Fifth Session, 41st Parliament (2020)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 339
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: J. Sims.
Tributes
PAUL McDONELL
Hon. J. Horgan: It’s with sadness that I rise today following the comments from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake yesterday on the loss of Nick Volkow, Burnaby city councillor. Today, regrettably, I rise in this place to acknowledge the passing of Paul McDonell.
Paul was fondly known as Mr. Burnaby. He was passionate about the community and tireless in his support of everything Burnaby. A four-term city councillor, Paul also spent 35 years with the Vancouver fire department, retiring in 1997 at the rank of deputy chief.
Paul’s commitment to giving back to the community was something that I picked up early in my time as a member of the Legislature. There wasn’t a day that I visited Burnaby that Paul didn’t have something kind to say to me and some helpful advice on how I could advance the issues so important to the people of his community.
He was in a seven-year position with the United Way. He was a board member of the Burnaby health board, as well as the Fraser Health board, where he eventually became the chair. He was also with Tourism Burnaby, the New Vista Society, and on and on and on. He founded the Edmonds City Fair and Classic Car Show. There was nothing that Paul did not touch in his time in Burnaby.
It’s difficult for the people of Burnaby to lose two councillors in such a short period of time. But when I reflect back on my personal relationship with Nick, who worked with my brother for 35 years at Safeway, and the commitment that Paul made to his community, I have to think that all of us will pass on our sincere condolences to the people of Burnaby on losing Nick Volkow and Paul McDonell so closely together.
Two giants in that community. Two great British Columbians who always put service ahead of self. We’ll miss them greatly.
Introductions by Members
J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to introduce an amazing young man I just met a few weeks ago, Toby Abisoye. He arrived in Canada in early March, just slightly before the COVID shutdown. He’s a lawyer from Nigeria, a master of law from the University of Ibadan in Oyo, Nigeria. He’s a trained dispute resolution specialist. He is now studying to write his exams to become licensed so that he can practise law right here in British Columbia.
Through the YMCA employment bootcamp, Toby will be with us for three months. Toby is a great asset. He’s extremely capable. He’s pleasant. He’s resilient. He takes on any challenge. He’s a great researcher. He is a great fit for our office. We are so lucky to have him, and Canada is lucky to have welcomed Toby into British Columbia.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2020
Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020.
Hon. H. Bains: I am pleased to introduce Bill 23, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020.
This bill makes modest but important improvements to several aspects of British Columbia’s workers compensation system.
First, it makes three enhancements to provide injured workers with workers compensation benefits that better take into account their loss of earnings but do not significantly increase the employers’ costs during the current COVID-19 emergency.
Second, in keeping with our continued work to make British Columbia the safest workplace jurisdiction in Canada, amendments will enhance WorkSafeBC’s occupational health and safety investigation framework and give additional powers to the court to support the health and safety of British Columbia workers.
Third, Bill 23 makes several other changes to improve the overall operational effectiveness of the workers compensation system. Many of the amendments in this bill respond to three recent reviews of the workers compensation system and the recommendations contained in a report that consulted on these reviews.
Finally, Bill 23 contains an amendment that responds directly to the COVID-19 emergency. If WorkSafeBC decides to enact a presumption for an occupational disease caused by a communicable viral pathogen, the presumption may come into force without the usual 90-day waiting period for a new WorkSafeBC regulation to come into effect.
I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
MARCUS VON ALBRECHT
AND CULINARY
ARTS
L. Reid: It gives me great pleasure this morning to introduce an outstanding British Columbian. Marcus Von Albrecht is a diversified specialist in the culinary and hospitality industry with over 27 years of professional experience working with clients across Canada and across the globe. As a chef, he has the depth of knowledge in front and back of the house and an active role in the education and development of standards in the culinary profession.
As an international ambassador of the profession, Marcus has frequently taken delegations of chefs to other countries to showcase exportable products on trade missions for Canada and in world culinary competitions, where he is a judge and the coach for Team Canada.
Marcus has received his Chef of the Year for western Canada and Chef of the Year for British Columbia. Currently he owns a food manufacturing plant, Mava Foods, which produces food products for grocery stores, convenience stores, schools, B.C. Ferries, private label and the Meals on Wheels program for Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby and Langley.
Marcus, please accept our heartfelt thanks for stepping up to feed people during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a consultant, he founded Von Albrecht and Associates in Vancouver after he received the title Chef of the Year. He used that experience to source out quality wines and spirits to import.
In 2010, he established XFour craft vodka, his own line of four-times-distilled premium quality vodka. His XFour handcrafted rye and corn vodka won a gold medal in Los Angeles at a SIP international spirits competition. The Von Albrecht and Associates portfolio includes many outstanding spirits. Outstanding single casks of single-malt whiskies are selected, bottled and offered in very limited numbers in their markets.
Marcus has cooked with media personalities on local television, has been interviewed on radio and has been featured in newspapers and magazines across Canada. He was the first documented Canadian chef to cook on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro.
We are privileged to have you in B.C., Chef.
ESQUIMALT-METCHOSIN COMMUNITY
RESPONSE TO
COVID-19
M. Dean: My community is a place where people look out for each other, where organizations make a positive difference every day and where businesses are always looking for a way to give back. It’s no surprise, then, that this pandemic has brought out the best in all of them. I’ve heard countless stories of residents who have gone above and beyond to help their neighbours, including grocery runs for those who are too at risk by being out in public. “How can I help?” has been a common refrain in my community these last months.
Businesses in my community have shown remarkable resiliency this last while. Essential services large and small, like grocery stores, adapted quickly and efficiently to keep their team members and their customers safe. They’ve risen to the challenge. Locally owned and operated businesses like coffee shops, bakeries and clothing retailers have come out of the restrictions with new measures in place to keep everyone safe.
I’ve heard how their loyal customers have been so supportive and appreciative. They’re seeing many friendly faces again as neighbours embrace the pleasure of shopping small and local.
I know it’s the same in communities right across B.C., and I appreciate all the heroes who are doing their part and more to keep our economy and our services functioning. We’ve all been impacted by COVID-19 in diverse and profound ways.
Thank you to everyone in my community who has done their part to get us to this point and for their ongoing commitment to keep the people of Esquimalt-Metchosin safe and healthy.
Hon. Speaker, we’re all in this together.
BILL McRAE
E. Ross: Bill McRae was born on January 7, 1924, in a mining cabin on Hudson Bay Mountain in Smithers, B.C. He started working in the mining industry at just 14 years old. Enlisting in the army at 19 took him to France, Germany and, eventually, to Holland for Victory in Europe Day. Returning to Canada, Bill worked in forestry and mining before purchasing the post office and store in Usk, B.C., until it burned down in 1951.
Bill married Helene Adams that year and, along with Helene’s father, formed Adams Lumber Co. Ltd. in Usk, where he was the managing director, while Helene handled the office work. Bill was a founding director of Skeena Sawmills in Terrace and a managing director from 1960 to 1981. He was a consultant to a number of sawmills, the provincial government and the Alcan aluminum smelter in the 1980s.
