the minister understands that they’re confronted by a choice, and that is to sign on to an insurance policy that they can’t afford or to leave their building uninsured.

A piece of legislation that says to them, “Dig into the contingency reserve, ” is not an answer. “That’s been part of the problem, ” the minister says, “people not doing their maintenance. ” So now she says the solution is to take the very money that they need to repair the roof next year and give it to an insurance company. What these people need is immediate relief. Will the minister stand here and offer them some hope as these 120 families meet this week and provide some immediate relief for them? 11868 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson:This is an absolutely urgent problem. It is urgent for the thousands of people living in condo and strata buildings. It’s one that we started to see just this fall. It just started to appear. I think the member is correct in that this is a very difficult time for many families, for those who are living in strata buildings. On top of that, we are in COVID. So that does create some specific, very significant challenges. This is also a very complex issue, and it’s one that’s in the private insurance industry and that has been years in the making. We’re going to continue working with the sectors.

We’re going to continue working with the strata owners. We’re going to continue working to make sure that we have a robust, healthy insurance sector that means that people can get the kind of product that they need, get the kind of coverage that they need for the long term. This is going to take some more effort. We’re taking first steps with this piece of legislation, and we’re going to con- tinue to work with all parties in order to bring resolution and resolve to these families that are really challenged. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental. [10:55 a.m.] M. de Jong: I have talked about one group, 120 families. There are neighbourhoods — strata developments, but they’re neighbourhoods — of families all over British Col- umbia who are facing precisely the same choice now. Not six months, not 12 months from now but this week and next week. It’s a choice between signing on to an insurance policy that they cannot afford, that will drive their monthly strata fees up by $200, $300, $400, sometimes $500 a month. I’m sorry.

It doesn’t cut it for the minister to say: “Well, it’s complex. ” It is, I suppose, complex. But it’s pretty simple and it’s pretty immediate for a family who is sitting there saying: “I can’t afford another $350 a month that will take my strata cost and make it more than my mortgage pay- ment. ” Instead of politicizing this, instead of blaming political parties and previous governments, will the minister give these people some hope, give these families some hope and provide them today, this week, with some immediate relief that they can rely upon in making the decision that they are confronted by now? Hon. S.

Robinson: I know that members on all sides of the House recognize the urgency and the challenges and how important it is to address these cost increases. We have taken immediate steps, and there’s absolutely more to do. But again I want to remind all members of the House that even the member for Kamloops–South Thompson said that there is no silver bullet. The experts are saying there is no silver bullet. But we are committed to working together with everyone to make sure that we can address this ongoing challenge and resolve it for the people here in this province. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day

Schedule of Estimates Hon. M. Farnworth: First, pursuant to the sessional order regulating the proceedings of the Committee of Sup- ply, I hereby table the

schedule of estimates to be con- sidered by the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, this Thursday and Friday. They will be, in

Section A on Thursday, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and in

Section C, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, then to be followed by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. On the Friday, we will be going to the Ministry of Muni- cipal Affairs and Housing continued, to be followed by the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture, to be followed by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. As well, in

Section C, we will continue with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Services, then to be fol- lowed by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. I call continued committee stage on Bill 19. [11:00 a.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED MEASURES ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 11:01 a.m. The Chair: Just to remind people, those who are watch- ing online, that yesterday we dealt with

section 8, which was deferred on a division vote until this evening. We will be dealing with

section 9 today. On

section 9. A. Olsen: I did have some questions. Did we vote on

section 8 to pass? The Chair: No,

section 8 is not going to be passed until we deal with the division vote on the sessional order this evening. Now we are dealing with

section 9. Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11869

A. Olsen: So no questions around

section 8 can be asked right now. The Chair: Member, I am advised no, because the divi- sion vote is pending. The amendment has not gone through yet. Until then, that

section will not be dealt with. Today we’ll be dealing with

section 9 and the following sections of the bill, until we deal with that.

