Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 334

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Kim Manton

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

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 organizer, colleague, rebel rouser, political

activist and friend. Kim Manton passed away at her home on June 26,

surrounded by her family, after a two-year journey with ovarian

cancer.

You often hear people described as having a sunny disposition.

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 having 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 devastatingly hard hit from the beginning

of the COVID-19 outbreak 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 statement 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

beginning 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 better 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

residential 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

COVID-19

J. Sims: The COVID-19 pandemic has definitely 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 goodness 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 continuing 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 operations, continues to

respond to rescue missions and is helping 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 volunteers 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 experienced 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 significant economic impact.

[10:15 a.m.]

Natural disasters such as floods and wildfires, since 2017, have

been the cause of many shutdowns and business 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. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia is one of the

safest jurisdictions 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

ESQUIMALT-METCHOSIN

M. Dean: Where do you find the best doughnuts in Victoria? 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. Another “best of”

winner, it was the first to open during the pandemic, following all the

protocols and creating a wonderful environment for local vendors and

customers to support 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. Another 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.

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 suitable 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 breakfast 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 transitioning 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 planning and many, many hours to execute. At Barsby, grad took two

full days, with each student honoured individually with their family in

attendance.

The same with Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre’s grad ceremony 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

overseeing 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 difference 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 summer 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.

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 economic 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 component of our economy and has been a

stalwart in communities 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 Columbians 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 operators, 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 Premier made the

proper overtures to the federal government 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 federal

government time after time, to the point where, against the wishes of

some Premiers, the federal government 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 protecting the

interest of British Columbians. You 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.

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 provincial 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

forward.

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 continues 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,

expressing 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: You 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 properties 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 destination 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 biking — to ensure that they

have health and safety and marketing plans. And $130,000 is going to

community-owned visitor networks, visitor centres, as part of our

visitor service 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 marketing program.

These are just some of the examples of the work being done to date

and how much our government values tourism. 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 subsequent 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 program — 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 Education, Skills

and Training. The government press release and subsequent coverage makes

it unclear as to the source of the funding for this youth community

partnership program. Could the minister please break down for us how

much money for this program came from the federal government and how

much from the province?

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. Youth

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 BladeRunners 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 Columbia with the flexibility that we need to

be responsive.

Just for the record, we are still in the middle of a pandemic.

We’re in the middle of COVID. We have been planning 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-secondary 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 employment

for those youth. However, it is employment in sectors 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 Development 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 Education,

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 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 graduating 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 development….

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 appropriate time for the opposition to ask

questions. I’ve noticed in the last few sittings that there’s been a

significant imbalance 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 financial

well-being of the insurance industry. Yet we have thousands 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 disabilities, 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 thousands of people living in condo

and strata buildings, especially 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 concerns 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.]

Yesterday 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 comfort 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 government — not months and years

from now, but relief that they need today?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson himself said that

there’s no silver bullet here. What I find quite fascinating is that the

opposition 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 paying 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 owners 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 yesterday the Liberal member for Penticton

tweeted that the loophole should remain, and stratas should be allowed

to defer these reports endlessly.

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 depreciation 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 practice 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

lawsuits 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 coverage….

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 supplemental.

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 government 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 saying 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 affordability 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 Abbotsford. 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

insurance 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?

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 continue 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 Columbia 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 payment.”

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 Supply, I hereby table the

schedule of estimates to be

considered 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 Municipal 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 followed 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 watching 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.

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.

A. Olsen: So no questions around

section 8 can be asked right

now.

The Chair: Member, I am advised no, because the division 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 progress 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,

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT,

(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.

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 underlined text as shown:

(6) The following are the conditions for the purposes of

subsection (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

proceeding.]

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 condition 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

opposition 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 subsection (5) to apply would

not be barred by the other party having filed expert evidence on that

particular subject 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 clarify 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.

You don’t meet the requirements of the test. You’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 previous 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 limit. 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 discussed

previously, in terms of the understanding. It’s just meant to clarify

the intent, that it is only the party seeking leave to add an additional

report whose existing expert evidence will be canvassed to see whether

that issue has already been addressed.

Amendment approved.

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 Amendment Act — a new

section 12.1,

as amended by the Attorney 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 additional reports and to

our ongoing work to determine limits related to costs. It is just too

uncertain to project any savings 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 result 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 savings 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

implementation, 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 purpose of the changes.

To date, it has been characterized, including by the Attorney

General and his comments here in this committee, that there is an

expectation that there will be cost savings. 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 generates 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 fundamentally, 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 payments for damages. More

expert reports make claims more expensive.” This quote is stated in the

decision.

I ask the Attorney General whether the Attorney General 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 inefficiencies 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

lawyers 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 apparent

that ICBC claims were becoming an industry — lawyers, medical experts,

PTs, OTs, MTs, chiropractors, etc. I would occasionally 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 physician 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,

acknowledge is an issue, and a challenging one. I don’t pretend that

it’s easy to deal with, which is why there are no projected 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 effectively two questions I was

asking the Attorney General to comment on when I read back into the

record the statement 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 British 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 changing the rights of injured

British Columbians in the hope…. For what?

Well, I will say that the Attorney General did certainly…. 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

Sun article, when he said: “The expert report cap will save an

estimated $400 million this fiscal year and $30 million a year

thereafter.” 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; limitation 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 disbursements 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 recognized

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. Obviously,

something that we recognize is that British Columbia is going to need to

come up with its own solution. We can’t just take from the U.K. or the

Australian experience. 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 anticipation 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 client’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 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 administration of

justice to give the courts the tools they need to ensure that they can

respond to this publicly stated concern 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 British 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

circumstances of any particular case and allow additional experts. So

for a complex, catastrophic case that requires additional 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 savings 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 suggestion, perhaps, that he thinks there should be no

limit 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 Brenner 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

expert witnesses to provide opinions on scientific or technical issues.

The Hon. Geoffrey Davies, who’s in the U.K., has been an outspoken

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 tendency to

feel the need to do your best for the side you represent results 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 contradictory

expert opinions are reliable.

“Cost — there is waste and duplication in selecting and discarding

experts, preparing experts for trial and cross-examining opposing

experts.”

This was their conclusion on reviewing that set of information

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 witness

processes. The new rules must support greater reliability, increased

accuracy, decreased adversarialism and lower cost for expert

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 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 Attorney 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

considered 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 saving, 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 government’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 General to comment

specifically as to whether he agrees with that statement by Ms.

Matthews.

Hon. D. Eby: The phenomenon of case-building — taking 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 the Globe and Mail . To be blunt, it has

been done by both sides. The use of experts to artificially contain the

value of a claim and to artificially inflate the value of a claim is a

consequence of the adversarial expert system 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

having 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 identified 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 progress 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.

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.