Bill’s help in building the city of Terrace is still felt today in Terrace and the surrounding communities. In the late 1950s, he was one of a group of locals who each contributed $4,000 to purchase land. In 1960, after successful lobbying of the government, those lands were used for the construction of the Mills Memorial Hospital. Bill was a founding member of the Dr. R.E.M. Lee Hospital Foundation, established to purchase medical equipment, and continued to be an honorary board member well into his 90s.
Bill helped to establish the Terrace arena and the Northwest Community College. He was a city alderman and was named Freeman of the City of Terrace in 1989. This is just a small snapshot of the accomplishments of Bill McRae.
Bill McRae passed away peacefully at Mills Memorial Hospital on July 9, 2020.
On behalf of my family and Skeena, I send my condolences, but also my thanks for the incredible and fascinating life and contributions of Bill McRae.
SANDSPIT INN
J. Rice: Once a logging town, the community of Sandspit on Haida Gwaii has been transitioning to a tourism centre, which has proven to be quite beneficial to the island’s economy. An integral part of that success depends on places like the Sandspit Inn keeping their doors open.
The Sandspit Inn was built by Frank Beban, logging in the 1980s, following a fire of the old hotel. It has had several operators since then but has essentially remained open ever since. In 2012, the Sandspit Community Society took over the lease and purchased the chattels, and the society has been running the inn ever since.
Unfortunately, Transport Canada has let the community know that they are cancelling their lease and demolishing the building. With 20 hotel rooms, a licensed restaurant with seating for 50 and a lounge with capacity for 75, there are no structural, mechanical or environmental reasons why the building should be demolished. The inn is where people congregate in Sandspit. It has the only pub and, for the past 35-plus years, has been the place to socialize.
The inn is also essential to tourism development, with a perfect location adjacent to the airport. Sandspit patron Claire Gauthier recently stated:
“I just wanted to give a big shout-out to all the Sandspit Community Society and all of their employees over the years. It’s sad to see the inn shut down. It has united our community by giving us all a place to come together and share food, drinks and stories. Thank you for working hard to keep things running when the goings were rough.
“We all wish things could have worked out differently. As I rummaged through the bedding, towels and chairs, I had a pit in my stomach. I couldn’t help but remember all the good times that will be no more.
“All of your extraordinary hard work has not gone unnoticed by your community. Thank you for fighting for us.”
The Sandspit Inn is an integral part of the tourism economy in Sandspit but also plays a critical role in bringing the community together as a gathering place. My hope is that the federal government could see the importance and significance of that and support the residents of Sandspit by letting them keep their inn.
ROTARY CLUB OF NANAIMO
M. Stilwell: It’s my pleasure to highlight a Nanaimo service club that has contributed to the local and international community for over 100 years. Twenty-three men came together for the first meeting of the Rotary Club of Nanaimo in 1920, and this past May, the local club, with the motto of “Service above self,” celebrated its centennial anniversary.
There have been changes over the years. Women were inducted into the Rotary Club of Nanaimo for the first time in 1992, and other rotary clubs have been established in the region, such as Nanaimo North, Lantzville, Nanaimo Oceanside, Parksville AM and the Qualicum Beach Sunrise.
What has remained consistent is the positive change and contributions that our Rotarians make. They strive to serve and make a difference on a local and a global scale, and we can see the evidence of their good work, of their impact, around our towns and our cities.
The Rotary Club of Nanaimo has supported countless organizations and construction of a variety of facilities like the Rotary Skate Park, Nanaimo Community Hospice and the emergency room at Nanaimo General Hospital. It was also involved in creating the all-weather Rotary bowl track and field facility, a place where I spent many hours training for the Paralympic Games. Their contributions involved donations, hands-on work and fundraising. I know that many people, for example, look forward to their giant book sale each and every year.
This year to mark the centennial, the club is working on a peace garden in downtown Nanaimo’s Maffeo Sutton Park. I certainly look forward to what I am sure will be a beautiful reminder of all that this long-standing club has contributed to the city. Congratulations to the Rotary Club of Nanaimo on 100 years, and many thanks to your members and all the Rotarians for the important work that you do.
INNOVATION BY NANAIMO BUSINESSES
DURING
COVID-19
S. Malcolmson: The B.C. economy will be the out-performer, says Deloitte Canada, posting the mildest downturn and returning to pre-COVID levels the quickest. Now, Deloitte attributed to that how well British Columbians pulled together and flattened the curve of COVID-19, but I want to highlight the economic boost provided by some fantastic and innovative Nanaimo business organizations.
The B.C. Tourism Resiliency Network is one. It originated in Nanaimo. It was started by Tourism Vancouver Island, and it’s now delivered across British Columbia. So far 1,000 businesses are getting one-on-one navigation support, coaching, business strategy, a marketing and digital information hub, finance experts. It has got funding from our Ministry of Tourism, but this is really led by the innovators that designed this great way to work together.
Another is the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce Marketplace. They actually built an online shopping mall at breakneck speed. Local buying is easier than ever before, and we’re able to support our neighbours at this really tough time, because people that hadn’t been able to get online before were able to, extremely quickly. You can see everything from photography to fashion there.
Another is the digital economy rapid response recovery program. It’s a free service started by Innovation Island and the Island Coastal Economic Trust. Launched in April, available to businesses, so far 300 have tapped into it on the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island. A great way to get matched with service providers, and a great example of the business community supporting each other.
Finally, the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce identified that expanding patios would be a great way for people to honour, in cafés and restaurants, physical distancing. They got the province to agree, they got the city to agree, and the very next day, people were out banging 2-by-4s into place on our sidewalks.
The pandemic has hit local business terribly hard. I don’t underestimate that. But our best chance to come out of this intact is to tap into innovators like we have in Nanaimo.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR
EDUCATION SYSTEM
REOPENING
J. Johal: Last week the Minister of Education finally promised to unveil a schooling plan on July 29. Imagine my surprise when, as a parent, I received a request from the ministry to complete a survey on what school might look like in the fall. The deadline for filling out the ministry’s consultation: July 31.
This doesn’t add up, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Education tell parents why their input won’t be included in the government’s plan?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The effort that government is undertaking right now to restart education in September is based on the successful plan that we had in June. We were the only jurisdiction to reopen all of our schools in North America. I think that’s a testament to the 70,000 people who work in the education system. We had a health and safety protocol that is now being emulated by jurisdictions around this continent and, indeed, internationally.
All of that effort — and it was a tremendous, tremendous effort, six to eight weeks of planning — paid huge dividends to the future direction that we’re heading to. But we want to know what parents think of that experience.
Obviously, there was a great level of fear and uncertainty that is part of this pandemic. Some parents opted not to return their children to school. We made that voluntary. But 200,000 children did return to the school system, and we want to know the experiences of families that both utilized in-class instruction that was returned in June and, of course, families that continued to avail themselves of remote, online learning activities.
This is about getting better. This is about noting the experiences of families in British Columbia to inform our plan. The steering committee I referenced earlier is composed of every stakeholder in the K-to-12 sector.
The collaborative approach we have in British Columbia has been key to our success in British Columbia. I think other jurisdictions are very interested in how we were able to work with teaching professionals, support staff unions, principals and vice-principals, elected trustees and move forward on a consensual basis where we’re all working together — of course, under the scientific leadership of our very capable provincial health officer.