Section 9 approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved. Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise, report pro- gress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:05 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage of Bill 9, Evidence Amendment Act, 2020. [11:10 a.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 9 — EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2020 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 11:11 a.m. On

section 1 (continued). Hon. D. Eby: I move an amendment to

section 1. It’s on the order paper in my name. [SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 12.1 (6), by adding the un- derlined text as shown:

(6) The following are the conditions for the purposes of subsec- tion (5): (

a) the subject matter of the additional evidence to be tendered is not already addressed by expert evidence of the party making the application as permitted under subsection (2) or (4); (

b) without the additional expert evidence, the party making the application would suffer prejudice disproportionate to the benefit of not increasing the complexity and cost of the pro- ceeding.] On the amendment. Hon. D. Eby: The proposed amendment amends sub- subsection 12.1(6)(

a) of the Evidence Act, which is added by

section 1 of the bill that’s in front of the House. The proposed amendment would amend sub-subsection 12.1(6)(

a) to clarify that it’s only the subject matter of the expert evidence of the party applying for permission to tender expert evidence in excess of the limit that is a con- dition of granting that permission. The subject matter of their opponent’s permitted expert evidence is not part of the condition. M. Lee: If I can ask the Attorney General to elaborate in terms of the purpose of this amendment. Hon. D. Eby:Okay. In

section 1 of this bill, it adds a new section, 12.1. Then that

section has a subsection (6). What it does is it sets out the test that the court has to apply on an application under subsection (5). That’s an application by a party to a vehicle injury proceeding for leave to allow more expert witnesses or more expert reports. There are some conditions on being able to make that application, and sub-subsection (6)(

a) is one of those conditions. The condition is that the party that’s making the application to say, “Hey, look. I’ d like to bring expert evidence of additional experts…. ” The condition they have to meet to pass that test is, in part, that the subject matter of the additional evidence to be tendered hasn’t already been addressed by different expert evidence, either a report or otherwise. Unfortunately, the way the initial draft of subsection (

a) reads, it says that the additional evidence to be tendered is not already addressed by expert evidence, period. So you could potentially, as the party on the other side, hamstring your opponent by introducing expert evidence on a point that they’ d like to introduce an additional expert on. That would exclude them under this test. [11:15 a.m.] What we wanted to do is be really clear that it’s the party making the application who wants to introduce a new expert report or new expert evidence. It’s just their evidence that is required to have not already addressed this issue, not the other side’s.

It’s meant to prevent the opposi- tion party, the defense or the plaintiff, from preventing the other party from calling additional expert evidence simply by addressing that issue in their own evidence. It’s a bit convoluted. I’m not sure I provided the clarity that the member is looking for. If I didn’t, I can try again. M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. We canvassed this provision at the previous session on the committee stage on this bill.

It’s my understanding, then, that this amendment clarifies that the ability for sub- section (5) to apply would not be barred by the other 11870 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

party having filed expert evidence on that particular sub- ject matter. That’s what I’m hearing from the Attorney General. Just to walk through that aspect, when we talk about additional evidence, there is no…. Presumably, from the addition of this amendment, it doesn’t tie to whose benefit that additional evidence is being sought. That is sought by the party making the application. Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby: This proposed amendment came from questions during the last committee stage, raised by the member. It caused some reflection about the need to clari- fy the intent here.

The way it is intended to work is that the plaintiff…. Let’s say they have three expert reports. They want to add a fourth expert report. The court will say, as part of the test: “Has the material covered by this fourth report that you’ d like to add already been canvassed by one of your three pre-existing expert reports? If it has, then, I’m sorry. Y ou don’t meet the requirements of the test. Y ou’re not allowed to introduce it. ” If it hasn’t, if it’s new information, then they’ve satisfied that part of the test. It’s an issue that hasn’t already been addressed by one of their three previ- ous reports.

The clarification in this amendment is that the court won’t ask: “Well, has the defence issued an expert report that dealt with this subject matter?” It doesn’t matter what that defence has or hasn’t introduced in terms of the test. All that matters is if the plaintiff wants to introduce an expert report, an additional expert report beyond the lim- it. Then the test is whether the plaintiff ’s evidence has already canvassed this issue in one of the pre-existing reports. This amendment is not intended to change what we dis- cussed previously, in terms of the understanding.

