First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 11, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 28

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

D. Ashton

Hon. J. Osborne

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage on Bill 6.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

On clause 24 (continued) .

Hon. S. Robinson: Over the break, I had a little chance to reflect on my previous

response. I just want to provide a bit more clarity. I don’t know if it

was as clear as it could have been.

collecting information and the purpose for the collection. I want to

clarify that, while we might share aggregate data to help us understand

in terms of policy development, we cannot share personal information

that we collect without the legal authority to do so. The amendments in

Bill 6 do not change authority for sharing information. I want to make

sure that the member understood that.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I almost understand it. But the personal information

the minister is referring to, is that…? Before lunch, we were talking

about the sharing of data in two different categories. One was within

the ministry itself — within different branches of the Ministry of

Finance. Then the other area was between the ministry and the

municipalities. Can she just clarify for me which one she was referring

to?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Within the ministry itself.

M. Bernier: Just before we move off this section, I’m trying to get a couple

of things clarified here. Are municipalities still applying for the

grants? If the municipalities are applying for the grants as a whole, is

the administration actually fully centralized?

I guess where I’m going with this is…. We have been starting to

hear from a few municipalities — I even heard from one over lunch, as

well — with some of the concerns around a couple of different avenues.

The government is taking on a big portion of it through the application

process. But there are still some administration components that are

required within the municipalities themselves. So it’s not fully

centralized. One of them, and I’ll get to it a little later, is even

around the collection of penalties.

We talked about that a bit. But again, the application process is

through the government now. If there’s a penalty applied, is that going

to be the responsibility of the municipality themselves to be following

up, or the administrator, under this act?

Hon. S. Robinson: There are no penalties that are under this act.

M. Bernier: Where I’m referring to, then, is more…. I guess it’s not so much

penalties. It would be the absence of somebody applying for the act.

They don’t meet the deadline for the grant. They do or they

don’t.

Let me just explain it to you this way. Let’s go into the process,

then, if the minister can help me with this, for people that are out

there. I’ll use simplistic numbers, not actual grant numbers. Somebody

has received a tax notice from their community for $4,000 for property

taxes for the calendar year of 2021. They’re eligible as a homeowner

for, we’ll say, a $1,000 grant. When they go into city hall, what cheque

are they writing to city hall on July 1? We both know the answer, but we

want to make sure this is clear.

When we assume somebody has applied now for the homeowner’s grant

— the $1,000 that we’ll say they’re eligible for — are they going into

city hall and writing a cheque for $3,000, or are they writing a cheque

for $4,000 and getting rebated back $1,000?

Hon. S. Robinson: They would write the cheque for $3,000.

M. Bernier: If they’re writing the cheque for $3,000…. Again, I’m making this

simplistic, I hope. At the time, they’re writing the cheque for $3,000.

In essence, the $1,000 grant that they applied for to the government….

The government will be sending a cheque, a transfer, to the municipality

for that $1,000, correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: Correct.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I appreciate the minister indulging me here as we’re

just trying to make sure this is somewhat simplified, I guess, using

rounded numbers.

I guess the concern, then, for a municipality would be: what if,

as I think this through, somebody comes in two days before the deadline

and says that they applied for the homeowner’s grant, so they write a

cheque for $3,000 to the municipality, and then it’s found out

afterwards that they actually applied incorrectly or didn’t apply at

all, and there was some confusion in this?

I used the wrong term earlier when I said penalty. Who, then, goes

after the homeowner to say: “Actually, you still owe $1,000”? Is it

going to be the municipality now re­sponsible to go after the

homeowner to claim that money — my assumption is — or is it going to be

the government?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, nothing has changed here, so just as has always been the

case, the municipality would be having to connect with the homeowner to

collect on the taxes that they still owe.