J. Johal: The reality is that parents are worried about what the fall looks like. I know, as a parent, that I’m worried. Tens of thousands of British Columbians are worried, because if kids don’t have school open, they can’t work. It’s about economic recovery as well.
The uncertainty and worries that parents have about child care, about transportation, about going back to work are very real. Thousands and thousands of parents are being impacted. The minister is adding to that uncertainty. Originally, the minister said there would be no plan until August 20. Under pressure last week from the opposition, he set a date of July 29, but now his own survey says that input will be accepted until the end of July.
Will the minister confirm for the parents of British Columbia that a clear plan, one that sets out what’s going to happen in September, will be released on July 29?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, again, to the member for the question. I know that he probably reads the daily news. The date around July 29 is now public. We’ve confirmed that. We have a steering committee in every part of the school system working towards giving parents as much certainty as we can give.
We have to be frank here. We will announce what the plan looks like, what the updated health and safety protocols look like, and give a substantive release of the plan details by the end of July. We’re always going to have to check that against how well British Columbia is performing in this pandemic. So it will be updated throughout the summer.
In terms of the parent engagement that we’re conducting, I’m very, very pleased. In the very first week that the survey was made available to parents around British Columbia, we had 10,000 surveys completed. It is increasing by the day by the thousands. This is very valuable input for [inaudible recording], and it will help inform the plan for it.
J. Tegart: I’ve heard from a lot of parents and a lot of grandparents who just want straight answers, so they can figure out what they’re going to do in the fall. The minister says: “The goal is to have school instruction resume five days a week.” But the head of the B.C. Teachers Federation, Teri Mooring, says to hold on a minute. “Right now it is unlikely that we will be back to full-time instruction in schools.” Parents just want an honest answer.
To the Minister of Education, will there be full-time instruction in the classroom in September?
Hon. R. Fleming: We’re trying to bring certainty. That’s what the planning exercise is about. That’s why the B.C. Teachers Federation is a component of the steering committee. We very clearly stated that that is our goal. That’s the goal of many Canadian provinces and territories for September.
Our province’s chance of having all kids return to school in the fall is enhanced by how we all perform as a province, how we all take our responsibilities to be safe and engage in activities that are safe and under the advice of Dr. Bonnie Henry and others for the duration of the summer. That’s what the plan depends on.
We will share the elements of the plan when the steering committee has completed its work. I’ve told the members that that will be made publicly available by the end of July.
The parent survey, just to correct the previous member, is available, and I would encourage all MLAs to direct parents towards this from their constituency offices. It will be online until July 24. That still remains an important avenue to receive feedback.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: Well, let’s be clear. These are questions that thousands of parents are asking: “Am I going to have to find child care? Am I going to have to work fewer hours and stay at home? Will my boss let me work from home? Will my kids be able to adapt? Will their mental health suffer?” These are serious questions that families are asking, and the minister’s refusal to provide straight answers is unacceptable.
Will the minister commit today that the July 29 plan will answer the questions that parents have?
Hon. R. Fleming: If the member has been listening to the conversation, has been participating in the discussion that is going on within the school system…. We have a very diverse school system, 60 school districts and independent schools around British Columbia. We’re building our plan based on a success that only British Columbia enjoyed in June. We will continue to work on that for September.
We want to give as much certainty as we can. That requires very careful planning. Safety is our number one priority for students and staff and families. We know that education is critically important to the overall provincial effort in terms of restarting our economy. We are mindful of that. We’re on track as an outlier jurisdiction who has managed the pandemic well, has safely reopened schools and is in an excellent position to do so come September.
A lot of parents are very happy with what has happened in British Columbia. Let me quote one parent, who says…. He said this on the radio: “We have been very happy with what the public education system has provided, certainly for our son, in our school district.” That quote — the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may, we will want to make sure we give a good opportunity for the opposition to get in as many questions as possible.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE AND ECONOMIC
RECOVERY
A. Olsen: The COVID-19 crisis exposed existential threats to our society and, of course, our economy. As we plan our recovery from COVID-19, we remain extremely vulnerable to the economic and social crisis that can be brought on by a degrading climate.
A few months ago this government delayed indefinitely the next scheduled increase to the price of carbon. In the current economic context, this may be seen as a tough question. But it is now, more than ever, that we need to talk about the price signals that we will use to shape our recovery.
Economists agree that consistent, scheduled increases to the price of carbon are essential to its effectiveness as a tool. When the government remains consistent in our policy to raise the incentive to decarbonize and innovate, it provides businesses with the certainty that they need to plan for their investments in moving to a clean economy.
We need a clean recovery. If we don’t continue with progressive carbon pricing, we risk destroying the progress that we have created thus far and entering into a more carbon-intensive recovery.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will she provide the right signal for a clean recovery by telling us when her government will restore the scheduled carbon tax increase?
Mr. Speaker: We seem to have a technical glitch.
Minister of Finance, perhaps we could come back.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.
British Columbia has the most robust carbon tax in North America. We have provided predictability to British Columbians and to industry by laying out an advanced schedule that maintains that leadership and that shows where we’re going. We also know that the carbon tax is not the only tool necessary to make advances in the face of the climate crisis.
We have increased the climate action credit for British Columbians to help families deal with the cost and make the changes. We have the CleanBC industrial incentive program to do the same thing. We also have a suite of regulations, and we’re investing well over $1 billion over a four-year period to fight climate change.
The member is right. We faced, in March, a COVID crisis. It doesn’t mean we turn away from our commitment to climate action. If anything, it has inspired us to double down and ensure that CleanBC and climate action will be at the heart of our economic recovery.
I don’t believe that it’s responsible government, in the face of an immediate crisis that affected every business and every person in every corner of British Columbia, to move ahead without thinking about the impacts of not making an adjustment to our plan. We deferred the increase in the carbon tax for review by September 30. That review will take place. It will take place in the context of our economic recovery plans as well as the state of COVID.
We recognize the climate emergency. We also recognize the COVID crisis. We believe it’s possible to address both at the same time. That’s exactly what we intend to do.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the very thorough answer.
Sectoral targets, as enabled by last year’s Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, need to be set by March 2021. This is also an important tool. It assists industry and the public to identify where emissions originate, what policies are working and those that aren’t. Transparent, data-driven sectoral targets can assist us in balancing our current emission rates and reductions that are necessary to meet our legislated targets.
As we work to recover from a badly damaged economy with both an immediate and a long view, establishing sectorial targets will help us to achieve the prosperous and clean future that British Columbians want.
My question is again to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Has the minister asked his staff to use sectoral targets to ensure that our recovery strategy is in line with the emission reductions that we need to achieve CleanBC?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member.
We’re very proud of the work we’ve done to create the CleanBC plan. Part of that was creating changes to the Climate Change Accountability Act, the interim emissions target as well as the establishment in legislation of the responsibility to create sectoral targets. We did that in consultation with the Green caucus, as the member well knows.
