Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

3, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2023

( Continued )

Hon. R. Kahlon: Bill 28, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023, passed second reading this morning.

However, for greater clarity, I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of

the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading debate on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT

ENFORCEMENT ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

As I advised the members at first reading, the purpose of this bill is to make it

easier for people to get the money owed to them following a civil court decision or

a tribunal decision.

To say that this bill is long overdue may be an understatement. The Court Order Enforcement

Act, which this bill will mostly replace, traces its roots in court orders that were

subsequently codified in British legislation from the 1800s.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

While the language of the Court Order Enforcement Act has been updated over time and

some new concepts have been added to the act, the overall structure and methodology

of enforcing a judgment has remained relatively unchanged. That changes with this

bill, which was developed to reflect modern requirements and to utilize existing ways

that debt obligations are recorded and researched.

The bill goes into deep detail to provide as much guidance as possible to those affected

by it: judgment creditors, judgment debtors, third parties who may own property with

or deal with a judgment debtor, and civil enforcement officers who will be contracted

by government to enforce money judgments.

The bill is over 200 sections set out over 16 parts. I'll briefly note the purpose

of each part and points of particular interest arising from that part. I look forward

to responding to questions members may have about particular sections at the committee

stage.

Part 1 defines terms for the purposes of

interpretation of this act, including terms

that are used in this act that are found in the Personal Property Security Act and

the Securities Transfer Act.

[1:35 p.m.]

Part 2 outlines general principles that underpin this act and which apply to the legislation,

such as every type of personal property in which a judgment debtor may have an interest

is subject to an enforcement charge, unless exempted by this act. This includes property

of the judgment debtor that is affixed to land that they do not own, owned with others,

owned by a partnership that the judgment debtor is a part of.

Part 3 creates the money judgment registry. The money judgment registry is part of

the personal property registry. The bill sets out how judgments may be registered,

amended and/or withdrawn. It also establishes that registering a money judgment in

the money judgment registry results in the creation of a floating enforcement charge

over all of the judgment debtor's property until the judgment is satisfied. The creation

of this enforcement charge has impacts that are addressed in

part 4.

Part 4. The enforcement charge establishes that, in most cases, the judgment creditor

will have a claim and priority to subsequent creditors, such as a credit union considering

giving the judgment debtor a line of credit, and many potential purchasers of a judgment

debtor's property.

Part 4 ensures that money judgments, security interests and commercial liens are treated

in the same way and that, by and large, priority is established by the date and time

of the registration.

Part 4 also ensures that if a person wants to buy a serial numbered good — a car,

boat, boat engine or plane — that they can simply search by serial number to ensure

that they are fully informed whether there are any interests registered against that

property.

Part 5 sets out the powers of civil enforcement officers, which as I mentioned in

first reading, is the new title for court bailiffs.

However, court bailiffs have not merely been renamed. Their authority has been considerably

expanded. A civil enforcement officer will have the ability to do any act or thing

with respect to the property that may be done by the judgment debtor. This means that

the civil enforcement officer has leeway to find the most efficient way to realize

value from the debtor's property.

In some cases, this may mean that the civil enforcement officer leases out or licenses

the use of the judgment debtor's property, and then, once the debt is satisfied, the

judgment debtor will get that property back. This authority should benefit both the

judgment creditor and the judgment debtor.

Part 6. This deals with enforcement instructions given by a judgment creditor to a

civil enforcement officer. Enforcement instructions replace writs of seizure issued

by the court.

Generally, an enforcement instruction will simply ask a civil enforcement officer

to use any means to satisfy the judgment. However, an enforcement instruction can

direct a civil enforcement officer to seize and sell specific property described in

the instruction or to seize and sell any property, but specific property, described

in the instruction.

Part 7 sets out how to obtain information about a judgment debtor's assets from the

judgment debtor. Obtaining information about the judgment debtor's assets is key to

being able to seize these assets to satisfy judgment. The bill takes a proportional

approach to obtaining information about a judgment debtor's assets beginning with

the least intrusive method, which is the completion of a questionnaire.

The civil enforcement officer can then move, incrementally, from the questionnaire

to an examination in front of a court reporter to the most intrusive method: an examination

in front of a judge, which can lead to a court order allowing a civil enforcement

officer to question anyone about the property of a judgment debtor.

If a judgment debtor fails to participate in any stage of the information gathering

process — for example, they don't answer the questionnaire or attend for examination

— then a civil enforcement officer or a lawyer is entitled to directly question a

limited group of third parties who have information about the judgment debtor's assets.

Those third parties will be specified by regulation.

My ministry worked with information and privacy experts to ensure authorities granted

to civil enforcement officers and lawyers was appropriate. The Office of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner has had an opportunity to review and expressed no concerns

at this time.

My ministry will continue to work with the Privacy Commissioner when developing any

regulations related to information and privacy.

Part 8 sets out general rules relating to the seizure of property. As stated, all

property of the judgment debtor is subject to seizure.

Part 8 sets out the default

rules that will apply to seizure if there are not special rules applicable to the

property under

part 9.

A key principle set out in

part 8 is that co-owned and partnership property may now

be seized.

[1:40 p.m.]

The presumption is that the judgment debtor has a proportional interest in co-owned

and partnership property relative to the number of other co-owners or partners.

Part 9. This part sets out special rules for the seizure and disposition of the following

specific types of property: fixtures, personal property that's attached to land, and

crops, including aquatic plants; interests under leases, contracts of sale and security

agreements; accounts, money someone owes or will owe to the judgment debtor, and other

debts; securities, stocks and bonds, and futures contracts, agreements to buy or sell

stocks and bonds in the future; licences, intellectual property, including copyright,

patents, etc., and trade secrets.

Part 10 deals with the disposition of seized property, most commonly, by way of sale.

Generally, this part requires a civil enforcement officer to dispose of seized property

in the manner that they consider will maximize the proceeds that may be realized from

the disposition of the property. If a civil enforcement officer seizes co-owned property,

they will be entitled to sell that property in its entirety. The co-owner will have

a preferential right to acquire the property, but if they do not do so, they will

be entitled to their share of the proceeds from sale.

Part 11 sets out special rules for co-owned and partnership property. The bill makes

an important change to existing law by allowing the seizure of co-owned property,

which prevents a judgment debtor from ordering their affairs in such a way as to frustrate

creditors. No longer can the judgment debtor live in multiple fancy homes and drive

expensive cars they co-own with their spouses or that their spouses have sole legal

title to.

We're piercing these types of arrangements to ensure that duly made court orders are

not thwarted. That said, the legislation does recognize that the seizure of co-owned

and partnership property can have implications for innocent co-owners and partners

whose only connection to the enforcement proceedings is a relationship to the judgment

debtor.

For this reason,

part 11 contains important protections for co-owners and partners,

such as ensuring they receive a notice of seizure and giving them priority to acquire

the judgment debtor's interest in the property. Most importantly, property directly

used by a partnership to earn income cannot be seized.

Part 12 confirms that receivers can continue to be used to collect judgments where

appropriate. Because of all the additional powers provided to civil enforcement officers,

it is likely that a person will only need to apply to court for the appointment of

a receiver where they need a receiver manager to oversee a business run by the judgment

debtor and collect the accounts arising from that business. The majority of rules

around the application and appointment of a receiver will remain in the Supreme Court

civil rules.

Part 13 is the most important part to ensure the protection of judgment debtors.

Part

13 sets out the exemptions that a judgment debtor or their dependent is entitled to

claim to ensure that they maintain a minimum standard of living. The proposed act

maintains all existing exemptions, and on the recommendation of the Uniform Law Conference

of Canada and B.C. Law Institute, it expands the list of exempt property to include

food, compensation for loss of future income or to pay for future medical expenses,

pets and burial plots.

In addition, ministry staff recommended including the following additional types of

property as exempt: RDSPs and RESPs, one bike or e-bike, one computer, one mobile

phone. Bikes, computers and mobile phones will have a maximum amount that can be claimed

as exempt. Like a motor vehicle currently, if the property is worth more than the

maximum amount, it is considered a luxury item and can be seized. So a debtor can

keep a mid-price commuter bike, but a $10,000 racing bike will be subject to seizure.

An important expansion of the protections provided under this bill is that a judgment

debtor's dependents are allowed to bring exemption claims where the judgment debtor

fails to do so. Currently, household furnishings and vehicles are only exempt at the

option of the debtor. This bill allows dependents who rely on the judgment debtor's

property to claim an exemption where the judgment debtor does not.

Part 14 establishes the rules for distributing money realized from the disposition

of seized property. A number of people and organizations are specifically recognized

as having greater priority than the judgment creditor — for example, the Canada Revenue

Agency — meaning they must be paid first. Where there are multiple judgment creditors

for a single debtor, they share the proceeds of sale on a pro rata basis, meaning

in proportion to the amount they are owed.

[1:45 p.m.]

Pro rata sharing encourages a judgment creditor to enter into voluntary payment agreements

with a judgment debtor. A judgment creditor can feel comfortable that they are protected

by their registration in the money judgment registry and that if there is a subsequent

judgment creditor who wishes to be more active, the first judgment creditor will share

in the proceeds of the enforcement actions directed by the latter judgment creditor.

Part 15 addresses the process a person who is not the judgment debtor can use if they

believe that there has been a mistake and the property that has been seized is their

property, or if they have an unregistered interest in the property that is not recognized

by the civil enforcement officer.

Part 16 provides an overarching framework that speaks to the roles, responsibilities

and protections for parties that are under this act. Some key principles established

in this

part include the requirement for parties to act in a commercially reasonable

manner.

This broad concept is drawn from the ULCC draft legislation and is used in Saskatchewan.

It may have to be interpreted by the court, but one goal is to ensure that a civil

enforcement officer does not unnecessarily sell property if the proceeds realized

from sale will not result in payment to the judgment creditor — for instance, where

there are civil enforcement officer fees and recoverable costs and priority claims

that must be paid ahead of the judgment creditor.

There is, of course, much more detail in the bill that I will be happy to address

at the committee stage. With that, I move second reading.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for her comments on this bill. Circumstances regrettably prevent

me from attending the sitting today in person, but I hope I can offer some commentary

today with respect to this piece of legislation that is helpful for the debate and

discussion that will follow.

The Attorney has correctly described this as a weighty piece of legislation, 215 sections

spread over almost 140 pages. There is a lot of detail, as we've heard, in the 15

or 16 parts to this bill, a lot of technical aspects to creditors' remedies that employ

language that, for many people — or most people, for that matter — will be difficult

to follow.

So there will be, by necessity, a far more detailed conversation between members of

the assembly — I expect myself and maybe others — and the Attorney as we go through

in committee stage what some of these provisions in this new piece of legislation

mean and what they are going to look like in practice.