M. Bernier: This goes back to, I guess, where I was going with the penalty

portion of it, because if you pay your taxes late, past the deadline of

July 2, there is a penalty imposed by the municipality. I’m assuming the

minister will say, then, if somebody accidentally filled out their

homeowner’s grant incorrectly and there was still a sum, whatever that

sum being, that’s owed to the municipality, then there could be a

penalty imposed to the outstanding sum. Now that’s the municipality’s

role to collect that penalty and the additional sum, since it might not

have been caught by the ministry — incorrectly applying for the

homeowner’s grant.

Hon. S. Robinson: We, as the ones responsible for the homeowner grant, communicate

with the municipality when the homeowner grant application was made, to

make sure that that is accurate information. So if the homeowner applied

for it on June 30, then certainly the municipality would…. We would

communicate with the municipality that the grant application was made in

a timely fashion and no penalties should be applied.

If the homeowner makes an error, then certainly, as a province, we

would work with the homeowner to make sure that their grant application

is accurate and communicate that with them. But just like now, if

somebody makes a homeowner grant application that they’re not eligible

for and, subsequently, they’re late paying their taxes, then that is up

to the municipality about whether or not to pursue the penalty fees that

are related with the late tax remittance.

M. Bernier: One of the concerns along this line that I’m hearing from

municipalities is…. Human nature being the way it is, and although the

minister acknowledged yesterday by reading out, numerous times, the

website — that people can go on now…. And no, I have not yet, even

though she offered the opportunity for me to do. The majority of people,

for whatever reasons, go in, in the last couple of days prior to a

deadline. So there’s where municipalities have mentioned to me those

concerns around: who is the one truly going to be put in the position

now to go after people for something that may or may not have been done

inaccurately — by accident? So just using that example in the past

again….

I know in my riding, too, that we’d have some seniors that would

come in one or two days before the deadline. They’d go to the counter

with their piece of paper that has the little tab at the bottom. They

check off the two or three things in order to qualify for the

homeowner’s grant while they’re at the counter. It gets stamped, and

then they pay their taxes, at which point somebody is right there

telling them: “Actually, you filled out the wrong one. You should have

filled out here.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Now it’s going to be online. So one of the concerns that I’m

hearing not only from some of these people — again, municipalities — is

if somebody does walk in a day or two before and says, “Well, I just

filled it out online yesterday,” we’re now taking their word for it. I’m

assuming — and Minister, correct me if I’m wrong — this is not going to

be as real time as we would hope. If I apply this morning, the

municipality is not getting notified that afternoon that I applied for

the homeowner’s grant, correctly or incorrectly.

Therein lie some of the challenges. I canvassed that a little

earlier during the debate, around the flexibility within the ministry

and the municipality in the first year. Obviously, we hope this…. I

mean, I think we’re supporting the centralization idea, but I think it

is fair to acknowledge and say that there are some people who have

concerns in this first year. That doesn’t necessarily mean they will act

on those and work earlier to apply for the homeowner’s grant.

Then there are municipalities, as well, that are saying: “Well, if

this is truly centralized, now all of a sudden we’re in the position

where we have to ask the people, when they come to the counter: ‘Did you

apply for your homeowner’s grant, yes or no? Did you do it correctly?’ I

guess we’re taking their word for it.” Now all of a sudden if they find

out it was wrong, the municipality is the one that’s put in the

position, with staff, to now go after people — whether it’s for

penalties, on titles and that. That’s just one of the things that I flag

on that.

Again, I guess, to the minister. The municipalities are still put

in the front, dealing with the people. I believe I heard the answer, a

couple of days ago, that there’s not going to be much flexibility in

year one. Is it fair to say, then, that the municipalities are still,

really, at the front, dealing with this issue?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, this is a property tax program. This is how municipalities

get their revenues. It’s their main source of revenue. This is a tax for

them to do their operating budgets and their capital budgets. It is

based on that, and they have been collecting it. They will always, I

would imagine, continue to be the face of it.

As I was listening to the member’s question, I was thinking:

“Well, you know, in my community in Coquitlam, a lot of people are….

It’s a lot online now.” Many municipalities are already doing this

online. So a lot of folks are very much familiar with an online

process.