It’s just meant to clarify the intent, that it is only the party seek- ing leave to add an additional report whose existing expert evidence will be canvassed to see whether that issue has already been addressed. Amendment approved. On

section 1 as amended. [11:20 a.m.] M. Lee: It’s been quite a break in the proceedings since we last were debating this bill in committee, prior to the House rising and COVID-19 hitting. I appreciate the opportunity, during this period of time that we now are able to come back, to complete the committee stage on this bill. We’ve had, to date, some thorough discussion of the provisions that are being added to the Evidence Amend- ment Act — a new

section 12.1, as amended by the Attor- ney General successfully just now. I wanted to come back to some basic principles about this Evidence Amendment Act, Bill 9. I would like to ask the Attorney General what the expected cost saving is from this implementation of Bill 9? Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there are no booked or anticipated savings of this reform. The hope is that it will lead to savings in terms of increased efficiency within our court system, reduced expert report costs and reduced expert battles in cases.

But the introduction of some significant changes to this bill is responding to the court’s earlier decision around discretion to allow addi- tional reports and to our ongoing work to determine limits related to costs. It is just too uncertain to project any sav- ings from this. The hope is that there will be efficiencies, obviously, and that there’ll be improvements in terms of what most people agree has become an overreliance on wildly expensive expert reports and case-building through expert reports. But we shall see.

I can advise the member that there are no savings that are booked in any of the financial projections based on the reforms that are in this bill. M. Lee: The rule 11-8 change was contemplated at a time when there would be expected savings from that rule change. Is there any difference that has not yet been booked, as the Attorney General indicates, from the expected cost savings from the rule 11-8 change, from any estimated or expected changes in cost savings for the res- ult of Bill 9? Hon. D.

Eby: Just given the discretion that’s in the bill and how that is going to play out in the courts, it is too uncertain to provide financial projections about any sav- ings at this stage. [11:25 a.m.] With that said, the hope is to monitor it, to see how it’s working in practice in the courts, and that there will be some reduction in this duelling expert culture and the ever-escalating cost of expert reports, but it’s too soon to say.

That monitoring work will take place after the imple- mentation, as we see, actually, how the courts are working with this and this new tool that they have to encourage parties to resolve disputes with less reliance on expensive expert reports. M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response at this time. I think it’s important that we understand when we’re talking about significant rule changes, first with 11-8 and now with the Evidence Amendment Act, as to the pur- pose of the changes.

To date, it has been characterized, including by the Attorney General and his comments here in this commit- tee, that there is an expectation that there will be cost sav- ings. There’s a question as to how much that might be, but certainly that is the expectation and, in the words of the Attorney General, concerns around the costs of expert reports themselves and the process that is done that gen- Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11871

erates those costs. That is, obviously, the subject that we’ve been considering at the committee stage on this bill.

I think it’s important, as we refer to both the changes to the number of expert reports that a plaintiff seeking fair compensation against the defendant — ICBC, in the cases that we’re referring to — for bodily injury, for example, that the attempt to change previously the rule 11-8 is fun- damentally, with adjustments, as the Attorney General has outlined in this bill, very similar to what’s being done here on this Evidence Amendment Act — with discretion, as we’ve discussed — and the challenges with that in terms of the restrictive nature of that discretion.

I wish to turn to the decision of Chief Justice Hinkson that was rendered in the so-called Crowder decision against the Attorney General. In paragraph 45 of that decision, as stated in the record, a statement that was made by Ms. Lindsay Matthews, the vice-president of public affairs for ICBC, stated that “we expect the savings from rule of court” — I expect that she meant the rule of court change — “to be $400 million for this fiscal year and about $30 million going forward.

The approximate breakdown of the savings is expected to be about half due to fewer reports — 40 percent from the plaintiff reports, plus 10 percent from defence reports; about half due to lower pay- ments for damages. More expert reports make claims more expensive. ” This quote is stated in the decision. I ask the Attorney General whether the Attorney Gen- eral is familiar with that statement and whether he agrees with that statement that was made to the court in that proceeding. Hon. D.

Eby: To clarify some of the remarks from the member opposite before I answer his question, there is certainly a hope for savings, but there is not an expectation of savings. We hope that this bill will reduce costs for drivers of British Columbia, that it will reduce inefficien- cies in the court system. The courts will be able to use this tool to get a handle on some of the challenges of out-of- control expert reports in our court system and duelling experts. That is how it is intended — to give the courts a tool.

