Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/7/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We are on clause 2.

26 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

10/7/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

18 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

10/7/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Members, you heard that the question is third reading of Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

19 words

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Section A reports Bill 9 complete without amendment.

8 words

Hon. Brittny Anderson

BC NDP

10/7/2025

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

In Committee A, I call the continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

21 words

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025, to order. Recognizing the Minister of Health, if you have any comments.

31 words

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

10/7/2025

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 12. In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage for Bill 9, health care recovery costs act.

30 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

16 words

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

I just want to open with a couple of remarks. It’s an honour to be back here for this fall session. It never gets lost on me as a small-town guy to be speaking in this beautiful chamber. I’d like to welcome back my fellow members from all opposition caucuses as well as the government. And nice to see you again, Mr. Speaker, of course, in the chair. I know we also have two members who are battling very serious illnesses, and I just want to wish them all the best. I really hope both those members are back here in the House where they belong as soon as possible. I was disappointed to hear the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions somewhat insinuating that debate on this bill is not necessary and that we should just trust the government with this. The amendments that are proposed here…. We’re thinking of possible challenges that could arise from such amendments. I don’t think it’s appropriate that the minister disregards some of those, because we’re trying to think of the whole picture here when we’re looking at amendments to legislation, which is extremely important. I’ve really appreciated this debate today, actually. I’ve heard some good points from government, also from our opposition caucus, and I do look forward to the committee stage of this bill where we can dive deeper into these proposed amendments and ask some more detailed questions therein. I’m coming today with the lens not only of the critic for tourism and resort municipalities but as somebody who lives and experiences adventure tourism in my life. Adventure tourism is a really unbelievable opportunity for the individuals and visitors not only in Columbia River–Revelstoke but, I’m going to say, the entire East Kootenay as a whole. It brings in tremendous tax revenue for the government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Whether it’s paragliding, guided fly-fishing trips, guided rafting trips, heli-skiing, ATV tours, these are inherently very dangerous activities, in a sense. I’m going to talk about a couple of those specifically. From a 30,000-foot view here, I do want to debate and, of course, question in committee stage some of the potential high-level challenges I see with regard, potentially, to liability waivers. In the adventure tourism business, liability waivers are obviously very important, but there have also been lots of instances of them not being, in cases, really worth the paper that they’re written on. That can be a serious concern. We recognize and respect the government’s intent to recover public health care costs, obviously, for the benefit of all taxpayers, but we want to focus specifically, in my opinion. We want to target in on the challenges with liability waivers and the viability of those liability waivers as we move forward. I’m going to take a moment here just to describe a couple of these specific adventure tourism industries that are big business where I come from and for the people that I’m here to represent. Heli-skiing, which directly and indirectly brings about $175 million a year into the province, is one of the most iconic but high-risk adventure offerings that we have here in British Columbia. Obviously, guests are flying in helicopters at elevations sometimes exceeding 2,500 metres to ski that beautiful, untouched powder that, if you have the experience to do that, is so unique. The logistics around this are very complex, the terrain is extremely unpredictable, and the safety standards can be uncompromising at times. Before a single guest boards a helicopter, they sign a comprehensive waiver and do a series of training initiatives, which takes, at times, several hours. This waiver outlines the avalanche risk, the weather variabilities, terrain hazards and the limitations of the rescue operations, at times. It’s not just a formality; it’s a contract based on trust. Specifically, with clause 2, I look forward to debating the minister about this at committee stage, just in more detail, for clarity reasons, more than anything. It seems that, potentially, clause 2 would upset that trust a little bit. By stating that a waiver of liability does not affect the government’s right to recover health care costs, the bill potentially exposes heli-ski operators to financial liability, even when no negligence has occurred. This is a very, very complex industry. If a guest suffers a broken leg or, heaven forbid, much worse, despite being briefed, equipped and guided, the operator may still be pursued for the cost of that injury. Heli-skiing operators already face astronomical insurance premiums, seasonal constraints and weather-related cancellations. All of these unintended consequences around the industry are ever-present threats to this industry. If we add a potentially unpredictable legal exposure — again, I look forward to talking to the minister about this in more detail — this will potentially steer operators into looking at a very different business model or to abandon the business altogether. A second one that I’m very familiar with is guide-outfitters. Obviously, this brings in tremendous revenue for the province. It’s a really unique experience for those that get to hike up into the high alpine, looking for goats and sheep specifically. It’s a very rewarding and challenging experience, but it’s very dangerous as well. The folks that operate these businesses — I know many of them very well, personally — are not just guides. They’re stewards of the land, they’re educators, and they’re huge proponents of proper safety guidelines. Obviously, they operate in very remote terrain, where medical evacuation can take hours at best and where clients could be exposed to wildlife, terrain and weather-related risks. Guide-outfitters, just like the heli-ski operators, do rely heavily on liability waivers. They’re tailored to specific risks within the guide-outfitting industry and also to each expedition, as the guide-outfitting industry is very unique from one to the next. There’s an intensive orientation process, as well, which clients are taken through. They protect the guide from liability in cases where a client, despite being warned, chooses to take a risky shot, cross a river, climb a bridge, etc. Potentially, Bill 9 challenges that protection. Clause 6. If a guide is named in a legal proceeding and seeks a contribution from another party, say, a subcontractor or a transport provider — this is just my view from a 30,000-foot level here — the government could subrogate the guide’s right to recover those costs. This means the guide may be liable not only for their own actions but for the actions of others that are operating their business within theirs, even when the waiver is signed and no fault was found. This is a recipe for litigation, which is obviously time-consuming, stressful and extremely expensive. It would also potentially discourage collaboration, increase insurance costs and force guides to limit their scope of services. Overall, I want to bring to light some of these challenges related to the very, very complex and ever-changing nature of civil liability that occurs with some of these high-risk activities. Beyond that, Bill 9 introduces a labyrinth of compliance obligations. Clause 4.1 requires