Also, there are some that do…. We have a quick mail drop in the

underground parking in Coquitlam, where you can just drop in, instead of

having to stand by the desk and get the stamp. Because people would wait

for hours, which was inefficient and problematic — to wait for hours in

front of a counter. You can drop off your taxes and tick off all the

boxes.

Like the member suggested, there are those — not me — that do it

last minute. God bless you for living life on the edge. They would drop

it off July 1, because they’d make it by the deadline of July 2. By the

time that gets processed, days have passed as well. You know, there is

recognition about what comes in at what time. Then there’s the process

that happens in order to reconcile all the pieces. That’s certainly

going to happen, going forward, as well — this idea of

reconciling.

Certainly, in our consultations with local governments and in our

consultation with UBCM, which the member knows full well, they are very

supportive of this. It’s seen as a release, by local governments, from a

piece of administration that they’ve had to do for many years. I didn’t

hear anyone screaming that they wanted to hang on to this very important

program. We know that local governments will continue to work with us to

make sure that it rolls out seamlessly.

We have everything in place. There has been lots of work that has

gone on in order to put this together so that it can meet the needs of

citizens as easily and as seamlessly as possible.

Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

M. Bernier: Again, some of this stuff is just technicalities, I guess, in some

ways, but it’s an opportunity, also, to put a few things out there —

more for information as well. And I apologize. On

section 28, I’ll have

a question, but I just want to go to the minister’s last comments, and

then give her an opportunity as well.

[1:50 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll do this. One of the other concerns — again, I know

it’ll be an easy answer for the minister to do this — is people who have

their taxes paid for through their financial institution. We haven’t

really covered that one off yet, so for clarity, I’ll give the minister

an opportunity to explain that, the way the municipality notifies a

financial institution.

Some people that I’ve been hearing from are worried that now this

is another example. The bank is going to pay the whole thing owing, and

then they have to figure out how to get a rebate on the homeowner’s

grant. I’m pretty sure the minister knows the answer to it. It’ll give

her an answer to put on the record.

Hon. S. Robinson: These amendments before us don’t make any change to any of that

process.

M. Bernier: Just for clarity for those watching at home. Things haven’t

changed, so maybe I’ll just mention…. That means that the bank will be

notified of the taxes owing minus the homeowner’s grant. If the person

has already applied and the municipality has been notified, the bank

will be notified accordingly of owings. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize that each financial

institution will have their own process, so to list that all out here is

probably not going to be particularly helpful. There’s nothing here with

these amendments that changes any of that portion of how people pay

their taxes. This is really just around where the application is made

for the grant. It’s made to the province, and the province communicates

to the municipality. That’s where the reconciling will happen. The way

people pay their taxes doesn’t change at all.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I might have worded my points maybe a little

bit confusingly, but that was the gist of where we were trying to go, I

think, just for people who had concerns out there of how this was going

to happen. As you know, so many people out there might just have

monetary amounts deducted and put into an account and then paid for by

the bank. But it is still their responsibility, we all acknowledge, to

apply for whatever grants they’re entitled to under the present system,

as the minister was saying, which is not changing.

Section 28, if I’m understanding this also, is amending language

to enable for municipalities to pay a grant amount. Can the minister

give an example of when a mu­nicipality is paying the grant

amount? I’m trying to recon­cile that.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the legalese that is used to write these is really

not always as straightforward, so I appreciate the member asking for an

example, because I think that helps everybody and all of those that are

absolutely riveted by what is occurring here today. They are also really

excited to find out what this looks like.

When the province approves a homeowner grant, it communicates to

the municipality that it’s been ap­proved, and it gets applied to

the property taxes. But if there’s a credit on the balance, this

provision allows…. The municipality may refund the owner if they have

overpaid their taxes.

M. Bernier: Just to follow that train of thought, to help here, then.

Obviously, we live in a different world sometimes than what’s happening

out there for everybody else. When the grant has been applied for, the

government.… Now, I don’t want to say owes. But that monetary payment

then goes to the municipality.