They have, as the member rightly noted, discretion under this to make the decision to allow additional expert reports, as they see fit. [11:30 a.m.] I don’t want the member to take my opinion on what’s happening with experts in our courts. I’m going to read to him excerpts from two letters I received from family physicians about their experience with expert reports just to give him an idea about what is animating the concern behind this bill. From one family physician: “In 2018, I was required to write ten letters, on request, to law- yers regarding injuries sustained by my patients in motor vehicle accidents.

That’s up from five the year before and fewer before that. I am paid well for my time by the lawyers, and that cost is of course passed on to my patients in legal fees. Having said that, I resent writing these letters, in that they are a private service and provide no medical benefit to my patients.

The pace of requests for medical legal reports continues this year, I believe, in an attempt to reach more favourable settlements before any changes in the law. ” Another physician writes: “From my perspective, while working, it was increasingly ap- parent that ICBC claims were becoming an industry — lawyers, medical experts, PTs, OTs, MTs, chiropractors, etc. I would occa- sionally do a detailed review of my chart for my patient’s lawyer only to be told that it would not be entered, as it didn’t help his case!

So on to another witness that would help the case. “The limits placed on the process are a great beginning.

I hope you can do something about fees throughout this industry. ” When you’re hearing from family physicians that they’re writing these reports at an escalating pace over the most recent two years and that when they write reports with their best opinion as family physicians, they’re told by the patient’s lawyer that it won’t be entered because it didn’t help the case, I think that maybe provides some context for observations made by people both in and outside the insurance industry and those who have been watching the trends around escalating claims related to ICBC.

There is an issue with expert reports when you have a family phys- ician prepare a detailed review of a chart that isn’t entered because it doesn’t help the case. The issue of case-building of claims using expert reports is a real phenomenon. It’s one that we’re asking the courts, through this amendment, to keep an eye on. I hope that provides the member with some context for the bill and this issue of case-building through expert reports, which most plaintiff counsel will often, off the record, acknow- ledge is an issue, and a challenging one.

I don’t pretend that it’s easy to deal with, which is why there are no projec- ted savings from this bill. But it’s one that we cannot ignore and one that we’re asking the courts to have a careful look at through this bill. M. Lee: I think this is a very important discussion to be having at this juncture about this bill. There are effect- ively two questions I was asking the Attorney General to comment on when I read back into the record the state- ment by Ms. Matthews in that proceeding. Breaking that apart, I would just refer, first, to the expectation.

These are the words of a senior management individual testifying in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brit- ish Columbia, under oath. Testifying, she uses the word “expect, ” not “hope. ” I’m surprised to hear the Attorney General say that the government is doing all of this on a hope. It’s chan- ging the rights of injured British Columbians in the hope…. For what? Well, I will say that the Attorney General did cer- tainly….

He’s not prepared here to confirm the statement of that senior management individual, but he did do that on February 11, 2019, in a Vancouver Sunarticle, when he said: “The expert report cap will save an estimated $400 million this fiscal year and $30 million a year thereafter. ” 11872 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

That’s an exact statement, word for word, pretty much identical to the statement made by Ms. Matthews on behalf of ICBC. [11:35 a.m.] We have the Attorney General of this province and a senior member of the management team at ICBC saying the same thing. Can I ask the Attorney General what has changed? Hon. D. Eby: What changed was that the old bill was found unconstitutional. This is a new bill in front of the House that provides significant discretion to the court to allow additional evidence. Previously, when there was no discretion, there was some certainty.

There will be this number of reports; we know approximately what they’re going to cost. It was sufficient to project those savings. Now, with the discretion, we don’t know how the courts are going to work with this. We don’t know how they’re going to use this tool. So it will need to be monitored to determine what the savings are. I would have thought that the member understood quite clearly that this is new legislation and a different scenario. M. Lee: There are three principal limitations that we’ve discussed at this committee level on the expert reports.

One is that it be limited in the amount payable to what we’ve understood to be $3,000 per expert report itself; lim- itation on disbursements equal to 5 percent of the total amount recovered; and the number being limited to three, unless there’s an exercise of discretion. This bill goes beyond a rule 11-8. It adds the $3,000 limit per expert report, and it adds a cap overall on disburse- ments at 5 percent on the total amount recovered in the action. The response from the Attorney General, relying on the discretion element, really belies what this bill’s intention is.