parties filing third-party notices to notify the government within 21 days. Clauses 10 and 11 mandate the provision of prescribed records and cooperation with government agents. For heli-skiing operators specifically, which I’ll go back to, and guide-outfitters, this could be a logistical nightmare, to be honest with you. These businesses are run by very, very small teams, in most cases with limited administrative capacity. Often family members, husbands or wives of these operators, do the books. They operate in seasonal windows, in remote areas and with minimal connectivity. So the shrinking of that time constraint, I think, is something that we need to discuss, because these are, as I said, very seasonally intense operations. Often guide-outfitters are out for weeks and weeks at a time, and they can’t necessarily stop what they’re doing to provide these reports. Clause 21 offers indemnification for expenses incurred in compliance but only subject to regulation. I just want to go through the clarity on what qualifies here, as we get into committee stage, on how reimbursements will be processed or whether small operators would be prioritized. I want to look at some of those risks there as well. Adventure tourism is primarily operated in rural communities. It’s the lifeblood — I don’t want to underestimate this — of many rural communities here in British Columbia, whether it’s lodges outside of Golden or guide-outfitting operations in the South Country. Whatever it may be, these are local economies we’re talking about. The employment in hospitality and conservation partnerships is obviously really important and wide-reaching here. We may want to look at some amendments to this legislation as we move forward, or these communities could suffer unintended consequences, in my opinion — the biggest risk being that operators could scale back if they just feel like their exposure to risk is too great. We have to dig into the piece a little bit here, about these liability waivers, as we move through the process. The sad thing would be that operators would potentially look at jurisdictions which have more clarity around some of the regulation and legislation. Liability waivers have served as a legally recognized tool for managing risk in high-adventure activities. Participants voluntarily sign these waivers, as we’ve talked about, acknowledging the inherent risks involved and agreeing not to hold operators liable for injuries that may occur in the absence of negligence. But we’re talking about very, very complex industries here, and these liability waivers are not always as bulletproof as they seem to be. We need to address this. They’re not loopholes; they’re a contract. They reflect informed consent and personal responsibility. I think members on this side of the House would agree with that. But at times, if these waivers are considered ineffective for the purpose of government cost recovery, Bill 9 introduces potentially challenging precedents here. It tells the operator: “If you follow the safety protocols, your participants signed the waiver and no negligence occurred, you may still be pursued for the cost of that person’s medical treatment.” We need clear frameworks and guidelines if we’re going to move forward with the proposed amendments to this legislation. Again, looking at the adventure tourism industry, these operators already face significant legal exposure. As I did mention, their insurance costs are sky-high. They train their staff rigorously, invest in top-of-the-line safety equipment, follow industry best practices, etc., but they also rely on the certainty that liability waivers provide. We have to make sure that we get this right. Without them, every incident, no matter how unforeseeable or unavoidable, becomes a potential lawsuit, and we can’t live in a society where the risk of doing an activity and potential liability around that outweigh the opportunities for those activities. Clause 6 looks at introducing rights for the government. If a defendant in a legal proceeding seeks contribution or indemnity from a third party, the government is subrogated to that entitlement. In other words, even if an operator is not directly liable, potentially, they may still be drawn into complex litigation because they are part of a chain of claims. I think that’s something we need to look at. The challenge is that we don’t want to get into a litigation minefield here with these amendments. I think that’s why digging deeper into this in committee stage is so critical. We cannot have these often small to medium-sized operators spending more of their generally razor-thin budgets on legal counsel, on insurance and on the administrative compliance that’s required here. These small businesses just simply can’t absorb this. The majority of adventure tourism operators in British Columbia are small businesses. They’re family-run, so like I said, they’re already operating on tight margins, and we don’t want to erode that even further, potentially, with increased litigation. Clause 1 of the bill expands the definition of “insurer” to include not only traditional insurance companies but also self-insured organizations, mutual defence groups and prescribed classes. This again could have consequences. By broadening the scope of who’s considered an insurer, the bill subjects a wider range of entities to the obligations of disclosure, cooperation and cost recovery. This includes small operators who may be self-insured or part of an informal mutual aid agreement. These businesses will now be treated as insurers under the law, with all attendant responsibilities and liabilities. Again, I just think there are some legitimate questions to ask here as we move forward. Clauses 10 and 11 further require beneficiaries and their representatives to provide prescribed records and information to the minister. I know my colleague has already talked about the sacred nature, really, of your medical records. I think that’s extremely important to keep in mind here. Clause 9 imposes similar duties on uninsured defendants. These provisions create a complex web of compliance obligations that could potentially overwhelm some of these small operators. The importance of the tourism industry is not just an economic engine here. It’s part of our identity as British Columbians, and it’s a cultural asset in my opinion. Millions of visitors every year come to our remote corners of the province for these wonderful experiences. It generates, as I said, throughout the province, billions of dollars a year in revenue and, more importantly, supports thousands of often very-high-paying jobs in rural and remote communities. So we just want to make sure that when we’re debating the finer points of this bill that…. You know, I agree with the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. We want to make sure that we work together to get this right. This is very important, especially in regions like mine. We’re not here as opposition to reject the principle of health care cost recovery. That’s not my intention, certainly, here debating this bill today. We understand the government’s desire to ensure that public funds are collected and used responsibly. But there could be some polishing to do around the edges of these amendments, no doubt. We’re going to recommend a few things around protections for operators — exempting, like I mentioned, some smaller operators from certain notification and disclosure requirements that they’re simply not able to do with the capacity that they have. I think just reasonable things that we can debate further. I think the idea here is to preserve the integrity of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act — I believe that is what we are trying to do here — while protecting the viability of adventure tourism, which is really, like I said, part of our identity here in British Columbia. I want to say again that I look forward to working collaboratively with the members in government, specifically the Minister of Health, on zeroing in on some of these targeted areas for these amendments, just to make sure that we’re thinking about everybody in the province here on both sides of the coin. This is a complicated piece of legislation in these amendments, although I believe the spirit of them is in the right direction. We just want to make sure that we have those discussions in an open and transparent way. I look forward to that, Madam Speaker, and I really want to thank you for the opportunity today.