We also consulted quite broadly in the creation of that new legislation. We are working hard to do the engagement necessary with environmental organizations, with industry, with British Columbians, with municipalities, with Indigenous people, to ensure that we get the targets right and that we do it in a way that they can achieve their purpose. Their purpose is to provide certainty, to provide guideposts along the way to meeting our legislated targets, to provide a road map to get there. We have much engagement left to do, but we are on target to be setting those targets as required by legislation.
We also are working very, very hard on ensuring that we have a broad-based set of recommendations for cabinet consideration for specific items in our economic recovery plans that will provide jobs, that will provide equity, that will lift up communities and Indigenous people, that will support the economy of British Columbia and move us further along the pathway to meeting our emission reduction targets and entrenching CleanBC in the future of British Columbians.
STAFFING AND SERVICES
AT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
FACILITIES
T. Stone: Communities across British Columbia are experiencing what the Housing Minister referred to, quite dismissively, yesterday as “a bit of an unsettled time.”
This is what Carolyn and Paul Berry, owners of Spoke Bike and Ski, had to say about the rapidly deteriorating situation on Victoria Street West in Kamloops.
“We are subject to break-ins, vandalism, theft and unlawful use of our private property daily. We have had our phone lines cut. We had an attempted break-in through the back of our building. We’ve had a break-in through the roof of our building and fires started in trailers beside our building. Our staff feel threatened. Our customers are being affected as well as the constant cleanup. This is the reality of Victoria Street West.”
These are real issues that are undeserving of being associated with a characterization by the minister as being a “bit of an unsettled time.”
To the Housing Minister, when will she provide the 24-7 on-site, wraparound services that our most vulnerable population needs and that all of these communities are calling out for?
Hon. S. Robinson: I can appreciate the member talking about some of the challenges that they left behind because they didn’t do the kind of supportive housing that is desperately needed. What they’re demonstrating is just how much more work there is to do. There is still absolutely lots of work to do because you can’t fix 16 years of bad in three years. It’s just impossible. But we’ve certainly made a good start.
I want to point out that yesterday I read into the record a job description, a job posting, for what it takes, the professional expertise it takes, to be a supportive worker that is available 24-7.
Let me read it into the record for the member. I want to make sure that the member understands exactly what other kind of resources are absolutely available for these people who have been neglected for well over a decade by the previous government.
Dr. Anne Nguyen, who works with the Cool Aid Community Health services outreach team here in Victoria…. This is what she had to say recently on CBC radio around the supports that her team brings to those who are homeless. She says it is a team of 20-some-odd doctors who work in about four full-time positions, working with nurses and a social worker, delivering health services in these five motels — the ones that are here in Victoria — and at the Save-On-Foods arena.
This is the other thing she says. She says that there has been a fair bit of stabilization that has occurred in the last few months, so people are accessing health services, including addictions care, mental health care services and some primary care. What she also says is that what she’s hearing is that housing first works and that we need more of it.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: News flash for the minister opposite. This is three years into their mandate. They’re responsible for ensuring that the services are there to help people get better. They’re responsible for ensuring that there are roofs over people’s heads. They’re responsible for responding to small businesses in communities across this province which are constantly getting broken into. They’re responsible for the fact that people in their own neighbourhoods are terrified to walk out of their doors. This is happening everywhere. Simply moving folks into temporary housing, while not ensuring that the clinicians are actually on site, is not going to help the vulnerable population get any better.
Nina and Mindy of Sisters Sleep Gallery had this to say: “Every night our families at home worry for our safety and well-being.” The question in their minds always is: “Will they make it home safely at the end of the day?”
Clearly, more resources are needed to help people get better. Yet the minister says: “While there may not be clinicians on site, there is always someone to have a cup of tea with.” Not good enough, to the minister across the way.
The question again is this. When is the minister going to ensure that the 24-7 on-site, wraparound services and supports, which this government talks about so often, are actually in place for the people who need those supports?
Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s be clear about the choice here. These people are already part of our communities. They’re our mothers and our sisters. They’re our fathers and our brothers, and they were, frankly, ignored for a long time. They were neglected.
We’re choosing to care for them. We’re choosing to put them in homes. We’re choosing to make sure that they have the supports that they need. They can live on the streets without supports, or they can live in a home with supports. If it was up to the opposition, they would still be on the streets. Let’s be really clear.
While we’re working to tackle some very big challenges…. No one is saying these aren’t big challenges; they are absolutely big challenges. We’re working with people, and we’re working with communities. The opposition, instead, is driving their resources to drive division. They want to see division, and you know why? They want to see division because they want to score cheap political points rather than working together to make sure that these people are supported and are housed and can be integrated into the community.
S. Sullivan: Overdose deaths are at an all-time high, and the homelessness count earlier this year indicated that homelessness is going up. The minister claims that she is caring for people, that they have wraparound supports already in place for the people that she has moved into residential neighbourhoods. That is not what residents say.
Rosie writes: “I feel like a prisoner in my own home.” Jennifer writes: “We feel helpless and captive.” Thomas writes: “No one should feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.”
To the Minister of Housing, when will she provide the care and the wraparound services residents so need to feel safe again in their own communities?
Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said, we inherited a crisis from the old government. We’ve been working diligently for three years. But like I said, you can’t fix 16 years of bad, 16 years of neglect, in three. We’re going to keep doing that work.
But let me tell you a story about Deborah and about how Deborah made use of the supports and services that were available to her. She moved into modular housing…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: The minister has the floor.
Hon. S. Robinson: …in June 2018. By Christmas, Deborah was talking about getting sober and moving forward with her life. She transitioned from her home to a detox program in January 2019. Then she made the choice to go into treatment in March 2019. By fall, she had moved to a sober living facility and started to apply for jobs.
Now Deborah, because of the supports and the services and the homes that she had available to her, has 18 months sober and a full-time job. Not only that, she reports that she has her driver’s licence back and she’s been able to purchase a motor vehicle.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON OPIOID
CRISIS AND ADDICTION
ISSUES
S. Sullivan: After three years of this government, overdose deaths are at an all-time high, and homelessness is going up. How many more years of this government can vulnerable people afford?
My constituent Barb forwarded a note from a 20-year neighbour, Wes: “I never thought that it would come to this. We visit the park daily with our two young children. We have to scan the area and watch them ultra closely. We fear for the children. We have posted our home for sale.”
My constituent Luke believes that the plan is “to wait until the community stops screaming about the disaster unfolding on our nearby streets.”
To the Minister of Housing, when will she address the legitimate concerns of my constituents?
Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for the question. The member is raising several different issues, all of them very, very challenging ones. I’m sure there’s not a person in this House whose heart is not broken at the fact that overdose deaths are now going up again in our province.
We know that last year, as a result of the enormous investments of our province from our government and the thousands of people working on the front lines of the overdose crisis, the death toll was going down. But as the member knows very well and as the coroner has been crystal-clear about, because of COVID-19, because of the disruption in the illicit drug supply, the drugs on the street are now more toxic than ever before. That’s the main factor that means the death toll has gone up.
From day one as the government, we have been tackling the overdose crisis on many fronts. On housing, because social determinants of mental health and addictions are very important. On the poverty front, with the new Minister of Poverty Reduction, who’s taken bold action. In our government, we are working overtime. We are working every single day to escalate our response to the overdose crisis.