If I can ask again, to the Attorney General: is there not an expectation of cost saving by the imposition of a $3,000 limit on expert reports and a 5 percent limit on recovery on disbursements for the total amount recovered on the action? Hon. D. Eby: There is certainly a hope of savings, as I said. Work continues in terms of the regulations and, sort of, the values of any particular report and the value of recoverable disbursements as a percentage of the overall value of the case. That work continues.

All I can tell the member is that there is not certainty like there was in the previous bill, in the previous law that was struck. So the hope is for savings and efficiencies and improvements, but we’ll see how it plays out. I think that the issue is an important one. It’s been rec- ognized time and time again, not just by our government but by many observers of the legal system, in terms of the issues with expert reports. It’s been observed in the U.K. It’s been observed in Australia. It’s been observed in Canada and British Columbia. Different approaches in different jurisdictions.

Obvi- ously, something that we recognize is that British Col- umbia is going to need to come up with its own solution. We can’t just take from the U.K. or the Australian exper- ience. We’re engaged in that discussion with the courts very obviously. The discussion has been that discretion is required for the courts to be able to remedy perceived unfairness in the trial process. That discretion is now a key part of this bill. The consequence of it is that any projected savings are very uncertain, because we don’t know how the courts will use this tool that we’re giving them. They’re independent of government.

They have conduct of the matters in their courtrooms. So we’ll monitor it, and certainly, we’ll advise the member if it does, in fact, materialize, as we hope it does, that there are reduced costs for British Columbians in the court system as a result. [11:40 a.m.] M. Lee: The Attorney General, in his response, has referred to the cost factor around multiple expert reports. Again he has been quoted as saying, back in February of 2019, something consistent, I think, with the view that he’s taking here. “What we’re trying to address are the excesses of the system that don’t advance any interests.

It doesn’t advance any interest to have six-plus experts on a claim. It doesn’t advance any interests to have a $50,000 expense to resolve a $100,000 claim. ” I ask the Attorney General if he expects, when we talk about multiple expert reports, that the reduction in the number of expert reports will result in cost savings to ICBC. What is the impact, as well, on the injured British Columbian who is seeking fair recovery? Will their claim amount and their recovery amount also decrease? Hon. D. Eby: I feel a bit repetitive saying it. The anti- cipation and the hope are that we will see improved efficiency.

I don’t know if the member is standing up and saying that he thinks a system that costs $50,000 to resolve a $100,000 claim is a good one. I think it’s not. I think it’s a very poor ratio of expense to outcome, and I think that needs to be fixed. This is our best effort, in our dialogue with the courts, about how to get these expert costs under control. The member has heard me read from letters from physicians who I think are disgusted by the role that they are asked to play, preparing summaries of charts that are never tendered to the court because a quote doesn’t help the cli- ent’s case.

I think that’s a problem. We’ll do our part, in our discussion with the court, to give them the tools. At the end of the day, it is the court’s discretion about allowing additional expert reports and when and how to do that. The test is set out in the bill. We Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11873

think it’s a good one. We’ll hear from the courts about that. I have no doubt. It is part of this work that we’re engaged in to address this car insurance system that the previous government left us. I don’t think it’s worth much of our time to go into the details of the history. What I do think, to look forward, is that this bill is in the context of larger reforms that our government is bringing in, effective May of next year, that will result in significant savings for British Columbians. In the meantime, while we wait for that new system, people will be working under the old system.

Addressing some of the issues that have arisen in that system over the years, unaddressed, is an important thing to do, both for savings for drivers, who have to pay the premiums that pay for all of these expert reports, but also for the adminis- tration of justice to give the courts the tools they need to ensure that they can respond to this publicly stated con- cern by many parties — not just this government, not just at this time but for a long period of time — about the use of experts in court. M. Lee: I think it’s important to make distinctions here.

The Attorney General is referring to some letters from some physicians, which I appreciate on their face express some concern. But to make the distinction here…. When we talk about his quote about six expert reports…. There is a need, depending on the complexity of a bodily injury claim. When we’re dealing with the most serious of cases where an individual is a quadriplegic rendered by an at-fault driver or has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, in injuries of that serious nature, multiple expert reports are required. [11:45 a.m.] Under this bill, the limitations that have been set out, on a hope….