As complicated as that all is, though, the problem that this is designed to address

is a relatively straightforward one. That is, in our society, built around the principles

of the rule of law, it is generally understood and accepted that one of the obligations

we have is to ensure that we have a dispute resolution process in place for those

situations where citizens find themselves in dispute with one another about the terms

of a contract in circumstances where one person is obligated to pay another money

and hasn't done so.

There are a myriad of disputes, and the mechanisms available have evolved over time

from just the courts to tribunals and alternative dispute mechanisms that are available

for people to avail themselves of to have a third party render a decision on who owes

what to whom.

[1:50 p.m.]

But having that mechanism available and having access to those dispute resolution

options is meaningless if, at the end of the day, after having received the declaration

from a panel, from a judge, that one is entitled to a certain amount of money, one

has secured a judgment and is entitled to have a certain amount of money paid to them

by another person….

If there is not an effective means for that person to collect the money and to enforce

that judgment against another person, another party, then the first part of the equation

becomes rather meaningless and doubly frustrating because of the sometimes costly

proceedings involved in securing the judgment in the first place.

Insofar as this piece of legislation is designed to address that problem — and it

has been a problem — it attracts the support of the opposition and that support, in

principle, for what is, we presume — I assume — based on the Attorney's commentary,

the government's objective.

It has, as the Attorney says, been a long time in coming. The work began on this over

a decade ago. The Uniform Law Conference, of course, has been involved. Other provinces

have taken steps. I think Alberta and Saskatchewan have moved down this path and have

already introduced legislation. While it's not identical, it's similar to what we,

I think, are going to be dealing with here in this House.

The real question that we will want to explore with the Attorney is to what extent

we are creating a construct here that doesn't just look good theoretically but is

actually going to work and reduce the complications associated with someone collecting

on a hard-earned judgment that they have secured against another party, an individual

or a company.

I have to say…. As I said, for unforeseen circumstances, I find myself here in Abbotsford

at home, where I recall my father, a small businessman, confronted occasionally by

this very problem — a customer or client that refused to pay a bill and for whom a

court confirmed the debt owing and really no effective way for an individual —in my

dad's case, a small businessperson — to enforce that judgment, and it becomes very

debilitating and very challenging.

Creating a registry, creating a mechanism by which multiple registrations of a judgment

aren't any longer required is theoretically…. It should be an improvement. Vesting

in civil enforcement officers a greater authority to collect upon judgments that are

registered with them should provide an additional tool to realize on those judgments.

The Attorney won't be surprised to know that we'll have some questions at committee

stage about, practically, how that looks. How many civil enforcement officers does

the government contemplate bringing on to assume the responsibilities that are created

in this piece of legislation? What kind of training will they have? Where will they

be recruited from? Those are some practical issues that we will want to explore with

the Attorney.

[1:55 p.m.]

From the perspective of the judgment creditor who, having already been denied moneys

that were owed to them, has incurred further costs in securing a judgment from a court

or tribunal confirming that they are owed that money and is now looking to collect

on that debt from people or individuals or corporations that are sometimes very clever

and very adept at trying to avoid the obligations that they have incurred and now

seek to avoid….

In each of the parts of this bill, there are any number of questions. I note, for

example, the exigibility that is proposed in this legislation for jointly owned properties,

which the Attorney alluded to in her comments just a few moments ago. Certainly, a

new avenue for a judgment creditor to pursue.

As we heard from the Attorney, also, issues can arise from the point of view of an

innocent co-owner whose only link to the debt may be the co-ownership of a piece of

property or other asset with the judgment debtor and for whom a collection of that

debt by the judgment creditor may have some profound consequences as well.

So no shortage of issues and scenarios that we'll be able to explore and derive the

Attorney's thoughts. For the purposes of this discussion and this debate, however,

I think it's appropriate that, on behalf of the official opposition, I indicate our

agreement in principle and support in principle for the direction the government and

the Attorney are charting with respect to Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement

Act.

We'll look forward to pursuing those extensive numbers of questions, over the various

parts of the bill, when we come to the committee stage in the days ahead.

Hon. M. Dean: It's my honour to rise in the House today to talk about the Money Judgment Enforcement

Act.

We've been hearing from so many people who have already been through a very long-drawn-out

and, sometimes, expensive but very labour-intensive process of wanting to secure something

that's owed to them.

Even after having gone through that process, we've been hearing that the money still

doesn't flow back to the person that it's owed to. Even though our democratic court

process has actually made a ruling and said that this person has been treated unfairly

by this person — this person, therefore, needs to pay a certain amount that is adjudicated

by that third party to the other person — they still don't get justice.

Everybody should have equal access to justice. Justice should be fair and be seen

to be fair and experienced fairly by everybody here in British Columbia. That's the

intention of the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

The proposals in this act will make it easier for people to get the money that is

owed to them. It has already been determined that they are owed this certain amount

of money through the courts or tribunals like the residential tenancy branch or the

civil resolution tribunal.

There are lots of barriers in the way, at the moment, for how people would be able

to actually pursue the money that they are owed. From my perspective, the more barriers

that we have in a system, a government system, a public system that's there to serve

people…. The more barriers that are there, the more disadvantaged members of our community

are less likely to be able to overcome those.

Yet again, people who are already disadvantaged are, then, even more unfairly treated

by what should be a public service system. I don't have any statistics on that, but

I worry about that whenever I hear and see that there are barriers in a system that

is meant to be universally accessible.

[2:00 p.m.]

You can imagine that even just initiating the process and going through the process,

for some people, is a real burden, let alone then not actually having the funds supplied

that the court has ordered should be repaid to you. So we are putting forward these

amendments to the act in order to make sure that there is that improvement in access

to justice and equity in the system as well.

One example of a barrier that exists that this act will change is that, at the moment,

you have to make a court application for every method used to collect funds from someone

who doesn't voluntarily pay their debts. You can imagine how costly and time-consuming

that is for anybody to think about: "Well, each time I'm owed some money, I have to

take that to court."

For example, if you were given an order where you were able to take money from somebody's

salary throughout the course of a year in order to have the debt that is genuinely

owed to you, that has been ruled is owed to you, you would actually have to go to

court 26 times in a year if that person is on a biweekly payroll. That is a significant

burden that we will be able to remove with this act.

It will be possible for a third party to issue notice that each and every salary paid,

each and every payroll paid through the course of that year will have a certain amount

of money taken from it in order to pay down the debt that is owed.

You can imagine that these barriers, as I say, are likely to disadvantage some people

more than others, and we have also been hearing that people just give up.

The court has determined that someone has been unfairly treated. They are owed money.

Yet, because there are all these barriers to actually getting the money after that

ruling, some people just give up. So the people who owe the money have just gotten

away with being exploitative and treating someone else unfairly. Making sure that

we support people in building positive, constructive, healthy relationships and making

sure that people are treated fairly in our province is really important.

This legislation will actually contribute to that. This legislation actually will

replace a lot of the current Court Order Enforcement Act. Many of the routes of those

court orders go back 200 years and so are very colonial, very steeped in other social

norms compared to British Columbia here in 2023. It does make it easier for people

who are owed money to actually pursue collection through a money judgment.

In addition — because some people might say, "Well, this sounds a bit unfair. It sounds

like it's the pendulum swinging further to the other side" — we are actually updating

and modernizing these processes and recognizing that people who owe money are also

entitled to continue a reasonable standard of living.

There are exemptions that are in this act to make sure that we're not being over-punitive

and to empower the courts and the civil processes to be supportive of both people

involved in the process and also bearing in mind that the person owing the money might

have a family that depends on them, might have a partner, might have some shared assets.

There needs to be consideration given to all the people impacted by this whole process.

Currently, if someone doesn't voluntarily pay the money that has been judged to be

owed, the person pursuing collection has to make a court application, as I said, for

each collection. But in the future, under this act, money judgments will be enforced

with a single enforcement instruction. It will be registered in a searchable public

registry.

Employers, as I said earlier on, if they're to garnish wages, will receive one single

instruction, so they will know what to do for every single paycheque throughout the

year.

Tribunal orders will be automatically entered into the judgment registry. Then people

can directly instruct a civil enforcement officer. Previously they were known as bailiffs.

They can actually go out and seize and sell property in order to satisfy the debt.

[2:05 p.m.]

Someone else will take on the duty and responsibility of finding a way to get the

money to the person who's owed. That person can actually go and identify other types

of property, for example, that the person owing the debt may have and can sell other

items of property. It might be another property. It might be another house. It might

be a generator attached to the house. It can also be crops.

There are going to be regulations related to co-owned properties as well. So the overall

health — financial health, asset health — of the person owing the money will be assessed

and evaluated, and then there will be the authority to not strip somebody of everything

but to make sure they can maintain a reasonable standard of living and yet to find

some of those assets and other items that that person has and sell them to create

that money and transfer that money over to the person who is owed.

There is, as I say, a balance in this. There are safeguards put in place to make sure

that those people owing money and anyone that's dependent on them can maintain a basic

standard of living.

If that person owing money owes multiple debts, then there will be a calculation and

a pro rata of being able to sell something and then allocate those funds pro rata

to all of those debts and make sure that people who are owed money, and it's been

reasonably determined and judged that they are owed a certain amount of money, will

be able to start to receive the money that they are owed.

As an example of the reasonableness of this, there are exemptions to the types of

property that could be seized and then sold and the funds passed on. That includes

food — so we're talking about necessities, things that people need to be able to take

care of themselves and their family — medical aids, 70 per cent of wages or other

income, court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, burial plots, RDSPs and

RESPs and any equipment used as part of that person's employment.

We don't want to put people into poverty. We don't want to make people lose their

home, not be able to function, not be able to take care of their family, lose their

employment. All of those basics of life and a reasonable standard of life are respected,

and the debts can be paid through these means of seizure of property or funding through

wages.

Other property exemptions. People will be able to keep their principal residence.

We know that people need to have shelter. We know people need to have food. We know

they need to have medical supplies and supports if they're required. A principal residence

will be included as an exemption — one car, one bike, one computer and one mobile

phone as well, so the necessities of daily life.

I think, as the Attorney General said earlier on, if you have one bike, if you have

an electric bike and use that to get to work, if you then have a racing bike that's

worth $10,000, you don't actually need both. You can survive with the one bike, continue

working, pay off the debts, and then you're still able to pursue your future. You're

still working. You still have a hope and a vision of how you want to clear your debts

as well as be a productive citizen here in British Columbia.

The legislation is actually quite complex. We want to make sure that it works well,

of course, and that the process is fair for all of the parties involved and that it's

fair for the person who owes the money, and it's fair for the person who is owed the

money and all the people who are dependent on them and who are part of their daily

life as well.