Just this week we made some new announcements so that we have more tools in the toolbox: new substance use integrated teams. We know that four out of five people who are overdosing have had a connection with the health care system in the last year, and we want to keep them connected with health care, with the supports they need, with the counselling and with treatment. And we’ve also just announced 50 to 70 new beds.
We are working across the entire continuum of care, from harm reduction to treatment and recovery to prevention. It would serve the people of this province well — it would serve the people at risk of overdose much better — if we took the same approach to addressing these issues as we did on COVID-19, which means people on both sides of this House coming together with the people of the province, all hands on deck. Let’s show the same compassion and kindness and boldness and innovation as we did on the overdose crisis, as we have on COVID-19.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
J. Thornthwaite: We know that the overdose deaths have been going up because this province, after three years of a separate ministry, has failed to put forward a proper mental health and addictions plan that will actually help these people. The fact is that overdoses — total overdoses, non-fatal overdoses — have consistently gone up under the NDP’s watch.
Fabian — this is a constituent in downtown Vancouver. Today he wrote: “I live beside the Howard Johnson Hotel. There’s an increase of disruption, open drug use and people camping and defecating around the apartment building I live in.”
This is not sustainable, and guess what. This is happening all over the province under the NDP’s watch. This isn’t downtown Vancouver. Even the NDP mayor of Vancouver has said the homelessness crisis and the addiction crisis are worse under this government than ever before.
My question is to the minister who is dismissing this. What are you going to do about the people that are dying on the streets as well as the people that are not getting the supports they need in these hotels?
Hon. J. Darcy: I think it’s really unfortunate that the opposition chooses to play partisan games with an issue as serious as this. These are…. The people who are dying, some of them live on the street. Some of them have well-paying jobs. One out of four work in construction or trades.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor. Thank you.
Hon. J. Darcy: When I was first appointed to this job and I attended a recovery conference in New Westminster, somebody in the recovery community said to me: “Minister, you must feel as if you are driving a badly damaged airplane through a category 5 hurricane.”
What he meant by that was that that side of the House left behind a total mess when it came to the system of mental health and additions.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Darcy: Hon. Speaker, if the members want to hear the answer, I’m happy to continue.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Darcy: After 16 years of that side of the House ignoring the system for mental health and addictions care, we took bold and decisive action. We took action on the overdose crisis, and we’ve been taking action on the entire continuum of care.
Let’s talk about prevention for a minute. Let’s talk about prevention, because I think our goal is to start early, to start with our kids, to address small problems before they become big problems and before they turn into addictions.
I’m very, very proud that our government has expanded the Foundry network. We will have 19 Foundry youth centres in communities, urban and rural, right across British Columbia. We’re very proud of that, because that’s about keeping our kids safe.
We have been investing, as I’ve said, across the board, from harm reduction to prevention to treatment and recovery. We have new risk mitigation guidelines. We have new treatment beds. We have more coming on stream soon. But it does not serve the interests of people at risk of overdose or the people of this province to pretend that those supports are not there and to deny that the cause of the spike in overdoses is a poisoned drug supply. That’s the message we need to get out there to keep people safe across British Columbia.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we might have order. Thank you.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Before we go to orders of the day, I actually ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s not often I get to do this, but it gives me great pleasure that during question period, my niece gave birth to a baby boy, my second great-nephew, who weighed 8 pounds 3 ounces. His name is Rudy William Payne, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: Proceeding to orders of the day, I call Bill 11, committee stage.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
(VEHICLE INSURANCE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; S. Gibson in the chair.
The committee met at 11:03 a.m.
On section 33.
M. Lee: Before asking my question relating to section 33 of Bill 11, I wanted to convey to this House that those in the health care professional sector who are following this debate sent another letter in late last night. I wanted to read, into the record, portions of this letter. This letter was provided, like some of the other letters that we discussed yesterday in committee, to the government directly as well.
This letter states: “We are a collective of professionals which includes occupational therapists, registered clinical psychologists, clinical counsellors and kinesiologists, and are writing this letter to bring forward our concerns about the upcoming changes to the current ICBC model. We formed our multidisciplinary group, as our own professional organizations have not been representing the views of their members.”
A further statement: “There are many allied health care professionals, similar to our group, who currently provide services to ICBC. Many are afraid to speak openly; however, we all know that the new system being proposed will cause harm to catastrophically injured clients who do not have a voice and do not know how to navigate the complexities of a civil resolution tribunal.”
This letter is signed by five health care professionals who are with this organization entitled the B.C. health professionals against no-fault. The letter is dated July 13. I presume the Attorney General has received a copy directly as well. I’d like to ask what the Attorney General will do to ensure that health care professionals like these will not be fearful of ICBC, in order to share their concerns.
Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things. First of all, I think we did canvass this yesterday — that when you have an industry group or a regulatory body or a sort of advocacy group for an organization of professionals, within that organization, there will be debates about what position to take on what issue. Inevitably — the member knows this, as we discussed the Law Society yesterday; it’s our own experience — some members will be in favour of certain reforms, and others will be opposed. Ultimately, it’s for those organizations to make their own determination.
The members who don’t get their way have clearly, in this case, decided to form a separate organization for the sole purpose of resisting this proposal to reform our insurance system. It’s their right to do that. I would encourage them, as an advocate of free speech, to do that. The only way for government to get better and for this policy to be as strong as possible, is if we hear from all sides, including those who oppose it — specifically that they would raise concerns about where they feel the model falls short, so that we can do our best to address that.
It’s that spirit of open engagement that I’ve tried to foster. I had a conversation this morning with a personal injury lawyer that had suggestions about how we could, potentially, address the excesses of the current tort system. I’m welcome to all comers. I encourage it. If I heard even one instance of some kind of retaliation against somebody for providing that feedback to government, I would do whatever was possible to make that right and to correct that error. That’s our side.
On the other side, we see that a number of the largest firms who work in the area of personal injury are preparing a blacklist to prohibit the same allied health professionals that the member talks about, to prevent them from providing their feedback to government. I think that is a mistake on their part. It won’t prevent the reform from happening. It won’t prevent us from doing everything we can to make it as good as possible, but it will prevent vital feedback from these allied health professionals that could improve the experience of British Columbians in this new system. That is the situation that they’re creating. It doesn’t benefit anyone.
I’m glad to hear of the correspondence — I’ve not seen it — that the member references. I’m glad to meet with this organization of five health care professionals, maybe more — they say there are more; that’s fine — to hear their concerns about the new system and how we can make it better. I want them to know and anyone to know that if they have feedback about how we can make this new system as good as it can be, not only am I keen to hear it, but I will do everything I can to protect their ability to provide that feedback.
If their sole feedback is, “We don’t want you to change the system because we provide a lot of expert reports in the current system. We think that’s a valuable service, and we won’t be able to provide that same level of expert report in the new system. We’re going to have to change our business model,” I’ll hear that. But I have to say that it’s not persuasive.
The reason it’s not persuasive is that British Columbians can no longer afford that kind of infrastructure around how we resolve automobile collision insurance claims. They cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure of personal injury lawyers, of expert witnesses, of transcribers, of you name it — apparently almost 10,000 people, according to the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia — subsidized by car insurance rates.