2544 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

I just want to welcome everybody that’s up in the gallery, but particularly our youth that are here this afternoon, because they are definitely engaged. Thank you very much for being with us here today to debate Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025. We’ll now recognize our Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

56 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

For those of you joining us, we are debating Bill 9 this afternoon. We will now call on the member for Abbotsford South.

23 words

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

I rise to speak in support of Bill 9, the health care recovery act, which is quite technical in nature, I will say. I agree with the statements so far. The current act was implemented in 2009, and it’s clear through experience that it is time for an update for this act. The act has largely been successful, and as we’ve heard, recoveries, year to year, vary, but this past year it was around $6.6 million that was recovered. Some aspects of the current act prevent the government from recovering health care costs to the fullest extent, and it’s time for us to make sure that we can address those gaps. These amendments will allow the government to recover the costs of health care services of those who have been injured due to negligence. This means shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the wrongdoer. This bill also allows us to lengthen the window that a claim can be amended, and it expands the disclosure obligations for defendants and insurers. The one part of this bill that really speaks to me, that I’m going to focus on when I talk today — I won’t talk for very long, I promise — is to clarify the effect of liability waivers. Folks in this room, some of you may or may not know — I talk about it a lot because I’m a proud mom — that I’m a sports mom. My child is a high-performance athlete who plays a collision sport. As a parent, I accept the risk of that sport. My child accepts the risk of that sport. As a parent, I do everything I can to protect my child from the risks of those sports. Financially, we are paying for the best equipment, the most up-to-date safety equipment, and making sure that he goes out onto that lacrosse box or out onto the field safe and protected. We do our part. Sometimes this sport actually takes us to other countries, where the cost of health care recovery can be even greater. In doing our part, I expect that everybody involved is doing their part. But too often I have seen young athletes critically injured with life-altering injuries and parents unable to recover the cost despite doing their part, because people hide behind liability waivers. Not only do they hide behind the liability waivers; they use those liability waivers as a reason not to do their part. This act allows us to put the responsibility and the burden on people who are putting on these activities that may be detrimental and may be harmful and to make sure that they can’t hide behind a complicated liability waiver and that they are doing their part to protect people. Wilful omissions are often a result of people hiding behind a liability waiver, and this act allows us to address that. In doing so, we’ll have, actually, I think, the unintended consequence of creating an even more safe environment, because people will know that they can no longer hide behind a liability waiver. I have heard a lot of concerns from the members opposite, and I think that some of them are valid concerns. I think that’s exactly what the committee stage is meant to do. It’s meant for us to take the broad act, hammer out the concerns and make sure that we create something that is representative of British Columbians and the concerns that people have. I think some of the concerns we’ve heard speak more about how the members opposite would govern rather than the validity of these amendments, but that’s for committee stage. My hope is that we will be able to move the health care recovery act to the committee stage to ensure the smooth enactment of long-overdue amendments so that we can take the cost of these wilful omissions off of the taxpayer and put them on the people who should be responsible for them.