Well, we know specifically what the limitations will mean for somebody who has suffered a complex brain injury and other injuries. That plaintiff, that injured Brit- ish Columbian, will need to make the hard decision about which injuries to tender expert reports for. I asked the Attorney General previously what the impact is on those injured British Columbians. I’ll ask it again. What is his expectation or understanding as to what will happen with an individual who has a complex injury, as I described, through these limitations? Will they be recovering less in court? Hon. D.

Eby: The member — for some reason, I’m not sure why — it appears to me, is making arguments based on the bill that existed previously. The bill here, in front of the House today, allows the court to examine the circum- stances of any particular case and allow additional experts. So for a complex, catastrophic case that requires addition- al experts, the court has the ability to allow additional experts. Both parties can agree to allow additional experts. It doesn’t feel to me that the member is recognizing the significant change in this bill compared to the one that was struck in the Crowder decision.

A bunch of things knock on from that, including the ability to predict potential sav- ings or efficiencies that will come from this. The member’s concern, a valid one, about ensuring that somebody who is catastrophically injured is able to get their evidence in front of the court — the safeguard is there. The court can allow additional expert reports.

One of the things, though, that I think maybe it’s worth exploring a bit is — what I’m picking up between the lines, and maybe unfairly to the member — the sug- gestion, perhaps, that he thinks there should be no lim- it on expert reports and that there isn’t an issue with experts in the court. I’ll take the member to a report that was prepared called Effective and Affordable Civil Justice, under the previous administration. It was chaired by then–Chief Justice Bren- ner and Allan Seckel, who went on to become the head of the public service under the previous administration.

In that report, this co-government court report, it talks about limiting the use of experts. They talk about the need for change. Keep in mind this was — I don’t even know what year this was prepared — sometime in the early 2000s. “One of the significant cost items in litigation is the use of ex- pert witnesses to provide opinions on scientific or technical issues. The Hon. Geoffrey Davies, who’s in the U.K., has been an out- spoken advocate of reform in the area of experts for over a decade.

He identified three major reasons why change from the traditional approach is necessary: “ Adversarial bias and polarization — the natural human tend- ency to feel the need to do your best for the side you represent res- ults in the polarization of opinions and may result in a distortion of both the real question and the real answer.

The result is often a ‘battle of the experts. ’ “Complexity — the more complex the question, the harder it is for the non-expert judge to determine the extent to which contra- dictory expert opinions are reliable. “Cost — there is waste and duplication in selecting and discard- ing experts, preparing experts for trial and cross-examining oppos- ing experts. ” This was their conclusion on reviewing that set of infor- mation from the U.K. about British Columbia: “We believe that all of these factors are contributing in some measure to the high cost and inefficiency of our present expert wit- ness processes.

The new rules must support greater reliability, in- creased accuracy, decreased adversarialism and lower cost for ex- pert witnesses. ” [11:50 a.m.] Then Chief Justice Brenner and the person who went on to become the head of the public service under the previous administration, in a report together, agree that there’s inefficiency, that it’s a problem, that it’s broken. We need to reduce the costs. They only had to wait until 2020 to see a bill in front of this House that would take a very serious effort to try to rein in some of these issues. That’s what this bill is.

I’m not sure if the member believes that there’s an issue with expert reports or not. Hopefully, that report, although dated, provides some context for how long this has been 11874 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, July 7, 2020

an issue, unaddressed. Hopefully, the comments of family physicians saying they’re spending all their time writing reports for motor vehicle accidents provide some basis for why we’re concerned about this. But maybe not, and then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. M. Lee: Well, I appreciate the response from the Attor- ney General, referring back to all of the previous reports on this matter.

I certainly understand that this has been something that has been talked about and reviewed for some time, but it is the mechanism of this bill that we’re referring to — and for the various reasons that we’ve con- sidered and canvassed at committee stage, both previously and to come. If I can go back to one aspect of the quote from Ms. Matthews, the other component was the expectation of the cost saving under the previous change to rule 11-8 — which I still think applies here in terms of the thinking, the consideration and the intention of this government.

There would be an expectation that about half of that cost sav- ing, the $400 million, would be “due to lower payments for damages. ” Again, it makes the statement: “More expert reports make claims more expensive. ” My questioning really goes to understanding the gov- ernment’s view about the nature of expert reports, that they’re viewed to be a cost item, as opposed to an item that is there to assist plaintiffs, injured British Columbians, to demonstrate the extent of their injury, the damage that has been caused by the motor vehicle accident, and what needs to be recovered.