We just can’t afford it. We can’t maintain that and increase benefits. We can’t maintain that and reduce rates. So we have made a difficult decision. There are going to be people who disagree with that. That’s fine, but it is a necessary reform.
The member wants assurance that people can bring their feedback forward. He has it. He had it yesterday. I would like the member to continue to join me in condemning the blacklist of occupational therapists, prepared by personal injury law firms that want to retaliate against occupational therapists, who have absolutely no responsibility in terms of government’s decision to move in this direction. All they want to do is provide feedback to make sure that the new system is as good as it can be, which should be their right as British Columbians. I hope the member continues to stand up and speak out against that retaliation.
M. Lee: Well, in this process, the time that we’ve had to go through this bill, and receiving letters that are continuing to come in from health care professionals outside of the consultation process the government is doing…. I don’t want to prolong this discussion any further than we have been doing. But just to say, the Attorney General queries whether these health care professionals are somehow…. Going back to Bill 9 — we’re obviously debating Bill 11 — this is not about the number of expert reports, certainly.
For the record, in this letter…. I’m sure the Attorney General will turn his mind to it when he sees it and receives it. It does, of course, address pressing concerns, including clients with traumatic brain injuries who are unable to advocate for themselves when they need new services under this new system; clients with high-level spinal cord injuries — quadriplegia — who often require 24-hour care; and, of course, again, raising the question about why there’s been no open public consultation on the new model of care.
They raise other concerns relating to: if your family member sustains a severe brain injury and it’s extremely challenging to cope with their personality challenges, will your counselling be covered by an insurance carrier that only insures the insured individual? If your teenager sustains a brain injury, what protections are there for future earnings capacity, when they haven’t established an earnings history? Does a single insurance carrier in this province have all the autonomy to make predictions about your child’s future? Does an injured mother who works part time and looks after her young children get wage-loss benefits in perpetuity at her earning level at the time of loss? Who advocates for this mother’s capacity for potential increases and future earnings as her children get older?
These are the considerations that are the concerns of these health care professionals. This, as I hear the Attorney General, he’s prepared to address further in the various stakeholder consultations. Hopefully, he’ll include these members as part of that.
But I need to turn back to the balance of this bill here in the time that we have. In terms of section 33, can I ask the Attorney General…. In terms of subsection 181(7), there is delegation-making power here, by way of regulation, that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may delegate a matter to or confer a discretion on the corporation. This is broad regulation-making power. I’d like to ask: what limits, if any, will surround this delegation-making power?
Hon. D. Eby: With respect to the correspondence the member read, my staff have checked, and I have not received that correspondence. Obviously, it’s difficult for me to engage with people who write only to the opposition critic. It must have been an error.
I’ll put on the record, if the members are watching…. I’d encourage the critic to pass on my email address, which is widely available. It’s AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca. It makes it a lot easier for me to get back to people and to understand what their concerns are.
The member assures me that these members who have written do not derive the majority of their income from expert reports. That’s okay. That was not a precondition of my hearing concerns from people. Just the opposite. But I did say to the member that if their sole submission was in relation to “we’d like to continue the current system, because we’re making a lot of money under that system,” that’s not a particularly helpful submission. Because that’s the very reason why we’re changing the system.
If the member thinks there isn’t a dramatic impact on expert reports with this shift away from litigation, he is mistaken. That is a significant portion of the savings that comes from this shift in the system. You don’t need to prepare expert reports on both sides for litigation, for duelling expert battle, because there is no litigation.
The hope is that we end up with experts who are exclusively focused on helping people get better, as opposed to experts who are exclusively focused on helping either the defence or the plaintiff bar in litigation.
Now, given that I did not receive the correspondence, I’m relying on the list of issues the member read into the record there quite quickly. We’ve addressed some of them — traumatic brain injury, high-level spinal injury, the need for 24-hour care. All of these are, of course, significant benefits under the new system, and that there are dramatically increased levels of benefits available for people who are catastrophically injured, many of whom run through either their part 7 benefits under the current system or the entirety of the insurance coverage that the at-fault driver has who hit them, and then they end up living in poverty.
I read into the record a letter from a mother of two young kids, who is facing exactly that situation under the current system. So a much better system in that way.
The member asks about support for caregivers. There’s actually a specific caregiver benefit under the new system — support for family members who have to provide care. Yesterday we talked about support for people who are catastrophically injured, including caregiving — that they can hire either the person that they identify to provide support for caregiving, or they can go to an agency. It’s up to them.
Again, the member goes back to earning history and of someone who is young, who hasn’t yet established…. You know, they’re in school, and they haven’t yet established an earning history. At a minimum, the new system will assure British Columbians that if a child is catastrophically injured, they’ll receive the industrial earning average of British Columbians for the rest of their lives and then a retirement benefit after 65, which is — when you think about if the child has the life expectancy of 70 years of age — a huge amount of money over those years and way in excess of the $2 million that most British Columbians carry in terms of insurance.
Those catastrophically injured kids are going to be much better off in that they will have support for the rest of their lives under the new system. Under the current system, they do not.
So a very brief response, and I would encourage those five health professionals who wrote to the critic to refer to the previous day’s debate on the other issues that they raised, which we have covered in some considerable detail.
With respect to the delegation, this is a legal necessity — that there be this delegation in order to make sure that action is taken by ICBC. They aren’t specifically delegated somewhere in the legislation or not ruled inappropriate or illegal by a court later on. The limits and constraints on it are contained in section 169 of the bill.
Sections 33 and 34 approved.
On section 35.
M. Lee: Just under subsection 183(1)(a), we’ve talked at length about the nature of this bill and that regulations would not expand the scope of the bill.
To the Attorney General, is there not a concern that when we talk about language here, where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations for “any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers is not provided for” under this new amended act…? Does that not expand the scope by regulation?
Hon. D. Eby: This is a re-enactment of a provision that already exists. The member has a track record, certainly, to look at — that the government hasn’t been using this to expand the provisions of an act. There’s also, obviously, judicial oversight of any measure you cannot legislate through regulation.
So there would be judicial oversight of any regulations made under this authority. The goal is to close gaps that might exist, that were not previously identified by regulation, in order to provide transition support until it can get in front of the Legislature.
Sections 35 and 36 approved.
On section 37.
M. Lee: By the proposed amendments in section 37 of this bill, it would be expanding the scope of the CRT’s power to review from final decisions to any decision. Would the Attorney General please explain what is contemplated by this change?
Hon. D. Eby: This is really what I would describe as a correction from the previous provision that was added, the judicial review standard that was intended for all decisions of the civil resolution tribunal. That is, when the civil resolution tribunal makes a decision, the judicial review standard applied by a reviewing court was intended to be the same for all decisions of the tribunal.
The word “final” could be interpreted to limit the judicial review standard to applying to only final decisions of the tribunal, which…. Not totally clear what that would be, but, in any event, it would potentially result in the standard for judicial review not applying to some decisions of the tribunal.