658 words

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

It’s great to see everybody back after the summer. I hope everybody is well rested. I think it’s going to be a fairly exciting fall. I rise to speak to Bill 9, the Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025. While this bill looks very technical on the page, it does adjust some serious definitions, adds notices and lines up powers. But laws don’t always land on paper. They land on people. They land on families at the kitchen table and on small businesses trying to make payroll. My goal today is simple: lay out what this bill is trying to do, ask the practical questions it raises for the uninsured individuals and small operators that this bill now affects and underline why this needs a thorough, good-faith debate in committee so that we make sure we get this right. At a high level, the principle is easy to support. When a publicly funded health care system pays for care after a negligent act, taxpayers should be made whole. I agree with that. I don’t think anybody in this room disagrees. The question is not the principle. The question here is the machinery. Are we building a system that collects fairly, proportionately and in a way that people can actually navigate, or are we setting up traps and timelines that will push ordinary people into a process they don’t understand and can’t afford? So what actually changes here. First, the bill seems to create a new category, the uninsured defendant. That’s any person who has been served with a claim and doesn’t have insurance responding to that particular allegation. Once you’re in that bucket, a hard 60-day clock starts. Within 60 days of being served, you need to notify the Minister of Health that you’ve been sued. There’s a form to fill out. Miss the deadline, and the government can go to court to order compliance and seek costs. The same enforcement tools that apply to insurers now apply under this act to uninsured individuals. This is a very new definition. What prompted it? We know this government is struggling with balancing budgets, and I’m very, very curious to know what the actual impact on our budget will be by adding substantial new regulations and probably growing the bureaucracy. Second, the bill changes the choreography of a lawsuit. If you bring in a third party, say, a landlord, a contractor, or another responsible actor, you have to notify the province within 21 days of filing that third-party claim. That notice automatically engages a health care cost claim against the third party. This will change the strategy, timeline and settlement on these claims. Third, the bill frames the government’s right as subrogation. That sounds like lawyer talk, but it matters who gets paid first, how releases are worded, and what happens if a plaintiff has signed something thinking that that would close the door, such as a settlement outside the courts. Fourth, the amendment window expands. The old six-month cap to amend pleadings to add health care claims are gone. Courts can allow late amendments even well into the life of a file. That can be useful as injuries evolve, as they tend to, as the member opposite noted. It also increases leverage later in the case. Fifth, timelines and dollars move. The bill enables prejudgment interest on the health care portion and ties limitation triggers to the new notices. That changes the math inside settlement rooms quite dramatically. That’s the frame. Let’s throw some siding on it to make this understandable, because for many people this will not feel like a tidy system. This is going to feel like a bit of a gauntlet. If someone in our province is served with a claim in a slip and fall, a recreational accident, a product matter or an assault where no policy responds, they’re suddenly on a 60-day clock. They must produce records and information on tight timelines and cooperate with people assisting the province in recovering health care costs. If they file a third-party claim, they have 21 days to notify the province. If they miss any step, government can seek court order and costs. In a law office, those steps are routine. For a self-represented person or a two-person small business, this may be overwhelming. Let me ground this in a tragedy close to home. In my riding, just recently, a bicyclist collided with a pedestrian, an NIC student who was walking home after his shift. The impact was catastrophic. He spent days in intensive care and later died of his injuries. The community grieved, and his family is still grieving. It’s difficult to even speak about this in the chamber because beyond the legal frameworks, there was a young life cut short. What impact will this have in cases like this? Will we all be expected to carry full-liability walking-around insurance just to leave the house? Will we need to consider insuring bicyclists in cases of liability? What impact is this going to have on small business insurance premiums trying to protect against those questions? Why do we raise this? Because it forces very practical questions this bill will have to answer. In an incident like that, who has coverage and who doesn’t? A cyclist may or may not carry any personal liability insurance. Most do not. A pedestrian typically doesn’t have a policy that covers somebody else’s negligence. If coverage is uncertain, the person alleged to have caused the harm becomes an uninsured defendant under this bill. The 60-day clock starts. Does that person even know a clock has started? How would they? If they don’t know, how can they fix it after the fact? Should there be a grace period where there’s no prejudice? Could we make a dead-simple online form that takes five minutes on the phone to fill out, with a plain-language explainer: “If you’ve been served with a claim and don’t have insurance, start here”? If we want compliance, are we making it easy enough to comply? What happens next? Government will ask for records. How broad is that meant to be? Are we talking about a tight list tied to health care costs, medical invoices, treatment dates, provider details, or does this sprawl into general medical history, employment files, social media screenshots and anything adjacent? Where do we draw the line so requests are proportionate to what’s actually in dispute? Could every request come with plain-language guidance about privilege, about what not to send and a