When does that get transferred? And does the minister have an

approximation, let’s just say in last year’s budget or something…? What

is the cost to government to run this program?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, speak to the fact that the homeowner grant

really, operationally, counts as a reduction in the school tax payment.

It reduces the burden that municipalities have to pay to the province.

It’s sort of just a shift.

[2:00 p.m.]

I also want to recognize — and I want to recognize staff for

recognizing — the opportunity to leverage the processes that we already

use for rural taxes. The system is already set up. It’s already there.

It already works well. It’s just really expanding it to the other

municipalities, so the systems that support doing this already exist. I

look forward to conversation or questions in estimates when we get to

it, if the member is looking for specific details.

Clauses 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

On clause 32.

The Chair: Thank you to the folks on the screen for showing your white

cards — appreciate that too.

M. Bernier: It just goes to show how riveting this is, and that our colleagues

are all paying attention. That’s great to see.

On clause 32, this is really around the auditing, repayments,

reviews. So I’m just kind of curious, if the minister can let me know:

with this expansion, are there going to be more FTEs, full-time staff,

that are going to be hired to help with auditing and through this

process?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I had said before, there had certainly been audits previously.

So we are leveraging an existing system. I look forward to budget debate

and to the estimates debate. I am keeping track of all of the questions

that I’m expecting from the member opposite, so that I have some really

good, robust answers for him.

M. Bernier: Well, I’m looking forward to those answers. It’s unfortunate it’s

about two months later than normal. But I am looking forward to those

answers, as we get to the budget process.

During the process with this, the minister has said that this is

going to relieve a lot of…. Maybe burden is the wrong word. But from a

local government perspective, it should free up some time. It’s taking

it out of local government, putting it into the provincial

government.

The UBCM, as the minister has rightfully said, has been, as an

organization, supportive, even though there’s some municipalities that

are questioning it at this time. But we’ll go through that process. In

those discussions, was there any…? Since we’re talking about the benefit

to local government, were there any specifics that were highlighted by

the UBCM around what this will actually save local governments, or any

monetary assistance that this actually has to local

governments?

Hon. S. Robinson: With 162 different municipalities, I know that the member can

appreciate that some really rely heavily on walk-in — you know, walking

to the front counter, as the member has been talking about. Others

relied more heavily on mail-in, yet others had already streamlined to

online. So it’s really hard to compare and say: “Globally, this is what

the impacts were to local governments.”

Some will benefit, certainly, more than others. But overall, there

was considerable support for doing this — recognition that it makes life

within local governments a little bit easier, removes a burden from them

in terms of tracking and monitoring.

[2:05 p.m.]

There was certainly support from UBCM, as the organization…. As

well as many of the local governments, of course, that see this as a

relief of some burden that they have been operating under for many

years.

M. Bernier: I know it’s not necessarily within, obviously, the purview of the

minister or the government for that. I was just more canvassing on the

conversational aspect that the minister might have had with the UBCM or

other local governments, to give an idea more for those listening or

taxpayers, that they can say: “Yes, I see the benefit to

this.”

The minister has said that there are no more full-time employees

at this time, for the administration part. So it was more saying: “Look,

this is not just a convenience to you. But is it going to be a savings

to taxpayers?” Obviously, we’ll leave that up to local government and

the UBCM to discuss that any further if they so wish.

Under this section, as well, we’re talking about the audits and

the audit power and stuff that is coming in. What prompted the need,

I’ll say then, for government to expand a review of its auditing

authority, or more reviews to take place?

Hon. S. Robinson: The only expansion here that is in this legislation is the ability

to provide a refund if the homeowner is entitled to receive the

additional grant and making sure that they’re eligible for

that.

M. Bernier: Well, in 2018, the government did…. I’m trying to remember the

actual name of it. The B.C. government contracted a review around the

homeowner’s grant, if I remember correctly, in 2018. It sought, like for

audit grants and paid, looking at the program, from what I remember….