We have done consultation, and we will continue to seek feedback. We'll continue to

have debate here in chambers as well.

The intention, as I say here, is of removing those barriers and also to make sure

that there's a direct registration in the registry rather than having to register

with the court.

[2:10 p.m.]

Additional protections, as I said, have actually been introduced to make sure that

if you're owing money, you can maintain a basic standard of living whilst, fairly,

the person who is owed the money starts to receive that money.

Exemption amounts can also be adjusted. So when we experience inflation, like we have

done recently, the global impact of inflation…. Because the regulations will bring

a lot of this into force, there will be a lot of ability to make adjustments, especially

if we see that it's not having the effect that we would want it to have as well.

The legislation is actually based on recommendations by the Uniform Law Conference

of Canada and the British Columbia Law Institute.

We also did consult and work with the Canadian Bar Association, financial institutions

and other lending institutions so that everybody who has been part of this whole system

and process is aware of what the changes will be. Then each part of the sector will

be able to work out their response to how they're going to be able to make sure they

implement the law and implement the regulations as well.

Of course, in accordance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act, Indigenous nations and rights and title holders have been consulted on this as

well.

It will be brought into force by regulation in 2025, so there's a lot of time between

now and then for people to familiarize themselves with what the regulation means and

with how to implement it and to think about the implications for themselves as well.

Now, on the public database, the money judgment registry, the information that will

be shared there will be publicly available, and it will only contain the information

that is absolutely necessary to inform third parties that someone has a judgment registered

against them. So again, this goes through the process, a judgment is made, and then

that will be placed on the registry.

It'll be similar to the kind of information that's on business-registered security

agreements like car loans, secure lines of credit. That kind of information, and much

of what's going to be registered in this new database, can already be found in the

court registry, which is also another publicly accessible registry via the court services

online.

What this should do is actually make it easier and provide us with one central place,

a one-stop shop, to be able to go and get this particular information. The judgment

debtor's name will be posted there. Any name that they used to hold any property under

— that will be put into the registry as well.

For example, on some of my financial materials, some people like to put your middle

name in, and some people don't. So some of mine is my first name, my last name, and

some of them have my middle letter in, for example. All of those would be included.

Not that I owe anybody anything, but that's an example of what would be included.

The judgment debtor's date of birth and address will also be included because we would

need to make sure that we can identify individuals and distinguish between very similar

names, very common names as well. And then the amount of the judgment will also be

included. You'd be able to see how much is owing to other people that that one particular

person owes in total. And then there would also be a court file number.

The other thing this database will do is it will allow us to collate data and aggregate

data as well. That will actually give us some information about whether this is having

an impact, what the trends are over time. It will also be able to tell us how long,

on average, it takes to collect a debt or how much of a debt is collected at different

periods in time. That can actually inform policy and inform practice as well, so it

will provide us with important and helpful information.

Another advantage of this is that, again, it simplifies things. It's one place of

information, there's one enforceable instruction, and it's publicly available, so

that accountability is there as well.

[2:15 p.m.]

The registry will be beneficial for people looking to register security agreements

like car loans or secured lines of credit as well. Instead of having to search for

money judgments through property or court registries, then, there will be this one-stop

shop, where people will be able to learn whether another person has entered into any

security agreements or if any money judgments or commercial liens have been registered

against them, and it will show the amount currently owing.

It really protects people if they're considering going into an arrangement, an agreement,

some kind of relationship with somebody else, as well, where you might just want to

be doing an assessment. You might have some kind of perceived risk, or you might have

some Spidey senses that you're a little alarmed by.

This provides a route, a tool for British Columbians to be able to actually make better-informed

choices about transactions they enter into, relationships that they may build, how

they engage with other people, and what level of risk they're willing to take as well.

The information that will be in the registry is already publicly available. So putting

it in one place and making it easy to search isn't an increase in infringement on

people's rights, or their privacy either.

It will also show the people who are paying off their debts. It will actually show,

over time, if you are a person…. Where a judgment was made that you owed money to

someone else, it's a way for you to actually publicly demonstrate your commitment

to meeting the debt that you owe, and your commitment, to other British Columbians,

to make sure that the court judgments are applied and that you're treating people

fairly.

Because of all the checks and balances in there for you to be able to take care of

your family, take care of yourself and maintain that basic lifestyle, it is reasonable

that you continue to do that. If that means you can't pay all of the debt down immediately,

that is reasonable; that is fair.

Paying down your debt is something…. Yes, it's owing. However, it's not going to help

us in British Columbia if the response is so punitive that somebody ends up homeless

or their family ends up not being well cared for. It's a balance there to make sure

that the person owing the money is able to maintain a reasonable, basic standard of

life and that the person who needs access to justice, and who is owed money, receives

the money that they are owed.

This is really important, and I'll give one example of where and why this is really

important. We in British Columbia have a housing crisis at the moment. If more people,

for example, had rooms and parts of their house to rent out, or other properties,

then that would be great. The more stock we can bring into operation and increase

capacity in the housing market, that would be great.

We've heard from some property owners that are concerned that if they rented out the

property they have…. They may have heard stories, you just heard, that when someone

is paying you rent, if they owe you rent and you take them to court, you still don't

get your money back. That's limiting some people offering accommodations that could

be a home for somebody. We know how difficult it is to find affordable accommodations

here in British Columbia.

If this is a barrier, the barriers in the system of actually being able to have a

loan repaid as ordered…. If that creates a barrier to people putting property into

the marketplace, then that, again, is another contribution that this legislation will

make to some of the issues facing British Columbians every single day.

It also applies to renters. We've heard from renters that they have really struggled

to get, for example, a deposit back from someone that they had been renting their

home from. That's a real issue for British Columbians because of the global inflation

and affordability.

[2:20 p.m.]

If you don't get your deposit back, how can you then go to another opportunity for

renting, with your deposit? Would you just abandon your deposit? You've had a judgment.

The owner of the property owes you your deposit back. Yet it's very difficult, in

some cases, for people who aren't repaying that debt. Then that puts that renter in

a really difficult position, because they've lost that deposit, which they need, probably,

when they go into another place to rent as well. It's really putting so many barriers

in the way.

This piece of legislation is really going to be supporting British Columbians in lots

of different ways. In 2022, the residential tenancy branch awarded approximately 4,800

money judgments to landowners and renters, compared to 4,100 in 2021. Clearly this

is an issue in the province, and we also need to make the system improved as well.

As I said, because the collection process is so burdensome, many people just give

up on the debt that they're owed, which means they're not getting access to justice.

It means that they're struggling even further, because they're owed money, and they're

not getting the money that they are owed as well.

In

summary, what this legislation is going to do is going to make sure that people

who are owed money — there has been a judgment following a civil court decision —

will have a more streamlined and easier process. The intention is to be more successful

in actually having the money provided to them in order to be able to pay off that

debt that they are owed by somebody else.

Once the judgment has been awarded, that will be posted on the registry. Then the

details of the person who owes the money will be on that registry, and that will be

publicly available. So other British Columbians who might be thinking about getting

into some kind of a transaction with that person will be able to go and see — do they

owe any debts to anyone, and are they paying those debts down? — and be able to make

an informed decision.

If you were a renter and looking at different places to rent, you would actually be

able to go into this registry and see whether the owner of the property that you're

thinking of renting actually owes anybody any money. That might inform your decision

about your choices about where to rent and who to rent from. It does at least empower

people to be able to make decisions. It provides more access to justice for those

people who are owed money and have a judgment that they are owed money and are not

receiving that money from the person who owes it to them.

Looking forward to more debate on this legislation. Really, really happy to be here

and speak in support of the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

K. Greene: It is my honour and privilege to stand in the chamber today on the traditional territory

of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nations.

It is an absolutely beautiful day outside of these walls, and I hope folks are able

to go enjoy that.

Everyone should enjoy equitable and fair access to judgment. When people receive a

judgment, a money amount owed to them, they should receive it. There is a reason that

that judgment was made in either a court or a tribunal. The person who has that amount

owed should be receiving it, and the person who is deemed to owe it should be paying

it.

We are hearing so much about frustration in process, that the process of going through

all of the paperwork is stopping people from accessing judgment. People give up. It

is so important that people do receive the amounts that are owed to them.

We heard previously about renters who may need their damage deposit back that's been

held unfairly. But there are other situations, as well, where people do need to have

the amounts owed to them, because it's fair, and we're looking for fairness.

[2:25 p.m.]

We're looking to make sure that it's easier for people to get money that is owed to

them through different courts or tribunals — the residential tenancy branch, that

we've heard about, as well as the civil resolution tribunal. It's not just about receiving

the amount owed; it's also about alleviating a lot of the frustration that is out

there — frustration on the side of the person who's seeking justice and the person

who has that amount owed.

I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to have an amount owed to you and watch

the person that owes that money driving a luxury car and living the high life and,

basically, being able to frustrate justice through just different parts of using the

bureaucracy against them.

Right now you have to make a court application for every method that you would like

to use to collect funds. This is obviously really time consuming. A lot of people

don't have time to chase people down for the amounts owed. It's costly, not just in

their personal amount of time but also getting legal advice and filing documents.

When I say, "for every method used to collect funds," methods include garnishing wages,

garnishing funds and bank accounts, the seizure and selling of personal goods, liens

on personal property. Each one of these requires its own stream right now.

Under the proposed legislation, there is going to be a single enforcement instruction

that's going to be entered into a public registry. So it will really eliminate all

of the duplicative processes that are embedded in the system right now, getting people

more access to justice and fairness.

It's really important that we also view this through the lens of modernization of

government processes. Our government has worked a lot on making sure that we're meeting

the expectations of the 21st century, including streamlining processes — that's really

important — as well as creating a database so that people can look electronically.

Generally, the expectation of people today is that you can access all kinds of records

electronically and have that one place, that repository, so that you can make sure

that you are getting access to the resolutions through either courts or tribunals.

It really comes down to being able to access a fair and just system. Fundamentally,

if you can't collect the money that is awarded through the courts or tribunals, it

really feels that justice is elusive, and nobody in British Columbia should feel like

that. People shouldn't have to give up on collection. That money is rightfully owed

to them. It has been determined through either a court process or a tribunal process

that the fair amount is owed. So giving up on that amount is really giving up on receiving

the amounts that are justly owed.

There will be updated exemptions in this legislation that…. People that owe money

are going to make sure…. We're going to make sure that they can maintain a standard

of living. We don't want to impoverish anyone through the award of any amounts owed.

We want them to be able to continue to be productive, being able to make right on

the amounts that they're owing to other folks.

Again, that amount owed…. I talked just briefly about the different ways that you

can collect. When you have to go through all of these bureaucratic processes…. For

example, for the garnishment of wages: you would have to apply to the courts 26 garnishing

orders every year, just for the wages alone. Obviously, the time and expense is a

huge barrier for people accessing justice through our systems.