With that, I ask the Attorney Gen- eral to comment specifically as to whether he agrees with that statement by Ms. Matthews. Hon. D. Eby: The phenomenon of case-building — tak- ing a marginal case and using experts to build it up to increase an award, unjustifiably — is a real thing. It is an unfortunate thing, but it is a real thing. It has been exposed on the cover of theGlobe and Mail. To be blunt, it has been done by both sides. The use of experts to artificially con- tain the value of a claim and to artificially inflate the value of a claim is a consequence of the adversarial expert sys- tem that we have.

In the Globe and Mail

article I’m referring to, there was an expert who had an office above an airplane hangar, who had not seen the patients that the doctor was writing reports about. I don’t think that’s a good practice. That was the defence expert witness. The excesses are on the plaintiff side and on the defence side in this system. Case-building and attempting to dismantle cases is a consequence of the adversarial system that we are moving away from in this province as of May of next year. I think that when you have a family physician writing in and saying, “Hey, look. I provide a

summary of my patient’s chart. Nobody knows this patient like I do. This is my patient; this is my family patient. I write the

summary of the chart in good faith and send it in to the lawyer, ” and the lawyer says, “We’re not going to use it because it doesn’t help the case, ” that’s a problem on the plaintiff side. On the defence side, when you’re hiring a defence expert that doesn’t see the patient in person, and the entire medical practice of that person is preparing these expert reports for the defence, I don’t think that’s a good practice. [11:55 a.m.] There are distortions on both sides. There are problems on both sides. Our hope is that this will give the court a tool to rein in some of those excesses.

It will not address all of the excesses, because they are inherent, in many ways, to this system, where the insurer is expected to both provide benefits to people as well as provide a full legal defence to the insured, who bought insurance for the purpose of hav- ing a lawyer hired for them if it does go to court. It’s an incredibly costly system, which is why the savings will be 20 percent for drivers and dramatic increases in benefits by getting rid of a significant portion of these legal costs in the system, as of May. This bill is one small, tiny part of that.

We expect, in terms of a fixed amount of savings from reining in adversarial expert reports…. Our expectation is that we don’t know. It will depend on how the courts use this tool. But we hope, and I hope, that the courts will use this tool to rein in what many people — plaintiff bar, defence bar, Chief Justice Brenner, Allan Seckel, countless commentators in the common-law world — have identi- fied as a problem in our court systems. The reforms have been different to try to deal with it. This is one proposal in front of this House to try to deal with it in British Columbia. We’ll see how it goes.

But it’s my hope that the courts take full advantage of the tool that we’ve provided them to address this issue. Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report pro- gress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:57 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m. Tuesday, July 7, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11875

Hansard Services, Reporting and Publishing DIRECTOR D’ Arcy McPherson MANAGER OF REPORTING SERVICES Laurel Bernard MANAGER OF PUBLISHING SYSTEMS Dan Kerr TEAM LEADERS Mike Beninger, Kim Christie, Barb Horricks, Julie McClung, Karol Morris, Amy Reiswig, Glenn Wigmore EDITORS Erin Beattie, Janet Brazier, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray, Iris Gray, Mary Beth Hall, Louis Henderson, Bill Hrick, Genevieve Kirk, Catherine Lang, Paula Lee, Quinn MacDonald, Anne Maclean, Claire Matthews, Jill Milkert, Linda Miller, Sarah Mitenko, Erik Pedersen, Janet Pink, Robyn Swanson, Antoinette Warren, Heather Warren, Kim Westad INDEXERS Shannon Ash, Robin Rohrmoser RESEARCHERS Joshua Hazelbower, Brooke Isherwood, David Mattison, Murray Sinclair TECHNICAL OPERATIONS Pamela Holmes, Daniel Powell, Patrick Stobbe Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia The Official Report of Debates (Hansard)and webcasts of chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca.

For inquiries contact: Hansard Services 612 Government Street Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 Telephone: 250-387-3681 Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca Published by Hansard Services under the authority of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200707am-Hansard-n334
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200707am Hansard n334
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0865b493fcd6d462d5936d52b8bdc6b193c2b404

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).