Was there work done within the ministry at that time, then, that helped

frame, as well, the ideas around putting this bill forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m wondering if the member could clarify which review he’s

referring to. I’m not 100 percent sure which one he’s talking

about.

M. Bernier: Through the reading I’ve done, it’s my understanding that the B.C.

government contracted a review of the homeowner’s grant program that

sought, around the audits, specifically audit grants paid. I’m not sure

if that gives enough information to the minister for her staff, because

if a review is done around the auditing process, like under this

section

for grants, I’m just asking, if that is the case, if that work was done.

If so, was that part of the information to put this bill together? If

I’m incorrect, the minister can tell me so.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. There was a small, short-term contract to

analyze the data for the homeowner grant. If the member recalls, the

other day we were talking about, you know, was there a percentage of

grants where we were seeing, as part of an audit, whether or not it was

hitting the mark. There was 3 percent — sort of the best estimate at the

time that came out of that work. It prompted government to say we need

to find a better way to deliver this grant program for homeowners that

would better hit the mark. So it was based on that analysis.

Clause 32 approved.

On clause 33.

M. Bernier: So we’re still talking about a lot of the audits and repayments

and that they’re built in within this bill. Under this

section 33,

though, one of my concerns, or questions, I guess I should say, is….

Well, first, will there be a new office established to handle,

specifically, the audit process? Or is that going to all be done within

the ministry as well?

Hon. S. Robinson: There is no new office. It is all being done within the

ministry.

M. Bernier: Presumably under the property taxation branch. We’ll be taking

part of that.

Can the minister confirm if all applicants for the grant — they’re

required to repay the grants — must also pay interest on that grant?

I’ll leave it at that for now.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, they would have to pay interest. And that’s not new. That’s

always been the case.

M. Bernier: Is there interest charged if the error was incorrect through

administration here within government, now that it’s going to be brought

in here?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: If government denied a grant in error, then we certainly have the

ability to fix that as well.

M. Bernier: What’s the process for an individual homeowner around appeal,

then, if there is a discrepancy between the government, through the

grant process, and the homeowner? Mistakes might happen. Either a

homeowner applies for the grant. The government challenges that. There’s

an appeal process on what the eligibility is. Where does somebody

appeal? How will that process work?

Hon. S. Robinson: The appeal process hasn’t changed. It’s the same. So they can

always make the appeal, which is to the minister.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

M. Bernier: I can just try to flip to 34, because I’m sure I’ll come up with

some questions there. So this is around the recovery of amounts owing.

What is the rate? What’s the anticipation?

We talked about fraud earlier. The minister talked about 3

percent. Possibly 33,000, we were just saying. We know that’s just an

estimate, through a small audit. I’m just curious, though, on the

recovery of outstanding moneys or penalties. What kind of rate of

disentitlement is there out there or non-compliance with this? What’s

the work that will need to be done or the money that, through the

ministry, will have to be sought after?

Hon. S. Robinson: So if a homeowner is disentitled…. And this is how it works right

now with rural homeowners, so it’s not a new system per se. It’s just

that it’s new in applying to those that live in municipalities. It’s

been a system that exists currently.

If someone is disentitled, they receive a notice of

disentitlement. They have 30 days to pay. If they don’t pay, then the

tax amount gets added back onto the tax roll of the municipality. So the

municipality is provided with notice, and it gets added on

there.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Was this a huge issue, and has it happened quite regularly, then?

Obviously, we talked about these audits that are being done. Is that

what also led to government wanting to have more say, centralizing of

this?

Hon. S. Robinson: The very question that the member asks is the very essence of why

we’re centralizing. We’ve not been able to identify if people were

ineligible, because it was 162-plus different systems. It was hard to

identify where people were ineligible. This will help us to understand

and help us to correct information, if we need, to make sure people

understand their eligibility requirements. We’ll certainly be keeping

track of how often and what the challenges are going forward, but we

expect that centralizing will help make sure that entitlements are used

appropriately.