Under the proposed act, tribunal orders are now going to be automatically entered

into a money judgment registry so that people can directly instruct a civil enforcement

officer, who formerly known as bailiffs, to collect and satisfy the debt.

[2:30 p.m.]

It's part of that modernization of processes, part of the streamlining of processes

and electronic systems that's going to ensure that we're opening up the doors for

justice here. There's a lot of focus on receiving the amount, but there's maybe some

concern about the person who owes the funds.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The changes are going to make sure that while it's easier to settle and collect on

the outstanding debts, it will be equitable, and that safeguards are in place to ensure

people who owe money and their dependents are going to have a decent standard of living.

We don't want to create any undue hardships. We want to ensure that people are paying

the amounts owed and receiving the amounts owed in a way that is respectful and fair.

There are going to be some items that are exempt from seizure to people who owe the

money. Again, that goes back to that standard of living for them and their dependents,

ensuring fairness and that these folks can keep working. When we have a principal

residence — again, we don't want to create any tragic housing circumstances for anyone

— a car, a bike, a computer and a mobile phone so that people can work, they can continue

to pay down the debts and the amounts owed until they've been satisfied.

Also, it's important to consider the situation where someone might want to sell their

exempt property or an exempt item to purchase a new one. For example, maybe they realize

that they don't need to drive a Jag to work every day. Maybe they can drive a Toyota.

They can sell their car and buy a lesser car and use some of the funds — the difference

— to pay down the amount. But that time in between the sale of an exempt item and

the purchase of a new exempt item, so, selling a car, buying a car….

Those amounts are protected so that you wouldn't be in a situation where you sold

your car and the amounts were collected and now you couldn't have a car. You couldn't

get to work. You couldn't get your kids to their appointments. So there is fairness

built into the system, helping people to make sure that they can continue to meet

their obligations.

The goal here in this legislation is to ensure that the rules related to any judgments

are fair and that the process is fair both for the person who's owing money and any

third parties that might be impacted by collection, as well as fairness for any recipient

of those funds.

The proposed legislation will enable money judgments to be enforced with a single

enforcement instruction, and it will be registered in a searchable public database.

This is of assistance to many different people — not just the person seeking a collection,

but also the person who is owing the amount.

If you're owing an amount, you probably don't want to be constantly served papers

and constantly have this intrusiveness into your life. You just want to calm that

procedure down. We're going to streamline it. We're going to have the single database

and simplify things for everybody. It really eliminates the need for people to apply

to the court for each collection method and simplifies things on all sides.

There are possibly some questions about child support payments. Child support payments

are carried out through the family maintenance enforcement program, which is staffed

by people who are largely going to be using that process. This new process wouldn't

possibly be used if a very large amount owing accumulates over time.

If that happens, the FMEP will be able to register that very large unpaid amount directly

in the judgment database and then provide enforcement instruction to a civil enforcement

officer, previously known as bailiffs, to collect it. So in the event that there is

a very large outstanding amount, they could use this new process, but otherwise, we'll

be using their existing processes.

[2:35 p.m.]

This registry is also going to be beneficial for people who are looking to register

security agreements. Security agreements are things like car loans or secured lines

of credit, so they can see if there's any kind of impairment on the ability of the

person involved to be able to repay any amounts owing or potentially being owed.

It could also be used for people looking to get into, maybe, a legal arrangement where

they're contemplating going into business together or any other kind of arrangement.

You'd want to know if there was any kind of impairment on their ability to have a

financial obligation with you, and this would definitely assist with that.

These changes are going to be affecting primarily civil cases. Civil cases would be

things like breach of contract or an incident where, maybe, a person damaged another

person's property.

Again, these are going through the courts or through a tribunal. An example of that

is the residential tenancy branch. The RTB had 4,800 money judgments awarded to both

landlords and renters, so both sides of the rental agreement will be benefited from

having this kind of system set up where they can easily access justice, where they

can get the amounts that are fairly owed to them.

Perhaps consider that any future tenants or any future landlords might not want to

have a judgment on their record as they would in the court and everything else. They

want to be able to show that they are responsible and responsive landlords or tenants.

I think that this helps with fairness and equitable access to justice, and everybody

benefits when the system works well. This streamlining and modernization of all these

existing processes — because they're all existing; they're being streamlined and consolidated

— is really a benefit for everybody.

There was substantial consultation that was undertaken in the process of creating

the principles of this legislation. There is similar legislation in other provinces,

including Alberta next door. We've also consulted with British Columbia Law Institute,

Uniform Law Conference of Canada and select court bailiffs. I know the Canadian Bar

Association, financial institutions and other lending institutions are going to continue

to provide advice, and that treaty First Nations have been notified about the work

being done here and have had consultation a number of times.

We will continue to be able to hear from people, both in the professional realm but

also in our constituency offices. This is something that is very personal, I think,

to a lot of people. When they've received a judgment and they have an amount that

is rightly owed to them, they want to be able to access that. That's part of justice.

Part of justice is receiving the thing that is owed to you that has been determined

through the courts to be fair. Accessing this system will increase fairness and improve

people's lives.

There's nothing, I'm sure, more frustrating than having an amount that's owed to you

and not being able to get it. That money represents something. That represents your

deposit cheque. That represents, in the case of property damage, repairing something

to the standard that it was before.

It's very important work, and I'm very privileged to be able to be part of this.

I thank you, Speaker, for your time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Welcome to the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. [Applause.]

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Phillip: I just want to thank everyone for making me feel so welcome in this House.

I want to thank the Esquimalt and Songhees people for the opportunity to do this work.

I was in lands and estates for 25 years for Penticton, and I can tell you, I welcome

this kind of legislation, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. We consider the courts

as a proper adjudicator to determine what is owed and how much, but it would ring

hollow if there was no means to enforce that judgment.

I also want to echo the previous speaker's statements about it's a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, you have people that are owed. But I have a case in my area where

the landlord took absolutely everything from the individual after he evicted him.

He took his wheelchair and all his personal belongings. He pretty well was locked

out of the apartment with just the shirt on his back.

What this judgment does is provide for that balance of fairness on both sides. You

have to pay what you owe and not take more than what you're owed.

I'm not going to speak for another 28 minutes. I just wanted to keep it brief and

say that I just welcome this kind of legislation, and I'd really like to see it in

action.

Huy ch q’u .

Deputy Speaker: Welcome to our new member from Langford.

R. Parmar: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I just want to begin by saying how truly an honour it is to be standing

in the House here today as the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca. With your indulgence,

I just want to spend a couple of minutes talking about that feeling and the importance

of being able to represent one's community.

I'm catching my breath, running up the stairs from the basement. So apologies for

that.

I want to begin by acknowledging how honoured I am to be here on the territories of

the Coast Salish peoples, the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, known today as the Songhees

and Esquimalt First Nations.

It's so important for me to be able to recognize the nations that I have the honour

of working with: the Scia'new First Nation, which I have the honour of working with

closely with my dear colleague the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin; the T'Sou-ke Nation,

the Sooke people; the Pacheedaht Nation to the west; and the Nuu-chah-nulth. I thank

them for sharing these beautiful lands with me.

As I think of my relationship with the Indigenous nations in my community, the word

"trust" comes to mind. I share that with my new colleague the MLA for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

When I first met Chief Russ Chipps of the Scia'new First Nation, as chair of the Sooke

school district board of education, he told me — and he was pretty straight up — the

trust was broken. Trust was broken between education, our school districts, our ministries

and our governments of all stripes and Indigenous peoples. What was so important for

me, before I could even build a relationship with Chief Chipps or Chief Planes or

Chief Jones, from the Pacheedaht, was building that trust.

I am so honoured to be able to stand here and was so honoured, as part of our swearing-in

ceremony for the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, to be able to be drummed

into this place, for the first time, by representatives from our community. I know

I share in the pleasure that it was just one of those moving moments that I'll never

forget about.

Very briefly, I also want to touch on the fact that I'm the son of immigrants who

came here to Canada with nothing. I would not be in this chair if it wasn't for my

mom and my dad and my grandma, who might be watching at home right now. This is competing

with Punjabi soap dramas. She may have different priorities, but we did tell her what

channel it was on.

I just want to acknowledge that, for them, politics was something you ran away from.

Politics was something that you didn't necessarily engage with. There was a lot of

corruption associated with politics where they came from. But going through the campaign

experience and certainly having an opportunity for me to come home, whether it was

as a school trustee or as chair of the board of education and now as an MLA, the ability

to bring in politics…. It's about people. It's about the people we serve.

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I just want to thank my parents and my grandmother for instilling that message

in me all those years ago, whether it was on the picket lines, standing up for what

we believed in when my parents were health care workers, to the point where they were

supporting me on the campaign. Again, it's all about the people we represent.

I also would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the person whose seat I have now the

opportunity to occupy. I understand he was in this seat for a short period of time

in his last day in the Legislature. That's the former MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca.

I understand I can say his name now — John Horgan, who has been a friend and mentor

to me for so many years.

Just a couple of things I want to highlight in regards to that. I think many of you

on this side of the House probably already know this story, have heard it many times

from John or myself, but just to make sure that it's in the records of Hansard . I first met John Horgan when I was in grade 5. I was doing a project on the 2005

election.

I was relatively engaged in politics at that time, which is hard to believe someone

in grade 5 at ten years old would be. I was fascinated about party politics, about

the provincial election. I was absolutely mesmerized by the leadership shown by Carole

James, who was the leader of the B.C. NDP at that time.

I was a bit of keener in elementary school, so for me, it was always about getting

that extra mark, getting that extra grade. So I went to my teacher, Miss Alton — who

is a big reason, again, why I'm standing here today — to say: "What can I do to get

that A-plus? What can I do to get the 100 percent?"

She was like: "Why don't you invite the MLA who wins in your constituency to be interviewed

in front of the class? You could at least send the email. You can make the engagement,

make the phone call. They may say no. They're busy people. But why don't you make

that effort?"

So I did, and that happened to be John Horgan, who I was so honoured to meet. So appreciative

that he took time out of his busy

schedule as a relatively new MLA for Malahat–Juan

de Fuca — that was the name of the riding at the time — to be able to engage with

me.

We've been friends ever since. He's a true mentor to me and someone I look so highly

up to. Certainly, at that time, I looked up to him because he was very tall. That's

something I remember — him coming out of his mini little SUV, a big, strong Irishman,

and me, a really terrified grade 5 student.

The other piece I'll touch on is, as many of you in this House know, I've been in

this building for a number of years now as a staffer. Before that, I also took a number

of opportunities to come here and watch question period, whether it was on the floor

or up in the balconies.