one-page extension form? If a person sends too much, what protects their privacy? If they send too little, do we jump straight to court, or do we allow a quick do-over with guidance? I think we all know it’s extremely difficult and it takes considerable time to get information from the health authorities, and that’s something that needs to be considered within these timelines. Think about a small business. A café owner gets sued for a slip at the doorway. The insurer is still investigating an exclusion, so coverage is unclear. For now, that owner is considered uninsured. They’re making coffee at 6 a.m., doing payroll at 10 p.m., and in between, they need to read legal letters, calculate deadlines and upload records. Are we structuring timelines so a two-person shop isn’t set up to fail? Could we let them batch responses on a schedule that fits their actual reality? If they hire a lawyer for an hour to make sure they get this right, will that be reimbursed promptly, or will they have to wait for months? The bill says reasonable and necessary costs can be reimbursed. Reasonable to whom? Necessary in what sense? What does that mean for a small operator who simply needs one hour of legal advice? How about a dog owner out for a walk with their beloved dog on Crown land? A child, uninvited, reaches out to pet the dog and gets a bite that needs stitches. Both parties decide not to sue, but does this now open it up for the government to go after the dog to recover those medical costs? These are all things that we need to discuss to make sure that it is very clear who will be affected. There are many such cases where individuals decide not to pursue a remedy through the courts — maybe your neighbour, family or friend. Do these changes turn the government into a vexatious litigant in cases, to try and drum up the amounts being recovered? Is there a cost cap on government? Is it $100 or $100,000? Will they chase every single dollar, in the hope that the cost to recover is outweighed by the amount recovered, and damn the bureaucracy that that may create? Back to the NIC tragedy. Imagine the families on both sides — one family grieving a loss no one should have to bear, and another family suddenly at the centre of a legal process they do not understand. If a third-party claim is filed, perhaps against a property owner, maintenance contractor or another actor, does that automatically bring a health care claim against the third party into play? This needs to be made clear. Could we provide a simple checklist so people don’t miss the trigger? Could the province commit to a service standard so that once it is in the loop, the file doesn’t stall for months? We know that the courts are significantly backed up. Settlements raise even more questions. If parties settle but don’t clearly set out the portion that is for publicly funded health care, interest might be claimed from the date of the accident. Is that what we want? Would it be better to let parties request a quick estimate of the health care costs from the province and then start interest from the day that the estimate is provided or from when it is unreasonably withheld after proper notice? Would that approach encourage cleaner paperwork and fewer fights after the fact? Could that be written into this statute so that everybody knows the rules before they sit down to settle? Do we think that 60 days is realistic? The amendment window has been lengthened by removing the old six-month cap. That flexibility can help government capture legitimate claims that surface late, but is there a point where flexibility becomes moving goalposts for defendants trying to budget, keep a business afloat or plan a household? Should courts be asked to weigh prejudice and timing more explicitly when late amendments are sought? Is there a way to guide that discretion so that parties know what to expect? Coverage disputes happen all the time. While coverage is being sorted out, the individual carries the duties. If coverage is later confirmed under a personal policy, a reciprocal or a captive, how quickly do duties and reimbursements shift to the insurer? Can we make that handoff automatic once coverage is acknowledged? Could we require the province to update its demand letters to the party within a set number of days so that individuals or small businesses aren’t left carrying a file that no longer belongs to them? The bill also sits alongside other regimes. So what is the interface with the Workers Compensation Act? It matters at the edges. Do we risk duplication through this act or conflicting duties? Can we spell out a clean handoff so that people aren’t bounced around between the systems? Anybody that has had the experience of navigating WorkSafeBC understands that it’s not the easiest department to deal with. I want to talk money. This actually matters in this case, because it seems, at least at face value, that this is about buffering the coffers and reducing the government’s burden. We’re told that the program recovered about $6.6 million last year, certainly not a small sum of money. That’s real money, and it should certainly go back into care, but revenue is not profit. What did it cost to recover that $6.6 million under the current system? What does the government project that it will change to, not gross but net? How much bureaucracy will be created for every additional dollar that is recovered under this new system? Are we actually making money at $6.6 million, or are we simply employing lawyers in back rooms to sort through the details? We would need to see a three-year trend line for gross and net so that we’d know whether we’re building an efficient machine or just a busy one. This government certainly seems to build extremely busy machines, but efficiency, certainly, does not seem to be its strong suit. Enforcement raises fairness questions. When has it the right to go to court for an order — only after clear non-response and a second chance, or the day after a deadline is missed? Should the act require a warning letter before court, especially for self-represented people? Would that cut down on unnecessary applications and costs on both sides? For fairness and efficiency, should we consider limited-scope duty counsel? Even a 30-minute appointment to review a request and draft a response could prevent significant mistakes, protect privacy and save considerable court