M. Bernier: The minister said if there was a disentitlement, the homeowner is

given notice and 30 days to pay it back. What happens if they

don’t?

Hon. S. Robinson: The municipality is informed of this, that they haven’t paid it

back, and it gets applied to the tax roll going forward.

M. Bernier: It goes into the tax roll. Now that means it goes back, again,

like we were saying, to the municipality. But under this section,

there’s a whole

section now around liens and liens on properties. Is

that new? Is that something that’s been added? Or was that in the

previous act?

Hon. S. Robinson: The lien is a new provision. When notice of disentitlement is not

recognized and we don’t receive payment in 30 days and it goes on the

tax roll, if the house has been sold, for example, in the interim, we

would need to use tools for collection. That’s consistent with other

modernized statutes, and that’s what this does here.

M. Bernier: This one here came to me from a few different bodies, of course,

because it is a new

section in the act, and it’s quite a large piece

that’s been added in around giving extra powers, it looks like, around

liens and putting liens on property. How frequently does the minister

anticipate that that might actually be needed?

Hon. S. Robinson: My preference is that it wouldn’t be needed at all.

[2:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, I assume that would be in a perfect world, but obviously,

the government doesn’t feel that way. In order to add a lot of legalese

and a lot of wording into the act to give them this extra power to be

able to do that…. I assume the minister thinks that these extra powers

are obviously needed and justified for different reasons.

Can the minister just explain then…? Maybe it’s an unfair

question. If the ministry actually has to put a lien on a property, we

go back to the whole appeal process. But under this, what I read is that

there really is no appeal process. If you’ve gone through, you’ve been

notified, and you don’t pay…. Tax rolls. Now there’s a lien on a

property for whatever reason. It can create a huge issue around sale of

a property or change of a property if there are liens, as the minister

would probably acknowledge. What would the process be, then, for

somebody to remove that lien once it has been administered by the

province?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I’ve mentioned before, the notice of disentitlement signals

to the homeowner that they are not, in fact, eligible for the grant and

that now there are moneys owing, and they have 30 days. If they

disagree, then they can certainly appeal to the minister and demonstrate

that in fact, they are entitled. A decision, of course, would be

rendered based on information and evidence that suggests that they are

in fact entitled.

There is an appeal mechanism, and if that’s still not recognized,

in terms of not recognizing the notice of disentitlement, and a lien is

subsequently put on the property, the way to get out of the lien is to

pay the amounts owing.

M. Bernier: Is that the same process for the speculation and vacancy tax? If

somebody doesn’t agree with the ruling, they just write to the

minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: Under both instances, there’s absolutely a right to

appeal.

M. Bernier: I’m not sure what advice she was just given by staff, but when the

right to appeal…. I’m not trying to be creating an issue on this. This

is just more for clarity, because we have a lot of people right now

under the speculation and vacancy tax who don’t agree with the

definition or ruling that the ministry has applied on them. They seem to

be sent in circles all the time, and that’s why things come to us in

opposition of: “Where do we send this?” If the minister is saying it’s

the same process, I appreciate that. This is more just so people know

where…. Under the homeowner’s grant, if there’s disentitlement and a

review or a speculation, does it just go to the minister and then she

deals with it appropriately?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member is recognizing, in both these instances, there’s

legislation that governs, that determines what the rules are and what

the thresholds are. That is written in the legislation and adopted by

this House.

[2:30 p.m.]

People do have a right to appeal if they believe that they don’t

meet that threshold or that they’re somehow captured in something that

isn’t in the legislation. There is that opportunity for that. It’s right

there for both of these taxes, in the same manner, which is to appeal to

the minister.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Also in this section, it talks about collection. We’ve talked

about the different processes in order to gain the grant funds that have

maybe been applied for incorrectly and that are owed. In here, it also

talks about going to collections.

Somewhere in there through that process — before it would be a

lien, I assume — it goes to a collections process. What I’m curious

about…. I didn’t see it in here, and the minister can point it out for

me. If somebody is sent to collections, is there interest applied, or is

the collections just to the outstanding amount that was incorrectly in

the grant?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you. Welcome to the chair.