It was a really special moment when John had an opportunity to introduce me in the

House as a student activist. He used to go around amongst our colleagues here — many

who are still here, like the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake, or others who have moved

on to other things — and would point to me and say: "This is my replacement in 2099."

It's just unfortunate that John couldn't make it to 2099, but I know that he's enjoying

retirement at home. He spends a lot of time fishing. His health is good. I know that

he wanted me to share that with the people in our community and certainly the people

here.

The constituency of Langford–Juan de Fuca is diverse, whether you have urban Langford,

rural Highlands, semi-urban rural Sooke and then, of course, the Juan de Fuca electoral

area. I have the honour of representing Langford, the Highlands, East Sooke, Sooke,

Otter Point, Shirley, Jordan River and Port Renfrew in this place, and it's truly

an honour to do so.

I just want to end my remarks in regards to that piece by saying that my message to

people in Langford–Juan de Fuca…. Whether it's been out this past summer, engaging

with them in community markets, at community events, opening my community office,

I want them to know that I won't take this opportunity for granted.

It is truly an honour to be able to stand in this House, one of 87 individuals to

be able to represent the voices of our community. And I know that, as my predecessor

will say, I'll do my level best each and every day to stand up for the people of Langford–Juan

de Fuca.

I know that as I look across to people that, when I was in elementary school, I looked

up to as adversaries in this legislative process…. There's the MLA for Prince George–Valemount,

who probably doesn't know this, but we met in a hallway probably 15 years ago when,

I think, you were the Minister of Justice, if I'm not mistaken, or maybe Education

Minister. It's truly an honour to be here.

We're going to have a lot of vigorous debates. There's going to be a lot of back-and-forth.

But I know we'll be able to do it in a respectful tone, and we'll be able to do it

in a way we're representing our values and our perspectives.

[2:50 p.m.]

That's something that I've learned along the way, whether it was from my parents or

from John — that values are what should drive politics. It should be about people,

the fact that we all represent incredible communities.

That's what's really special about this place. All of us are coming with that mindset,

representing the communities of the Cariboo, Prince George, Victoria, Esquimalt, Langford

or Surrey. That's what's really special about this place. It's the ability for us

to be able to come and have that vigorous debate, have that engagement but also make

sure we're doing so in a respectful way. So that's certainly a commitment I'm going

to have and, certainly, I know my colleagues on the other side will hold me to that

as we debate back and forth.

Again, it's truly an honour. With that, I'm going to transition my comments to Bill

27. I never thought Bill 27 would be the first piece of legislation I would be speaking

to in this House, but truly it is an honour to be able to do so.

When I think of Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, what really comes to

mind is equity and making sure that everyone, as we've talked about previously in

this House…. No matter their race, their sexual orientation, their gender identity,

their class status, where they come from, how much money is in their pocket, everyone

deserves access to equitable and fair justice.

I think that's something that we all share no matter what side of the House we come

from. It's certainly a core value, I know, from our Premier, someone who I've had

the honour of having conversations with as the Premier and when he was the Attorney

General and minister responsible for justice. It's a really core value of our government

and why I'm so proud to stand here as a New Democrat MLA.

I think what's really important — as the Attorney spoke previously, as other speakers

have spoken — is about the concerns that we've heard in the formation of this legislation.

It's making sure that people feel represented in our court structures and our justice

system.

Certainly, as a young person, as the youngest MLA in this House, the youngest MLA

right now…. Hopefully, there will be other younger people in the future. But making

sure we have processes in place that protect people….

I know so often those who go through the justice and court systems question the court

structures and the justice system, and it's so important for us as MLAs and legislators

at a provincial and federal level to make sure that we're updating, we're modernizing.

That's what I truly see in Bill 27 and this legislation. I know it's so important

that through this legislation, it truly does make it easier for people to get the

money they're owed.

I know from conversations that I've had formerly as a constituency assistant working

in various offices for various MLAs but also in the short period of time I've had

my community office open that this can be a pretty frustrating topic for so many people.

That's why it's so important that we support courts and tribunals like the residential

tenancy branch and the civil resolution tribunal, and that's why I was so excited

about a year ago to see the Minister of Housing and the Premier announce significant

investments in the residential tenancy branch.

The government announced back in December of 2021, one of the last announcements before

the new year, the fact that it was increasing the residential tenancy branch's operating

budget and staffing by 40 percent. That means 50 new full-time individual employees

to cut waiting times and double the size of the compliance and enforcement unit. All

of that connects to this piece of legislation. It was so important for me to be able

to acknowledge that because in 2022, the residential tenancy branch awarded approximately

4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters, compared to approximately 4,100 in

It's not easy being a tenant. It is such a challenging time to be a tenant in British

Columbia, as it is all across the country. The cost-of-living issue is impacting so

many people. I heard that on the doorstep in Langford–Juan de Fuca during the campaign,

and I heard it last week when I was back out on the doorstep or at the Luxton Fall

Fair, a staple event in my community. It's a tough time.

New immigrants — 250,000 people have made British Columbia their home in the last

two years. That's something that's exciting. That's something that we should be celebrating.

But it also means that those individuals that make this place their home are going

through a very stressful time. They're going through a challenging time.

I had the opportunity to be at the University of Victoria just last week and to talk

to individual students about the challenges they're facing with being renters in the

housing market. If they're not able to access housing on campus, they have to compete

with everyone else in a market, and certainly in a market like Victoria or Vancouver

or wherever it is, it can be challenging. It can be very challenging.

[2:55 p.m.]

What's so important is going back to the investments we've made into the residential

tenancy branch. It's about creating equity and fairness for everyone involved. It's

about creating equity and fairness for landlords and for tenants.

I have many, many frustrating conversations with landlords who feel like the system

is not there for them, and many of them leave the process as well. I hope that when

they see this type of legislation come forward…. Many of whom have received orders

through the residential tenancy branch but are not able to collect on them.

Similarly, it was discussed previously by another person that I was talking to about

how there are so many renters that don't get their damage deposit back, don't get

their pet deposit back. That's a lot of money. It doesn't matter how big your rental

unit is. Sometimes it can be half-a-month's worth of rent and, in this market, that's

a lot of money.

That's something that we need to be mindful of as we work through our housing legislation.

That's something that is addressed in the Money and Judgment Enforcement Act — making

sure that we have investments in place.

As with our Homes for People strategy, as we're making more investments in affordable

housing, as we saw the Premier and the Minister of Housing and the Minister for Water,

Land and Resource Stewardship announce — just a couple of weeks ago, before UBCM —

the secondary suite incentive....

I know there are a lot of people in Langford–Juan de Fuca who are really interested

in knowing more about it, who are interested in building rental suites in their homes

as part of their own establishments. It's so important that as we make those investments

in our Homes for People strategy, it ties directly back into the work that is happening

in this Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

I also want to touch on the important investment our government made. Again, it's

tied to this legislation through the work that we did with the civil resolution tribunal.

I don't think a lot of British Columbians truly understand the civil resolution tribunal

and the importance that it plays in our society.

What's really important for me, to be able to touch on why I feel the civil resolution

tribunal is so important, is access to justice, making sure that our justice system

provides easier and a really inclusive approach to our justice system, especially

for individuals with limited resources or those that feel that our justice system

has not been there for them.

There's systemic racism in all aspects of our government. That's something that we're

addressing through the work that the Attorney and the Parliamentary Secretary for

Anti-Racism are doing. Again, it's tied back into this legislation.

The efficiency and the cost effectiveness of the resolution tribunal, the user-friendly

platform.... That's something I hear often: the fact that you have these new, modern....

Again, for young people, it's not as fun to go to the courthouse to be able to access

these types of tools. It's not an easy thing to do. So being able to have an online

platform where you're able to access these tools is so important.

I touched on it before, but making sure that it's inclusive and equitable, having

an alternative dispute resolution, a legally binding decision. Also, empowering citizens

is so important, providing them with direct control over their dispute resolution

process. I think that's why, for me, the civil resolution tribunal is so important,

and it's why I'm so proud that it was this government that brought it in.

I know that for our government, one of the reasons we brought it in was reducing court

backlog. Again, this was an issue prior to the pandemic. Finding aims to alleviate

the backlog in our provincial court system has been a struggle that many governments

have had, whether it's our government or the previous B.C. Liberal, now B.C. United

government. Ensuring there's more timely access to justice by reducing the load on

in a different setting is so important.

I just come back to the fact that these tribunals, through this legislation, will

now be automatically entered into the registry database. That was not something happening

before, prior to this legislation, and in fact, it is not happening right now because

this legislation is not in force yet. Money judgments under this proposed legislation,

as I had mentioned, will be enforced with a single enforcement instruction, which

means less time, which means less red tape and an ability for people to get moving

with what they need to do.

Again, on the residential tenancy side, what's so important when you're in a housing

crisis…. That means fairness for tenants and fairness for landlords and everyone involved

in the housing system.

I also want to just touch on a couple of other pieces. I think it's fair to say that

many people give up on the collection of full amounts under our current status quo

approach.

[3:00 p.m.]

Many people I certainly talk to in my community and throughout the province often

talk about the fact that the money judgment process that we currently have can be

expensive and inefficient, and that can be frustrating.

That puts a lot of challenges on our court systems and puts a lot of frustration on

British Columbians who then don't have the trust in the court system when they're….

Again, you have the situation where a tenant is just trying to get their damage deposit

back or you have a landlord that's just trying to collect from a tenant.

I was really interested as I was looking at the previous legislation…. The Court Order

Enforcement Act, which is very much what is currently in place and what the Money

Judgment Enforcement Act replaces, dates back to British legislation in the 1800s.

We're in 2023, and it's so important that we're making the investments and making

sure that through the work that we're doing as MLAs, we're modernizing this legislation.

I touched on the importance of these tribunals, but I also want to spend a little

bit of time talking about the charges, and I know my colleague from Richmond previously

had talked about how these changes, you know, could have, in the past, unfairly punished

those who owe. That's certainly a question that many may raise: will these changes

unfairly punish those who owe?

I think it's fair to say, collectively, our answer is no. These changes will certainly

make it easier to settle, collect outstanding debts equitably. That's the key word.

I've been mentioning that throughout this speech, that it's done equitably. There

are safeguards in place that ensure that people who owe money and their dependents

can maintain a basic standard of living.

Again, that is something that many people face during normal times or are facing now

as the cost of living issue impacts so many people, that it's so expensive to go to

your grocery stores or to pay your rent. It's so important that we protect those vulnerable

people.

Why it's so important as I talked about that is that we talk about the sorts of property

that would be exempt from seizure. My colleagues on both sides have touched on it.

That includes food. It includes medical aids, 70 percent of wages or other income,

court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, burial plots, RDSPs, RESPs and

any equipment used as part of employment.