So by striking the word “final,” we’re making it clear that the judicial review standard of the civil resolution tribunal should be the same regardless of the nature of the decision made by the tribunal.
Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.
On section 40.
Hon. D. Eby: On the order paper, in my name, there is a proposed amendment that would strike section 40. In particular, the section is unnecessary because the House amendment to section 31 of the bill repeals subsection 111(2) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which would be amended by section 40. So if it’s been repealed, it doesn’t need to be amended.
I am advised that the proper practice is not to move an amendment that strikes the section but in fact is that the House vote on the section and vote it down. By voting down the section, the bill will therefore be amended to remove that section. So my recommendation to members of the House is, because the section is now no longer necessary, that all members vote against the section.
Section negatived.
Sections 41 and 42 approved.
On section 43.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 43 standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 43,
(a) in Column 1 of item 7 by deleting “Section 28” and substituting “Sections 27.1 and 28”, and
(b) by deleting item 8 in the table.]
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Eby: Section 27.1 comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It’s expected that section 27.1 will come into force on the same date as the amendment to the definition of benefits in section 1.
Item 8 in the table is deleted because section 30 of the bill, repealing part 8, will come into force on royal assent, consistent with sections 33 and 35, which replace part 8.
Amendment approved.
Section 43 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:31 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
(VEHICLE INSURANCE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020
S. Gibson: The committee on Bill 11 reports the bill complete with amendments.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting, Minister?
Hon. D. Eby: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: So ordered.
Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading Bill 14.
[S. Gibson in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2020
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill now be read a second time. This is Bill 14, intituled Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020.
The act proposes legislative changes to the Strata Property Act and Financial Institutions Act as a first step to address challenges faced by strata unit owners who have been seeing rising insurance costs, triple-digit increases to their insurance deductibles and little or no notice regarding increases to the premiums or reductions in their coverages.
According to an interim report by the B.C. Financial Services Authority, the strata insurance market in B.C. is unhealthy and has substantial issues that need to be addressed. As well, the same report acknowledges the complexities of this issue and the role all parties in the private and the public sector have in reducing the burden that so many strata owners are currently facing. This legislation represents our government taking a leadership role on a number of the aspects under our control to address challenges that have created an average of 40 to 60 percent increases in strata insurance premiums across British Columbia.
It will bring more transparency to the insurance strata industry, including broker commissions. It will close loopholes created by the previous government related to depreciation reports. It will take action to end referral fees paid to property managers, and it will give strata owners and corporations the tools that they need to better prepare when there are insurance cost increases.
Some of these changes will be effective once the legislation is passed. Other changes will provide enabling legislation for future necessary improvements to be made in consultation with strata owners and industry.
In addition to the changes listed already, this bill also sets out clear guidelines to require strata corporations to inform owners about any changes to their insurance coverage and provide notice of any policy changes, including any increases in deductibles. And it includes changes to protect strata unit owners against large lawsuits from strata corporations in cases where the unit owner was legally responsible for a loss or damage but through no fault of their own.
The act will amend both the Strata Property Act and the Financial Institutions Act to give government the ability to make regulations that will give strata corporations their ability to better respond to current insurance markets.
This includes guidelines for when stratas do and do not require full replacement value coverage; rules to enhance the quality and usefulness of depreciation reports; increased flexibility for stratas to make depreciation report targets and timelines; changing the minimum required contributions to the contingency reserve fund so corporations are better able to respond to large maintenance expenses; adding more clarity around what portions of a strata law require insurance coverage by the strata corporation and what do not so that coverage is clearly and appropriately allocated and paid for; giving owners more time for notice and review of insurance coverage costs and options; as well, giving strata owners more notice if an insurer has decided not to renew a policy so owners can prepare and choose a replacement.
Already these proposed changes are being met with support from those that are shouldering the burden the most. We’ve heard from Tony Gioventu of the Condominium Home Owners Association. He said recently of this legislation that it’s a great start for condo owners. In his words: “I think governments have approached this the right way, because it bought time to be able to look at the regulations, have consultation, work with all of the industry partners, work with the public and consumers.”
We know that there is more to do. The BCFSA is continuing its work and will be providing a final report in the fall. This legislation begins the process and goes a long way to help provide relief for strata owners who are facing considerable insurance costs. When we receive the final report in the fall, we will take further additional action, as needed, to make sure that strata owners have access to the insurance that they need.
With that, I move second reading.
T. Stone: I appreciate the time today to enter my comments into the record as we debate Bill 14, the Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), which is all about bringing forward a series of actions to address the strata insurance challenge that is facing so many British Columbians. I will speak for a few…. Well, up until the noon period today, and then I’ll reserve my right to have my place in debate and we’ll continue after we resume this afternoon.
I will say, this morning in my opening remarks, that certainly the official opposition has heard from countless British Columbians, as I know government members have, who are facing significant financial stress and significant anxiety from surging strata insurance costs. We have heard countless stories from communities all over this province of strata insurance premiums soaring by 100 percent, 300 percent, 500 percent, even cases of 800 percent increases in one year in the insurance premiums being charged to strata corporations.
We are hearing daily from dozens of people who are also facing significant increases in their deductibles that are part of those insurance policies. Deductibles that are going from, in the case of water damages, $25,000 per claim to a deductible of $250,000 or higher, again, in one year. That change is significant. Strata owners are, indeed, seeing their insurance costs go up by unprecedented rates.
Of course, this flows through to higher monthly strata fees that strata owners have to pay. We are hearing examples of folks having to pay an extra hundred bucks, two hundred bucks — even upwards of $500 per month — in additional monthly strata fees in order to cover the costs of this increase to insurance.
Some strata corporations are choosing to address the here and now financial challenge by imposing one-time assessments on all of the strata owners in a complex. Again, we’re hearing stories of people being hit with one-time assessments of $1,200 or $2,400. In some unfortunate situations, people are facing a couple hundred dollars extra in monthly fees on a go-forward basis, on top of a one-time assessment of $1,200 or $1,500.
Some strata corporations have even had the difficulty of securing full replacement cost coverage, while others have had the challenges of even renewing their insurance policy. Increasing numbers of strata corporations are hearing back from their brokers: “We are only able to secure an insurance renewal for you that covers 80 percent of the total replacement cost, not the required 100 percent that’s in the Strata Property Act.”
We’re seeing that the most concentrated areas — greater Vancouver, southern Vancouver Island, the Central Okanagan, in and around Kelowna — are certainly areas that are being hit hardest by this. But it is impacting all kinds of other communities, including my hometown of Kamloops. It would appear that buildings with recent water claims, whether they’re old or new, are being hit particularly hard.
Additionally, larger stratas in highrises with many units in those highrises are also being targeted, due to the greater exposure of multiple unit losses. That said, it would appear that no strata corporation — no strata owner — is able to avoid these increases. No one is safe from these astronomical increases. The bottom line is that people living in strata units cannot afford the resulting one-time assessments and the huge increase in monthly fees.
Now, it bears saying that there’s 35,000, approximately, strata corporations across British Columbia, which reflects an increasing number of British Columbians who are living in strata housing. Strata housing includes the most obvious examples: condominiums, apartments, duplexes, townhouses. But there’s also a growing number of bare land strata corporations. Those bare land stratas look a lot like a traditional, single family neighbourhood, only all of the common assets in that property are co-owned by the owners through a strata corporation.