time, which is in short supply these days. Could we fund a small panel for this purpose? Would that panel pay for itself by reducing needless litigation? I’ll go into transparency. Would an annual report help? The number of insured notices, number of third-party notices, number of enforcement applications, average time to resolution, amounts recovered and costs to recover, indemnities paid and how often requests were narrowed for proportionality — if we published these figures, could we tune the system with evidence rather than anecdotes? Could we commit to bringing those numbers back to this House each year? Transparency should be top of mind when we’re talking about a system that is being built to promote efficiency and cost recovery. Building a system for systems’ sake is certainly in nobody’s interest. Let me return to the example from my community, because it exposes the human side of this law. In that collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the immediate response was certainly heroic. The costs to the system were significant. The costs to the family are beyond calculation. If negligence is found, the public should be repaid for care, but how do we do that without turning one grieving family into a case management office? What does that cooperation look like for somebody who is working two jobs, doesn’t have a lawyer and is still processing trauma? Could the province adopt a help-first approach? Could we write proportionality directly into the statute so that the scope of requests must fit with the issues and the dollars that are at stake? Could we state, in black and white, that privileged materials are off-limits and that privacy is not an afterthought? We also need to consider small businesses, as liability waivers have certainly been brought up here. What will be the impact to insurance on small businesses, which will be passed along to consumers that certainly cannot afford increases? Think about a local gym, rink, pub or café that might get pulled into a third-party claim after an incident in a shared space. Some of these businesses already run on razor-thin margins. If they get a government request for records with a two-week deadline during their busy season, what then? Could we allow batching, reasonable schedules and published service standards on the government side too? If the province expects records in 30 days, could we commit the same on the other side? People need to know if they will be made whole before they spend money that they just simply do not have. Another practical question is on settlements. If we want clean settlements with clear allocations for health care costs, could we provide a template clause or a standard form request to the province for a quick estimate? Could we say that the interest on the health care portion starts when the estimate is provided or when it is unreasonably withheld after proper notice? That encourages timely, fair allocations, reduces disputes and saves court time. On the amendment window, now that courts can allow late additions of health care claims, should we give judges factors to consider — length of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the other side, impact on trial dates? All of that clarity would help both sides plan, reduce ambushes and speed up the process. Coverage limbo needs a clean fix. If an insurer, reciprocal or captive, later accepts coverage, could the duties and reimbursement shift automatically as of the date of acceptance, with the province required to redirect correspondence within a fixed number of days? That would certainly protect individuals who acted in good faith while the grownups figured out who was actually at risk. Here’s where I land. The principle of Bill 9 is certainly sound. The taxpayers should be repaid when the public system pays for harm caused by private negligence. The execution is what we have to get right. I propose we take this bill to committee with an open mind and a practical list. I will ask, first, why did the government pick now for this change? It certainly seems driven by financing rather than efficiency. Could we build in a real grace period around the 60 days’ notice, accepting substantial compliance up to 90 days when there is no prejudice, with a simple online form that actually works? Could we require plain-language guidance with every request, including a one-page extension form and clear explanation of privilege and privacy? There are many other issues that will need to get sorted out at the committee stage. People in Courtenay and Comox expect two things. They expect us to recover public dollars when private negligence imposes costs on the system. They also expect us to do it in a way that is clear, proportionate and humane. The family of that NIC student deserves a system that honours their loss and recovers public costs without subjecting the family to an unavoidable bureaucratic ordeal. The small business owner on 5th Street deserves a process they can actually follow while they keep their doors open. Bill 9 strengthens recovery. Done right, it could protect the public purse while respecting due process. Done without guardrails, it can pile risk and cost on the people least equipped to carry them. I’m ready to send this to committee with a clear invitation. Let’s hammer in the guardrails, answer the honest questions and design a system that collects what is owed without grinding down the people that can least afford it. If we want compliance, let’s design for it. If we want fairness, let’s write it in. If we want trust, let’s earn it through clear rules, practical support and public reporting. Let’s make sure we’re protecting the little guys from the potential abuses of these changes. We want to increase tax dollars recovered, but we have to make sure that the juice is worth the squeeze and not merely an employment exercise for legal professionals. That’s how we protect taxpayers and keep faith with our constituents. That’s how we honour both sides of the ledger, dollars and dignity, and how we make sure that a law that looks tidy on paper actually works in the lives of British Columbians. I am very much looking forward to a thorough investigation at the committee stage so that we can ensure we are protecting the public purse as well as the little guys from what I see to be serious, unintended consequences for individuals and small businesses.