Just like I had said earlier, interest is applied.

M. Bernier: Aside from the interest, does the minister know of any other

penalties that could or would be applied in a situation like

this?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, there are no other penalties.

Clauses 34 and 35 approved.

On clause 36.

S. Furstenau: I hope the minister will be understanding. This is the

section

that says “General,” and I have some general questions. I only have a

few.

Filing for the grant occurs in May after property tax assessments

have been completed. The eligible threshold for the year was set, for

example, on January 5, 2021 — this year — at $1.625 million. Home prices

in British Columbia are rising rapidly. Vancouver has just seen a 2.6

percent increase in their price index over the span of a

month.

Home prices are expected to increase in the absence of government

intervention, so could the minister maybe speak to how this grant will

work to account for rapid shifts in market when the eligible threshold

is determined months ahead of the filing date?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. Welcome to this riveting

discussion that we’re having here. It’s the place to be this

afternoon.

I want to remind the member and all the members of the House that

assessed values are determined on July 1 of the previous year, and the

threshold is based on that. So it’s always looking backward, and that’s

the value. The threshold is set on that value, not on the market value

in the moment, on the date. It’s a bit of a look behind, and that’s

where it’s based out of.

[2:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: That’s very helpful.

My second question is about the implications for data collection

at the provincial level, something that we’re always quite interested

in, and how much this approach is going to improve tracking of home

ownership and tax compliance and how it will connect to the speculation

tax and auditing people’s declarations.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s question about data collection.

This will certainly help us very much in collecting data for the

homeowner grant. We don’t have that data, and that’s part of what this

piece of legislation is about, making sure that we understand who is

getting the grant and for what. As we canvassed earlier, the estimation

of about 3 percent of the grants are being given to ineligible folks. So

we want to make sure, just from a fairness perspective.

Right now, as it stands in legislation, it can be used for audits

for purpose of the speculation and vacancy tax, and that provision

already exists.

S. Furstenau: I’m actually heartened that the minister struggles with the same

challenge that I have. Is it “daa-ta”; is it “day-ta”? It depends on the

day; it depends on which sentence. I’m in the same boat. I haven’t

landed.

Perhaps maybe the Chair could settle it for us.

The Chair: It could be “datum,” more than one potential

source.

S. Furstenau: Now the Chair is simply confusing the matter.

Final question to the minister, and this is more of a

philosophical political question. Is it fair to assume that in making

this change, government is not contemplating any substantive revisions

to the homeowner grant, despite some expert appointed panels — the MSP

Task Force, the basic income panel — recommending restructuring the

homeowners’ grant to make it income-based and more targeted? Are we to

assume that this isn’t going to happen under this government?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are not contemplating any changes to the homeowner

grant.

Clauses 36 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the two members opposite for their really

thoughtful questions. I think we got to have a very good discussion — I

keep wanting to say riveting discussion — about “day-ta” and “daa-ta”

and “datum.”

I want to thank them for the time that they’ve taken to read

through the bill and be prepared to ask, I think, really good questions

to help us, and all British Columbians, understand what we’re trying to

accomplish here.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:40 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 9;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I see the member for Penticton, who I believe to be the critic

on this bill for the opposition. I will recognize the member for

Penticton on clause 1.

[2:45 p.m.]

D. Ashton: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for the

opportunity to speak to this, and my peers in the House also. I would

also, once again, congratulate the minister on her election and her

appointment. I’d encourage her — as I know she has done before, through

being a municipal electee — to ensure that she, the government and,

actually, all of us in the House do the best for all the citizens of

British Columbia and do our best to help those that are elected

alongside of us, whether they’re at the regional district, the school

boards or municipalities and townships. So thank you.