It's also so important to touch on the fact that it also is exempt from property exemptions,

including principal residence, one car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone,

making sure that at the end of the day, as I've touched on…. I think when people go

back and listen to my first speech, they're going to hear the word "equitable" a lot,

and that's okay. I like that word. It's what brings me here today. It's so important

that we take those steps.

You know, one of the other things that many people may ask is what took so long to

bring this legislation in place. Certainly, there have been other provinces that have

been quick to be able to bring this legislation forward.

I think it's fair to say, and my colleague across the way, the MLA for Abbotsford

West, certainly touched on it in his remarks. I was listening because, again, it's

someone who sits across from a different party, but someone who I've watched debate

in this House since I was in elementary school.

Not to make you feel old, MLA for Abbotsford West. I'm a big fan. I'm a big fan.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, of course.

R. Parmar: As he touched on so eloquently, and others have as well, this legislation is quite

complex and requires special rules to account for many different types of specific

property. That's why I think it's so important to acknowledge the Attorney General

for undertaking this work. Certainly, the previous Attorney General, the Premier,

who I know put a lot of work and effort into this as well when he was in that role.

And also all the staff who have been a part of that process.

This is not the type of stuff that's going to make the front cover of the Vancouver Sun , or in my case, the Times Colonist , but is going to be important in the changes made to protect people, and again, modernize

our structures. I think it was just really important for me to be able to acknowledge

that.

What also…. I'll just end with acknowledging that it's so important that we follow

the lead of other provinces. I've always had this core belief in anything I've done,

whether I was a student activist or just a student at university or a school trustee

or chair of my school board to now as an MLA, that there are amazing things happening

in our communities. There are amazing things happening across the province of British

Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

Sometimes there are amazing things happening in other provinces like Alberta and like

Saskatchewan that have legislation like this in place. I know that Alberta was the

first to do so with legislation that has very much a similar general structure as

we have in this legislation.

I know that there are different pieces, and I know that the MLA for Abbotsford West

and the Attorney General and other members will have an opportunity to be able to

dive into that through the Committee of the Whole process.

I've always had this core belief that it's okay to take other ideas. It's important

to acknowledge them. So it's important for me to be able to acknowledge the leadership

that was shown in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, which have

similar legislation. It's so important to British Columbia that we don't turn a blind

eye to that, but we acknowledge that and we make sure, again, that we're modernizing,

that we're innovating in terms of our legislation processes.

It truly is an honour. Years back, when people asked me what was going to be the first

piece of legislation I had the honour of standing up in this House and talking about,

some might think housing. Some might think health care or different piecing. But,

for me, it's going to be the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. That's something I'm

certainly going to remember for a long time.

As I say that, it's an important piece of legislation. It's legislation that, again,

makes sure that there's equity in our court structures — makes sure that you have

a situation in which you have a tenant who, again, just wants to be able to go through

the residential tenancy branch process, know that they've been able to be awarded

their damage deposit back and know that they're going to get that — know that they're

going to get that because they may need those funds to be able to put down a damage

deposit on another rental unit.

You may have a landlord who may feel that: "You know what? I'm getting really frustrated

by this. I'm getting really frustrated about how I feel like the system is not on

my side." When you go through, again, a similar process, whether it's the residential

tenancy branch or even the civil resolution tribunal, you may not be able to access

those funds.

So you may decide: "You know what? Because of the frustration I'm facing, it's not

worth it for me. So I'm going to take my rental unit off. I'm going to remove the

garden suite or remove the basement and just leave it empty." When you're in a housing

crisis, we can't do those sort of things. Again, that's why it's so important that

we're bringing forward legislation like this to be able to protect those and to create

that equitable process.

I'll just end by saying, once again, that it's such an honour for me to be able to

stand here as the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca. I've thought many a time, standing

in the hallways, what it would be like to be standing at this seat. It's particularly

special for me to be in this seat.

You often wonder…. The Government House Leader and, I'm sure, my colleagues on the

other side have had interesting discussions about seat politics and where people are

in the House. I didn't really think much of it. I thought that maybe, being newbies,

the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I might be on the other side, which would

have been fine. It would have been lovely to have been able to engage with the folks

on the other side. But what was….

Interjection.

R. Parmar: Absolutely. Especially the MLA for Nelson-Creston, the other young MLA in the Legislature.

What was really special for me in particular was that the first thing I did when I

sat down in this chair was to lift up this, which I know many do, and to see the Minister

of Housing's name in here, which was particularly special for me. Many of you know

that he was my former boss when he was the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation. It's such an honour for another first name — I can't say that — to be

able to very much follow in his lead.

Thank you so much. I look forward to, over the next couple of hours, hearing more

discussion from both sides of the House. Hopefully, my colleagues from the opposition

will engage as well in debate on Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

J. Sims: It is delightful to have, as he's mentioned many times today, the young MLA from Langford–Juan

de Fuca. I will tell him that age is only a number. It's all in your head. I can see

many thumbs up in the room for that. But it is really a delight to have him join us

in here as well as my colleague from Mount Pleasant.

I really enjoyed listening to his first speech in the Legislature. I think those of

us who were in the room wouldn't have possibly guessed that was his first speech.

I don't know if he was practising all night or if he is just a natural orator. I'm

beginning to think he's a natural orator.

We've worked together in many different ways over the last number of years, and I'm

sure the people of Langford–Juan de Fuca are looking forward to his passionate advocacy

here in this House.

[3:10 p.m.]

It is my pleasure to stand up and rise in this House and speak in support of Bill

27, intituled Money Judgment Enforcement Act. It sounds rather, kind of, formidable

when you read that title. But really, I think this piece of legislation is long overdue,

and I want to thank the current Attorney General and her predecessor for the work

they've done on this.

As we all know, there are often judgments, whether it's through the civil courts or

whether it's been the civil resolution tribunal or the residential tenancy branch.

Those rulings get made, and then it can be months, years and years and years before

a collection can be made.

Many, many times I've heard both from landlords and tenants how they've given up in

the process because the process was rather cumbersome. You had to go through one system

of collection and then try another and then another. This, in many ways, is like a

one-stop shop to collect the money that you are owed.

I know, from the landlords and tenants I have talked to, that both sides will be pleased

to see this. There are landlords who come to my office and say: "Look, I'm owed this

much money. How do I collect it?" You know what? As my colleague said previously,

very soon those people won't want to be landlords and be engaged if they think they're

going to be out of money every month, every year.

In similar ways, we hear stories from tenants, as well, who have cleaned their place.

They're leaving now, but they can't get their deposit back. That's not fair, either,

for many people struggling, especially nowadays when affordability is so, so difficult.

Getting your rental deposit back is critical as you move on to your new place. You

might need it for the deposit, though you've probably begged and borrowed and put

a deposit down. Then you need it to survive until your next cheque comes in as well.

So this is a very, very important piece of legislation for the person who owes the

money — the tenant or the landlord. But also, it gives a kind of clarity. The threat

of going through court case after court case is taken away from everybody.

By this legislation, money judgments will be enforced through a single enforcement

instruction after being entered in a public registry. You know, immediately you're

going to hear these cries: "What about a person's privacy? That's going to be a violation

of people's private information."

Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the information that's going to be in the public

registry is a matter of public record anyway, because you've been through the court

case. You've been through the tribunal. You've been through all the processes. So

all of that is already public information. But it is important to have it there.

Some people may say: "But why would you want to have a birthdate or an address in

there?" Well, if you live in my riding, we will have many people with the name of

Ravi. I'm not talking about my colleague, but there could be many Ravi Parmars. I

can tell you that I do have quite a few. There can be quite a few Harry Bains in Surrey

as well. I could go on and on with other examples. So it's really to hone in on the

individual who owes the money and who the judgment is against and not put other people's

names at risk.

I know that you quite enjoyed that, Mr. Speaker — the chuckle. I can tell you, being

a teacher, that it can be very, very confusing at times when you look at your classroom

register and there are three kids with exactly the same spelling. A boy, a girl, a

boy — same name. Well, it happens. It happens. So in the same way, it's going to happen

with this land registry. So that fine tuning does have to be given.

[3:15 p.m.]

The other thing is that once these orders are entered into the registry database,

it makes it easier for the collection process, much, much easier, rather than going

around trying to search that information.

Also, I think it's going to be something that if you are looking for a future…. Either

for the tenant or even for the landlord, that registry is going to inform them about

who they rent to in the future, as well, or who they rent from, because this is both

ways, and this is how it will work. So I'm really, really pleased to see this here.

Just recently I had a single mom walk into my office, and she was being asked to leave.

She didn't want to. Increased her rent, willingly, by $600, but really, two months

later, there was still the pressure to leave. She found a new place, and she really

needed her deposit back. She needed her deposit back so she could survive the following

month before she got paid, and it was such a hard time for her. She was in tears,

and she said to me: "I don't have years and years to go through the court system."

I'm not saying that this will make it instant. You still have to go through a process.

You still have to have a ruling, but at least you're not tied up in the courts trying

to get the money after there is a ruling. So that is really, really important.

Ever since this government has been in power, since 2017, I have been really impressed

to be part of a group that looks at bringing about legislative change in a very balanced

way. It doesn't go to the extreme so we're only dealing with the top three per cent

or two per cent. It's sort of….

This legislation is an example where we're looking at it from the perspective of both

the landlord and the tenant, as well as…. When it comes down to the civil resolution

tribunal rulings — also taking a look to make sure that that system is streamlined

for collection as well.

Mr. Speaker, you might be thinking: "Well, what if somebody can't afford it? What

is going to be excluded from this?" Let me assure you that nobody, through this process,

is going to be left so that they cannot put food at the table or have a roof over

their head.

When I looked at the exemptions that were there, they were quite extensive, and I

think that is really good. Your first bicycle is protected. The house you live in,

or your residence, is protected. Your first vehicle is protected. All of that is really,

really important.

Also, in the collection, it can't be 100 per cent of your income. A certain percentage

of your income — and if I remember rightly, I remember 70 per cent — is there. It's

protected for you to be able to live and to pay your bills and to do all of those

kinds of things.

Now, I know that there will be some people saying: "Why are you giving people those

protections? This means those who can't afford it will never pay back." But this legislation

adds assets that were not included in the previous legislation as to what can be garnished,

so to speak, what can be taken away. So there are, once again, checks and balances.

The area has been expanded, so to speak.

We also, I think…. I'm an absolute believer in this. Starting with our school system

and beyond, we do need to be doing far more work on financial literacy, because when

I talk to some of my constituents, I'm often amazed at how much debt gets accrued,

and they don't even realize until they're kind of drowning in it. By that time, it

has created so much mental stress on the family, on the individual and on the family

unit.

[3:20 p.m.]