3267 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 9, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act today, a bill which continues to support our government’s efforts to ensure every dollar spent lands where it should. Conversely, if monies should be returned to the government, they need to be able to be effectively collected. Before I start speaking on Bill 9, I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and the Esquimalt. As well, I acknowledge the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations, on whose unceded land my riding and home of North Vancouver–Seymour are found. As always, I am grateful for the stewardship of land, water and air that these and other nations continue to practise. This bill is being put forward in order to support a greater recovery of health care costs generated through the actions of wrongdoers, wrongdoers who have acted in such a way as to result in others needing to access our public health care system. These costs should be shouldered by those who create the injury or illness, not by the provincial taxpayer. In 2009, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought into being. The act allowed government to recover the costs of health care services provided to the Medical Services Plan, known as MSP, beneficiaries that were injured or who have died due to the negligence of a wrongdoer. The changes being brought forward now will ensure that the government can collect a greater range of those costs, relieving the taxpayers of that burden. Overall, the initial iteration of the act was successful, with annual recoveries that varied. As you heard, in the ’23-24 year, about $6.6 million was recouped, monies which are beneficial to the people of B.C., in spite of what was said across the aisle. To me, $6 million can be used in a lot of places. At the moment, though, recovering health care costs to the fullest extent possible remains outstanding, related to some aspects of the act of 2009. The current health care recovery act aims to address those areas in a number of ways — first off, through narrowing the circumstances in which the act does not apply, specifically, as an example, because the beneficiary was injured in the course of their work. Again, you heard the example that was spoken about earlier, where you have a worker who damages themselves while they’re at work, carries on with a WorkSafe claim but then goes on to claim something against the area where they were damaged — in this case, the municipality. At that point, the worker then goes on to public pay health care. Of course, the defence counsel for the municipality would take the position that the Health Care Cost Recovery Act of 2009 does not apply to that lawsuit, as the WorkSafeBC funds have already been paid out. However, MSP services have been utilized for either ongoing care and/or rehab past the extension of the WorkSafe claim. Let me tell you about care and rehab. I’ve seen people who have wounds that have not healed. The nurses are in there every third day for an hour at a time — the person is at home getting care. Sometimes those wounds get infected, and they need home-based IV. That is a lot of time and a lot of money on the part of the health care system that is not covered off if their WorkSafe claim has been expired. Additionally, for rehabilitation, people do a lot of work to achieve rehabilitation. Sometimes that’s with the public purse, with our occupational therapists going in and making assessments of what equipment is necessary, with our physiotherapists going in and setting out a plan or an action that people can follow to achieve a better level of health. In this instance, the WorkSafeBC exemption is being tightened to ensure that the costs of the worker’s health care are recuperated, that the monies that are put into those nurses, to those clinical staff, to the planning, to that work, come back to the government from the further claim that the worker makes to the municipality. Another component included in this bill is to lengthen the window of time during which a claim can be amended to include a health services claim. An example of this would be…. For instance, you’ve got a situation where a health authority is being sued for something. And I can tell you, having been a team leader in a health care environment, people are angry a lot of the time, and their answer to being angry is to sue. They sue the nurses, they sue the doctors, and they sue the hospital because they don’t have the result that they want, that they felt should happen. Sometimes those suits are very, very legitimate, and other times, maybe not so much. However, what happens in this case is that sometimes the plaintiff adds another person to that suit. In this case, for instance, if somebody was suing because they got a diagnosis very late on, a very late diagnosis, and they sue everybody in the chain that they feel they should have got that diagnosis from…. Later down the line, they go: “Oh, wait a minute. I didn’t talk about this clinician.” It might be a doctor. It might be a nurse. It might be a specialist of some kind. And they add that to the claim. In the current state, this gets missed, and any collections that are made from that claim are not refunded to the province. What we’re doing at this point is to make sure, first of all, that defendants are required to notify the province when a third-party defendant is added to the lawsuit. That allows the province to become aware of this as soon as it happens. This organization would now be captured in the definition of insurer, would be required to notify the province of the potential claim and, if needed, provide information and assistance to the province in recovering health care costs. This allows for those costs to be recognized, to be part of the whole decision-making of the courts and for those costs to be recovered. The deadline for the province to file legal action against the doctor or whoever would now be six months from when the province receives notice of the third-party claim, so there is no longer a risk of the province finding out about the claim once a deadline has been passed. So again, that allows a tightening up of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act to allow moneys to come in even when time has gone by. What this does is expand the disclosure obligations for defendants and their insurers. It also defines very clearly who counts as an insurer under the act to ensure that self-insured and mutual defence organizations must provide notice to the province and information that is needed to ensure cost recovery. The other part of this is clarifying liability waivers. We’ve all signed them. I went hot air ballooning about three weeks ago, which I probably shouldn’t have been doing. But never mind. I went up, came down. There were 40 other balloons. It was beautiful. It was like being in a jigsaw puzzle. Sorry. I digress. I did my bit, read the waiver, went, you know: “La, la, la.” I signed everything. The reality is if that hot air balloon goes down because of negligence, because of something that wasn’t done, I still have the capacity to sue. When that happens, people don’t realize it a lot of the time. The waivers are waved about, and this protects the company or whatever. If there is negligence involved, there still needs to be some response. So this clarifies the effect of liability waivers. Now, we sign liability waivers all the time. When we go skiing, you know, we sign something. It’s all that small printing on your ski pass. Do you see those lines and lines and lines of small printing? Those are a liability a lot of the time. It tells you what they won’t cover, like when you ski out of bounds. The other thing is that the province needs to now be notified when a third-party defendant is added to the legal proceedings. It automatically includes health care cost claims against the third-party defendant when this happens so that those claims are included when that defendant is added, not that they are discarded because, “Oh, well, WCB was involved originally,” or for some other reason. The limitation periods will be extended to ensure that the province has time to begin legal proceedings after being informed of a claim, and prejudgment interest can be collected from defendants. Well, again, if it goes a long time, things to think about. As you would be aware, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act does not apply to motor vehicle accidents where a wrongdoer is insured by ICBC, to opioid- or tobacco-related wrongs or to injuries in the course of the work if the beneficiary is entitled to compensation through WorkSafeBC, because these situations are addressed through other legislation. So how does it help the people in British Columbia? Well, let’s think about that. It helps people in B.C. to avoid costs due to the negligence and wilful acts or omissions on the part of others. So when somebody does something wrong, and it results in somebody being hurt or damaged or getting ill or dying, there is somewhere to go. Wrongdoers will be held accountable. It will help reduce costs in our health care system writ large. The amendments also put the burden of paying for these health care costs on the wrongdoer instead of on the taxpayers, basically ensuring that those who commit the wrongdoing and not the taxpayers pay for health care costs for the impacted individuals. There were a variety of the ministries involved in discussing this and making sure that it was tight. That included the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as well as Finance, Labour, WorkSafeBC, B.C. Financial Services, and the courts were also consulted in the creation of this. Who will be affected by these changes? They’re pretty much going to affect third-party defendants who are added to legal proceedings under the act; uninsured defendants, to speak to the opposition’s concern; insurers for defendants under the act; and legal counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants involved in legal proceedings under the act. To speak to my colleague across the aisle’s concerns, everybody has got to know. Everybody has got to know about these changes, has to pay attention to these changes and include them in their planning. Self-insured organizations will also be affected, organizations that are insured by a subsidiary or a partner. Mutual defence organizations will also be affected to the extent that they will insure wrongdoers in legal proceedings under the act as they will now be considered insurers for the purpose of the act. These amendments are intended to address gaps in the current legislation as opposed to creating major additional obligations for insurance companies. The increased administrative burden for insurers is expected to be relatively minor as it will only impact a small number of claims, mostly relating to waiver issues and to notice requirements. Overall, this act should prove beneficial in terms of making sure that health care costs, which we know are significant, in the state where they are brought on by wrongdoing, are able to be collected and are considered as things go through the courts. Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity.