Over 1.5 million residents in British Columbia, one third of British Columbia’s population, now lives in some form of a strata, whether that be a condo, a townhouse, an apartment, a duplex or within a bare land strata.
Fully half of all of Metro Vancouver’s residents live in stratas. When you think about that, and when you drive through rapidly growing communities in the Lower Mainland — whether that be in Surrey, whether that be in the Minister of Housing’s community of Coquitlam — you see significant construction underway. For the most part, these are housing units that have been or will be stratified, adding to the complement of British Columbians living in this type of housing. So it’s clearly an affordability issue that is impacting a growing number of people in every corner of the province.
Unfortunately, the timing of this — while it wouldn’t be good at any time — is coming on top of or concurrent with the COVID pandemic. So we have tens of thousands of British Columbians who are facing these astronomical increases — out-of-pocket increases — in their insurance costs for their strata unit at the same time that they’ve lost their job, or their spouse has lost a job, or their small business hasn’t been able to reopen or their small business revenues are down by 80 percent. I mean, this added financial distress is the last thing that these tens of thousands of British Columbians need.
Now, the B.C. Financial Services Authority did commission a report, and the preliminary findings were released on June 16. I don’t think there were any shockers or anything unexpected that came out of this report, but some of the findings included this: a 40 percent increase in premiums was determined across British Columbia generally and a 50 percent increase in insurance premiums across Metro Vancouver.
You talk to the Condominium Home Owners Association, talk to folks in the insurance business, talk to actual strata homeowners or strata renters — people facing these costs — they’ll tell you that they sure feel like it’s a lot more than a 40 percent increase across B.C. or a 50 percent increase. We certainly know that that’s the experience of a lot of strata corporations, strata owners.
The report found that a key driver of claims hitting stratas these days relate to water damage. Fully 46 percent of total claims costs in 2017 and over 56 percent of total claims costs in 2018 are attributable to water damage events that take place. The report found that the overall state of B.C.’s strata insurance market is “unhealthy.” The report also remarks that British Columbia has a strata insurance market that’s unhealthy and that is failing “to meet the goals of sustainability, affordability and availability.”
Now, the current unhealthy state of the B.C. strata market, as the report also indicates, is not fulfilling the needs of British Columbians. Of course, we get asked all of the time as policy-makers: “Why is this happening? What is causing this astronomical increase in strata insurance costs?” And there is no easy explanation other than to say there are a tremendous number of factors at play.
Among the many factors that are cited by those up close and personal with this issue, whether they’re a homeowner on the receiving end of the bill or whether they’re an insurance broker or someone in the underwriting business…. They’ll say that the drivers of higher strata costs include building size and construction materials used, obviously the claims history of buildings and where a building is located. Is it on or near a flood plain? Is it on or near an area that’s deemed to be a high earthquake risk? Has there been an increase in the number of claims with a particular building?
The number of unoccupied units or tenants — stratas with many unoccupied units may have a heightened level of maintenance issues. Repairs might not be fixed as quickly as they otherwise would if tenants were in their units more frequently. Obviously, the value of real estate plays a role. The lack of regular maintenance in some situations — not all, but in some strata buildings.
However, the big problem that strata corporations and strata owners are facing is much, much higher strata insurance costs due to international insurance companies deciding to charge more — a lot more — for strata insurance.
The stories are heartbreaking. I know the minister has received a deluge of emails on this, too, from folks.
This gentleman, Paul from Chilliwack, wrote just a couple of days ago. He says:
“I live in a strata complex on Chilliwack Mountain Road. Our strata council has been advised that the current insurer will be raising insurance premiums from $60,000 to $200,000, representing an increase of 233 percent in one year. There have been no major claims against our policy, and the complex has not changed since it was recently constructed.
“Both my wife and I are health care workers. We have continued to work throughout the pandemic, but many of our neighbours either have not or are retirees on fixed incomes. The per-unit increase for each unit is $2,000. This is going to be very difficult for many of my fellow neighbours and residents to pay.”
That’s Paul in Chilliwack.
I’ve heard from Bob and Susan in Kelowna. The insurance premium on their unit went up from $84,000 to $387,000 in one year. The water deductible, in their case, went from $15,000 to $150,000. They’re facing additional monthly strata fees of $200 per month. Bob says: “We’re pensioners, and we’re finding it very difficult to pay these added costs.”
Jack in Coquitlam says he has never seen insurance costs rise, year over year, like this. He has been in his building a long time. The premium is up, in one year, from $85,000 to $253,000. The water deductible is up from $15,000 to $150,000. The monthly strata fees, in his case, are going up $115 per month. These are mostly seniors in his building as well.
Jack in Coquitlam asks this question: “How am I supposed to enjoy retirement if I have no money?” The cost of everything else is going up. This is just, as I said earlier, another hit to Jack’s wallet and to Jack’s quality of life.
Wendy in Delta reached out to us. She’s in a building with a really solid preventative maintenance track record, a really good track record. Their premium has gone up by 300 percent, from $166,000 to $487,000 in one year. Again, Wendy in Delta says: “This unjustifiable increase is not only causing financial hardship to many owners. It will also have a negative effect on the real estate market.”
Chris in Chilliwack is in a ten-year-old building with no maintenance issues and no claims. His building’s premium has gone up from $87,000 to $263,000. The catch on this one is that the increased premium only covers 50 percent of the total replacement value for his building.
They can’t figure it out. With a solid maintenance record and no claims history, how is it possible that in one year they could go from being insured — have a reasonable policy in place, reasonable premiums and reasonable deductibles — to now being quoted a premium that has gone up from $87,000 to $263,000 in one year and that only covers half of the replacement value of the building? That’s not acceptable.
We’ve talked in this House about Marilyn Meyer in Richmond. Her strata corporation has actually been denied insurance solely based on the fact that it’s in Richmond. They’re being told that because of the earthquake risk. This is ridiculous. They haven’t had an issue in securing an insurance policy up to this point.
Leanne O’Grady in Penticton. We’ve talked about her situation in this House as well. In a virtual town hall that I did with the Leader of the Official Opposition quite recently, she advised us that her row house strata complex is facing an 800 percent premium increase in one year. How is she supposed to pay for that? How are her neighbours supposed to pay for that?
We know that Vancouver is a centre with a lot of condos and townhomes and stratified units of all sorts. Monica in Vancouver says: “I cannot figure out why the government is so unwilling to do anything that would provide financial relief for us. I’ve just agreed to pay my $1,500 special assessment to the strata to cover our huge insurance premium, which went from $127,000 to $306,000 in one year. The water deductible has gone from $15,000 to $250,000.”
We’re hearing these examples all over the province. People are under serious, significant financial strain, anxiety, distress, uncertainty.
I’ll have a lot more to say about the bill that has been put in front of this House, Bill 14, as well as a range of solutions and ideas that we’ve brought forward, all focused on trying to help people out and provide some relief for folks who desperately need it.
With that, I reserve my place in this debate.
T. Stone moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.