I think part of this also, I'm hoping, will be part of that financial literacy training

that schools need to be providing. I know we always ask schools to do more, and I'm

not asking for a course in this.

I'm not saying that there should be a special curriculum for this. But do you know

this. When you're a math teacher, there's a way to include this. Really, it's how

we incorporate the life skills, which all of us need, into the curriculum, without

putting an extra burden on people.

This registry will also be beneficial for people looking to register security agreements,

such as car loans or secured lines of credit. It does open up the door for many, many

things, but the most important thing about this is that it takes away the onus from

the person who is owed the money to take on the court system.

Not only that, but because once you take up the court system, you actually are then

taking away court space for other services that are needed in a timely manner. So

this will actually save our justice system, our court system, lots of time and resources.

That time and resources can be spent differently and more effectively, I believe.

Some people would say: "Well, is this going to have any effect on money launderers

and organized crime?" Once again, let me assure people, there is legislation in that

area, but this is specifically for civil cases only, such as breach of contract or

where one person caused injury to another person or damaged their property. By the

way, this does not include motor vehicle accidents. So this does not include ICBC

claims — these are things out of it — but these are civil cases.

During this legislation, while it was being drafted, all the regular consultations

were done and adhered to. There are several items that will be exempted from seizure.

That makes sense to me, because we want to make sure that people can maintain a basic

standard of living. These include food; medical aids; 70 per cent of wages or other

incomes, as I said earlier; court awards to pay future medical expenses.

Pets — we wouldn't want to take away somebody's pet and sell that. That would be just

an absolute no-no. So very, very specifically, pets are excluded.

Burial plots. Some people…. I may be one of them; I'll talk about myself. I did not

realize the short supply of burial plots until I became an MLA. People come into your

office and speak about that. They are at a premium. Those burial plots would be protected.

RDSPs and RESPs would be protected, and any equipment used as part of employment,

because that would be very, very important.

Your principal residence. Now, you can't have three or four principal residences.

This actually means the house you live in.

One car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone. This always shows me how far

we've come, when — on items that we are protecting, for the household, from these

activities — we've now added one computer and one mobile phone. I'm sure that if my

grandmother were around, she would be having a good giggle at that as well.

We all know that phones today are far more than just a communication channel to pick

up and phone somebody in an emergency. For many of us, much of our life rests in the

phone, and we do business, we pay our bills, we do our banking, we do our research,

we arrange to pick up our children — all kinds of things that we do with our phones

— and they are very, very important. Those would also be protected.

[3:25 p.m.]

Proceeds from the sale of exempt property will also be exempt. For example, if you

sell your house and then you're going to buy another one, it doesn't mean that people

can go in and take that from you.

However, it does allow us to sell exempt property and then acquire a new item without

worrying that the money would be seized from their bank. So it doesn't tie people

to staying in the same house, right? Or you can't change your car because if you sell

your car and then buy a new one straight away, then you lose your investment in your

vehicle.

All of that has been contemplated, and maybe that is why — because even I was wondering

why — it is going to take till 2025 to implement this. It's when you see the intricacies

of this and the many, many aspects of it — and all of this will have to be worked

out in the regulations and everything that staff do so brilliantly — that is why it

will take till that time. I'm sure if it's done earlier, it will be implemented earlier,

but at least the timeline currently says it'll be 2025.

Once again, I do want to conclude with saying I believe this is good legislation.

This will be welcomed. I definitely know it will be welcomed by landlords. It will

also be welcomed by tenants but also, when it goes to the civil resolution tribunal,

by people who are owed significant amounts of money. It will help them too. To centralize

the system, as I said, one-stop shop.

There is a question that might get asked. Does this include child support? Technically

not. However, if there's a huge backlog of child support, then it may, depending on

how the resolution is arrived at.

Once again, I really enjoyed speaking about this very exciting and scintillating piece

of legislation, and legislation that is very, very important for British Columbians.

M. Lee: I just want to take this opportunity because we don't often in this chamber have the

opportunity to welcome two new members to the House and hear their maiden speeches,

as they say.

Again, to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who I had the opportunity to hear

on many different occasions, including for the Survivors' Flag commemoration last

Monday, and to the new member for Langford–Juan de Fuca: welcome to this chamber.

I certainly appreciate your words and your contributions. I know that you'll add a

lot to the dialogue that we have here.

I would also say, of course…. The member for Langford–Juan de Fuca mentioned our former

Premier John Horgan. John and our current Premier used to have this habit of welcoming

new members to the House, in debate or in question period, by saying the following

words: "I know the member is new to this House, but this is how it is."

I was certainly on the receiving end of those comments a number of occasions by both

John Horgan and the current Premier, when I was his justice critic, when he was Attorney

General.

Let me just say in that vein — as I was discussing this with the member for Prince

George–Valemount here, who also had complimentary comments to the maiden speech for

the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca — that, of course, the civil resolution tribunal

was a creation of the former government under that member's stewardship when she was

the Attorney General of this province. This was back in 2015.

More importantly, from my perspective, just so the member understands, the civil resolution

tribunal was never intended to have broad scope in the way that this current government

has done.

[3:30 p.m.]

Just to encapsulate the discussion I've had with the Premier. In the context of those

British Columbians that suffer from motor vehicle accident injuries, the Premier had

committed to British Columbians who are suffering from brain injury and concussion

injuries that there would be no expansion of the "minor injury" definition to include

those people who are subjected to those kinds of injuries. Yet despite that, the Premier

broke his promise.

My point is this. In terms of the civil resolution tribunal…. Just so the new member

for Langford–Juan de Fuca understands, there are challenges with the CRT in terms

suffer from brain injury and concussions navigating through the CRT jurisdiction to

deal with their brain injuries and concussion and any claims they might have — in

this case, with ICBC.

To the member for Surrey-Panorama, I would think that the reason why this new legislation

does not apply to Motor Vehicle Act judgments is because there are none. Under the

current government system of no-fault, there isn't an ability for an individual in

British Columbia to sue through the courts, including in their complex injuries, and

that is a challenge.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Let me say this. We know that with the complexity of this bill…. We know that it's

an important….

In terms of enforcement of proceedings of a civil nature, it is important that we

continue to ensure that our justice system is functioning in a very efficient manner,

because we know there's been a significant backlog through the courts, not only through

the lack of appointment of judges by this government, but also in terms of sheriffs

and support for sheriffs in our court system. There were, certainly, challenges under

our current Premier's stewardship when he was the Attorney General of our province,

and we're seeing the consequences of that now.

Having said that, with this bill in front of us…. We're seeing, on the first day of

session, when we have another 120-page bill, Bill 31, that was introduced today on

the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, that this is how this government, and this

House Leader, chooses to use its time — by debating its own bill.

We know that, certainly, as I know that the member for Abbotsford West has already

spoken on behalf of the official opposition, we are keen to work through Bill 27 in

terms of the various ins and outs of the various sections of this bill as we go through

into committee stage. Certainly, that will be an important use of this House's time.

I certainly urge this government to continue to manage this House's activities in

a meaningful, efficient manner, because here we are on the first day of session, and

we're just hearing from government members debating their own bill, talking about

the important fundamentals of this bill. I would expect that we all recognize that,

so we should get on with the business of the House, and I hope that we'll have the

opportunity to ensure that we don't have this happen again, because we saw this in

the last session and the previous session.

I look forward to this Government House Leader and the government itself to be managing

the business of the House in a more efficient and effective manner.

Hon. S. Robinson: I'm just listening carefully to the previous speaker, who was suggesting that somehow

this bill, Bill 27, wasn't particularly meaningful. It's incredibly meaningful, especially

to those people who are looking to get money that's owed to them following a civil

court decision, whether it's somebody who has gone through the civil resolution tribunal

or residential tenancy branch, looking to get their money that is owed to them. That's

about justice.

I think any time we are working in this chamber to achieve justice, it is meaningful,

so I will choose to disagree with the previous member about what's meaningful work.

I always find that having debate in this chamber is incredibly meaningful work.

Bill 27 is about a money judgment enforcement act that is designed to streamline the

process for people who are owed moneys to get them through the courts or the tribunals,

such as the residential tenancy branch or the civil resolution tribunal. When we think

about how hard it is to navigate some of these systems — it can be really intimidating.

[3:35 p.m.]

It can be very overwhelming, especially for those who have the least ability, the

least resource and have the most challenge to navigate the system. So making it simpler,

I think, is really about what's good for people. That's really what this is about.

It's about making it better for the people that we serve.

We know that many folks, like renters or landlords…. I've certainly heard from many

of them that there'll be an order for a damage deposit to be returned or an order

for payment for rent owed, and then in order to chase down the money, which is really

what has traditionally been happening, because you have to chase down the money….

That chase is difficult. It's time-consuming. It can be expensive to collect on the

debt.

What we know and what we've heard, because we listen to people, is people say: "I

just can't be bothered. It's too hard. It's too much. It's too overwhelming." Really,

at the end of the day, that's not right, and it's not just. I think it is meaningful

to lessen the burden on people who are awarded money and help ensure that they get

the timely delivery of money owed.

The way it works right now is people who are awarded a money judgment have to actually

go to court and make an application for each method used to collect funds if the person

ordered to pay doesn't voluntarily comply. Now, in a perfect world, people would voluntarily

comply, right?

You go to court. The court says: "You know what? You have to give them their damage

deposit back," or "You have to pay this rent. It is owed." And the right thing to

do, the just thing to do, is to say: "Okay. Here you go." But that doesn't always

happen, and then whoever is owed the money has to make an application to court, which

can be quite onerous.

Now, of course, there are different methods to collect the funds. It can be garnishing

wages, garnishing funds in bank accounts, seizing or selling personal items. But again,

having to go through the court for each one of these…. It's different, depending on

what the method of collection is. Whether it's garnishing wages, whether it's selling

personal goods, there are different applications that need to be made.

Again, most people don't have familiarity with these processes. They just want what

the courts say is owed to them. So having to go through that whole process is really

overwhelming, and it's really not fair, and it's really not just.

We know from the data — just as an example, because I think it's really helpful to

understand what we're talking about — that the residential tenancy branch awarded

about 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters just last year. The year before

that was 4,100.

The feedback that we've heard from those who are trying to recover their money…. They

just talked about how onerous it is and how complex and complicated the system is.

Simplifying that process is what Bill 27 does, and that's the bill that's here in

front of us. It helps to simplify it.

What this legislation proposes is to help enforce the judgment with a single enforcement

instruction after a person registers in a searchable public registry. It just makes

it simpler. It's a one-stop shop that eliminates the need to apply to the court multiple

times over and over and over again, which is really frustrating.

That's certainly what we heard from people who were caught in this system. The registry

will serve as a one-stop shop for information about previous money judgments, including

current amount owing and commercial liens.