1946 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Thank you very much to our Minister of Health for beginning our debate today on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

24 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back to this session, where we will begin debate this afternoon on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025. Introducing our Minister of Health.

31 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

10/6/2025

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 9, health care recovery costs act.

15 words

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

Being newer to the Legislature, I would appreciate just an update, maybe, on when that code change happened, which the government chose to change last year. When was it taken out of the previous practice in British Columbia? Then maybe a follow-up to that: I’m wondering if the Ministry of Labour conducted an economic risk assessment of Bill 9 changes, now that we’re focused on Team Canada and overall risks to B.C.’s economic future — if this has been revisited at all.

82 words

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

Another recommendation that was ignored was actually one that came out last year in Bill 9. This was a labour code change in a miscellaneous statutes bill, but it was in the middle of when this labour code review panel was out for consultation. So it made many organizations pause to wonder why they were making recommendations and the submissions into this process. The amendment in this case, of course…. The amendment to the definition of “strike” gave provincial regulated employees a bit more of a free pass to engage in mid-contract strikes in response to federal pickets that the Labour Relations Board can’t actually regulate. During a time when we do have that significant economic risk that we talked about, particularly around trade, this legislative change to the code has also actually increased labour relations pressure at critical infrastructure like our ports, our railways. This change could have the potential to significantly worsen the impacts of federal strikes on our economy. Again, I wonder how the public can really trust that the government is keeping our economic interests at heart, if they’re ignoring these labour code review panel recommendations to implement some more politically motivated agenda — legislation, in this case.

202 words