Again, I think it's important to recognize this is really about making it easier for

people to get the money that is owed to them. It's really about our focus on listening

to people's experiences and then saying: "Okay. If this is what people are experiencing

— this frustration, this irritation — and that it is expensive and burdensome, how

can we take that and find a way to streamline the process so that it isn't so hard,

it isn't so frustrating, it isn't so irritating, and so people can get justice?" I

do believe that as MLAs, we all want that for our constituents.

I would imagine…. I've certainly seen it, and I've heard other colleagues talk about

having constituents who've come to our community offices to say: "This part of the

system isn't working well for me. I have received this judgment. This money is owed

to me. But collecting it is a whole other burdensome challenge for me. I don't know

that I have the time or the energy to actually make that happen." To me, that's just

not just.

[3:40 p.m.]

We know that currently, if someone doesn't voluntarily pay their judgment, the person

pursuing collection has to make the court application for each collection method.

To collect the money owed through the garnishment of wages, you actually have to apply

for and serve around 26 garnishing orders every year. That's every two weeks.

People don't have the time for that or the energy for that. It adds to their burden.

So by streamlining and creating a process that makes it efficient, we're helping British

Columbians.

Under this proposed legislation that's before the House, the money judgments can be

enforced with a single enforcement instruction. What it means is that, as well, tribunal

orders will be automatically entered in the money judgment registry, and then people

can directly instruct a civil enforcement officer to go out and seize and sell property

to satisfy the debt owing to them.

It's really about simplifying what has become a very complex system. In preparing

my remarks, I believe I read somewhere that the Court Order Enforcement Act, which

is the current act that directs all of these actions…. Their roots in court orders

were codified in British legislation from the 1800s.

We're talking a very, very long time ago, and I think even Mr. Ralph Sultan wouldn't

even know about how that came to be, though he could probably tell me and pontificate

about why it was such in the 1800s and why it made sense.

I see that I got a lovely smile from the Chair, because that's what he would have

done. He would have pontificated about in the 1800s, why we had to do it this way.

This is really about bringing this legislation into this century and finding ways

to make it easier for people, because that's really what's important here.

We do know that the other part that's here in this legislation is really about certain

types of properties that were not contemplated in old legislation that will now be

able to be seized. Again, when you're dealing with old legislation and bringing it

into modern times, modern era, you need to take a look at all of it.

Additional protections are also introduced to ensure that people owing money and their

dependents can maintain a basic standard of living. This isn't about destroying those

who owe money, but it's really about making them accountable and making sure that

they are acting on what the courts have determined to be just.

The legislation…. I think it's important to recognize that there was a lot of consultation

about getting this legislation into the House. I think that's also really important.

There were recommendations from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada as well as the

B.C. Law Institute. I know that court bailiffs were consulted to understand the impact,

because they have an operations role to play in this legislation.

I know that the ministry staff are going to continue to work with the Canadian Bar

Association as well as financial institutions, because they have a role. Other lending

institutions, I know, are committed to advising government as we replace the Court

Order Enforcement Act with legislation that's based on the BCLI report.

Again, there is…. Because the legislation is going to be brought forward through regulation

— in, I believe, it's a year and a half or two years from now — there's opportunity

to make sure that the transition works smoothly.

With that, I think it's really important, again, to recognize that this is meaningful

legislation, and it's meaningful because it's about affecting the lives of British

Columbians. Everything that we do in this House is about impacting on the lives of

British Columbians, making sure that things work better.

Just because we've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean that we should

just let it continue to run the way it's always run. If we can do it better, if we

can do it easier, if we can listen to what people are saying about where the system

doesn't work for them, if we can make it easier for people to get the money that is

owed to them following a civil court decision, then those are the things that we ought

to be doing.

[3:45 p.m.]

I want to thank the minister and her team, the Ministry of Attorney General, for their

work in making sure that they're consulting with the right folks, that they're digging

into the legislation and making it work better for British Columbians, because that's

what is most important to our government. I hope everybody in the House believes that

as well.

B. Anderson: First of all, I would just like to welcome my two new colleagues in the Legislature

— yay! It is an honour and a privilege to serve with both of you, and I think your

communities are very fortunate to have you as their representatives.

It was wonderful to actually be able to hear you say your first words here in the

chamber. I remember my first time getting to speak in this place, and it truly is

a remarkable moment when you're able to…. There are very few people…. I remember our

former Premier would talk about how few people actually in history get to occupy these

seats.

The work that we do on behalf of our communities can be really challenging. It can

be very emotional. But it is also extremely rewarding. I just want to say that I think

you're both going to do a fantastic job, and you have an incredible number of colleagues

here to support you. When things get challenging, and you have questions, I know that

all of us here have your back.

When I was first elected, they paired up experienced MLAs with new MLAs. I remember

that was a really great thing for me, as I didn't know a lot of my colleagues. We

were also in the middle of COVID, so I didn't have the opportunity to come to Victoria

with a full House and sit with all of my colleagues. You're trying to develop those

relationships, you know, over Zoom or over text message or with phone calls.

The colleague I had — I remember the first question I asked her was after we were

sworn in, which we did virtually…. I did it from my parents' house, from my childhood

home, which also was a very strange but remarkable experience.

I had my computer in front of me — this computer here. I was set up in their living

room, and I literally had both of my parents right here peering over the computer

at me just with so much pride and with joy. Although I didn't get to do it in a typical

way, it was really special as well.

Then we were having sort of our first….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are debating the bill.

B. Anderson: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. May I just finish this story quickly?

Deputy Speaker: Very quickly.

B. Anderson: Okay, very, very quickly. I appreciate that. I appreciate your guidance on that, and

I will get to this bill, which I'm very, very excited to speak in support of.

My first question — you know, we were all getting together as government caucus —

was: "What am I supposed to wear?" Because I didn't know if people were going to show

up in ball gowns or pyjamas. To be able to ask someone a silly question like that,

it's really valuable. So don't think that any question is too silly.

Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you for your guidance and your patience with

me.

I do want to speak in favour of this. We know how challenging housing and finding

housing can be for people. I know I have been a renter. I've also been a landlord.

It can be challenging on both fronts.

I have friends that are both renters and both landlords, and it can be hard. When

there's damage done to a property — your property, your investment — and you're not

able to recuperate those costs, that makes people not want to be landlords.

We know that we need landlords in every community, in every region across the province.

Whether you're in downtown Metro Vancouver or you're in Argenta, for example, we need

people to be able to step up and offer that housing and make sure that it's available

for their community members, because it impacts our workforce. We know that this is

not just….

You know, it can be our teachers. It can be our nurses. It can be the people that

work at the grocery store or the health food store or the librarians. Or tradespeople,

as we're trying to build this housing. We know that it is critically important that

we have landlords and we provide protection for those landlords but also for tenants.

[3:50 p.m.]

I have a friend that ended up losing her housing. Her landlords had made their financial

decision, and they had gone about it in the appropriate way. But I know how hard it

was for her, as a professional in her mid-thirties, trying to pack up all of her stuff

and wondering where she was going to live.

She was fortunate. She was able to get her damage deposit and all of that back, which

she did. She needed that for her next rental, to be able to put down that damage deposit

on that next space. So it is really important that if people are owed money, there

is a simple way and a fair and equitable way to be able to get that money back. That

is what this legislation is doing.

We know, and we've heard from members from both sides, that there was a ton of consultation

that went into this. We're really trying to streamline the process and make it easier

for everyone, whether you are a tenant or you're a landlord. I just really appreciate

all of the work and the leadership that went into this, because we're going to make

this better for everyone. This is just one part of a strategy to make it better to

be both a landlord and a tenant across the province in British Columbia.

When we were speaking…. We know that there were questions about housing and affordability

in question period today. Those are things that we take, as government, very, very

seriously. All of us have friends or loved ones or family members. As MLAs, we are

representatives for people that are looking for housing or that have the potential

to be landlords. We want to be able to support them in that decision-making. So I'm

very confident that this legislation is just one piece that will help us move forward

in terms of equitable access to housing across British Columbia.

With that, I just want to say thank you so much to everyone that put the effort into

this, and thanks, also, to the people that provided us with the feedback. Unless we

hear from folks, and we know what the challenges are, we can't address them.

I also wanted to say thank you to the MLA who's on the other side who asked a question

in question period today about a member from my community in Nelson that was looking

for housing. I did approach the member, and I asked if she was able to provide me

with a full name, because only this person's first name was used. When she did, I

immediately recognized that name. It's a small community. I used to work with this

person.

Our office is already reaching out. We're seeing what we're able to do to try to find

housing solutions for her. You know, I would call her a friend. When I see her down

on Baker Street, we always have a great little talk. I give her a hug or she gives

me a hug. You know, we want to work. We want to do that for all of our community members.

So we know that there are tremendous housing challenges. Nelson, for example, has

had a zero percent vacancy rate for over a decade in areas that used to not have such

a housing crisis. We're seeing it across my region, and we also know that it is impacting

every single community in our province. Part of the reason is because B.C. is an exceptionally

incredible place to live.

I think all of us are MLAs because we love our communities, we love where we come

from, and we want to support people. But that also means that…. I've talked to many

folks. When I was a server at a restaurant, I would ask people: "Are you visiting?"

They'd say: "No, no, no. We live here." I was like: "Oh, did you move within the last

two years?" They'd look at me like: "How did you know?" I was like: "It's because

I recognize faces."

As I move about my community, I might not know someone's name or know what job they

do. But I'll see them in the grocery store. Some people, I've recognized for my entire

life, growing up in Nelson. My parents are still there. My brother is a part of the

community. We know a lot of people. We recognize them, and we want to be able to support

them in getting the housing that they need.

Again, this legislation…. I am just really grateful for all of the work that went

into this.

With that, I just want to say thank you, and I will take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

F. Donnelly: Thank you, Speaker. I hope you had a good summer. I want to wish not just you a good

summer, but everyone here, including all of the legislative staff. It's been a while

since we last sat, so I want to make sure that we acknowledge all of the staff and

hope they had a good recharge and are ready for our fall session.

[3:55 p.m.]

I'd like to acknowledge that we're on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking

peoples and thank them for allowing us to conduct business on their territory.

I think it's especially important to acknowledge this territorial acknowledgment following

the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We heard from a minister earlier today

and other members of this House who spoke about the important work that's being done

in reconciliation, not just in British Columbia but across the country.

Before I dive into Bill 27, I'd like to acknowledge all the families who were impacted

by the wildfires this summer. What a horrible feeling to lose your property, lose

your memories, lose the contents of your life, in some cases. I just want to say that

our hearts go out to those families. We're sorry for your loss that you suffered.

I think we should acknowledge