A first question on

section 1. As mentioned first of all by the

minister in her comments when she introduced the bill, the amendments in

this bill “respond to issues identified following the 2018 general local

elections,” and the amendments will “closely align the campaign

financing rules for local elections with those established for

provincial elections in the Election Act.”

Let me just ask the minister and her staff…. Again, I would like

to welcome her staff. May I ask the minister and her staff: how are

these issues identified, first of all, before we actually get to

section

1 exactly?

Hon. J. Osborne: Mr. Chair, it’s a pleasure to be here and a pleasure to undertake

my first time in committee. Thank you to the House for your patience

today.

I’d like to introduce the staff that are on the line with me

today. They are assistant deputy minister in the local government

division, Tara Faganello; Kara Woodward, who is the executive director

of the policy, research and legislation branch; and Patrick Glanc, who

is the senior policy analyst in the policy, research and legislation

branch. I thank the member opposite for the kind words in the

introduction there, and let’s take this away.

The issues that these amendments address are issues that arise in

a review of the 2018 local elections that took place and the Elections

B.C. report, as well as from ministry staff who monitor the media and

identify issues that come forward. These are the underpinning of the

amendments that we are bringing forward today.

D. Ashton: Of the issues that were identified — I have the elections

officials’ report in front of me — and of the recommendations for

changes, which ones have not been acted upon, or not brought into

alignment with the ministry with this bill? May I ask why they have not

been brought forward?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question. There were 11 recommendations

that came forward from the Elections B.C. report, and six of these are

fully implemented in the amendments being brought forth today. One

recommendation was partially implemented.

The recommendations that were not proceeded with, or not fully

proceeded with, include around campaign account requirements,

investigative tools beyond what are being proposed today,

confidentiality of information ob­tained through the course of

duties, general order-making powers of the Chief Electoral Officer and

third-party-sponsor independence from candidates and electoral

organizations. As I said, not all of the recommendations were followed

through, for two general reasons.

The first is that the recommendation to align requirements in

LECFA with the requirements in the Election Act was not always possible

due to the unique nature of local elections and that it would require a

significant shift in policy from how LECFA administers campaign

financing for local elections.

Second, the amendments proposed to LECFA would create a fallout —

all of them — and would create new authorities for the Chief Electoral

Officer that don’t yet exist under the Election Act. Since LECFA

typically mirrors the authorities that are established under the

Election Act, it doesn’t implement them first. That is why.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister. I do note, regarding LECFA, that the Chief

Electoral Officer has stated that the officer has such authority for

provincial elections under the Election Act. It would give him a greater

ability and more administrative fairness. Is he stating, may I ask, that

he disagrees with what you have proposed, as of what you just stated? Or

am I not able to catch up to exactly — and I apologize — what you have

said, the reasons why you haven’t included his recommendation for

LECFA?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. I’ll note that the recommendation for general order-making

authority is not consistent with similar powers vested in the minister

and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under LECFA.

I will say that, at this point, the recommendation is there, and

we are always going to keep open to considering and working with our

partners in improving the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act,

improving the administration of local elections and, again, just

ensuring the kind of transparency and accountability that we know

British Columbians are looking for. I look forward to working with the

member opposite, and with other partners, in this.

D. Ashton: To the minister, thank you for that comment. I do look forward to

working together. As I said in my brief summation at the front, I think

we have to represent all of the citizens of British Columbia, especially

with the rules that are changing on a continual basis.

One of the other ones that he made note of specifically was

cyberthreats and electoral integrity. Having just come through a

provincial election, we’re all exposed to tweets and chat boxes and

things on Facebook — some stretching the truth in more ways than one.

Plus, where everything else happens today — I’m not that

computer-literate — I know there are a lot of things that are flying

around on the Internet these days.

Can I ask, Mr. Chair, why the minister and ministry did not look

at, maybe, some more effective administration to address some of these

issues that have taken place, not only provincially but also municipally

and through school boards?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question. The report that the member

opposite refers to is the May 2020 report that came forward. The

recommendations were directed towards the Attorney General, my colleague

sitting to the left of me here, and to changes that are required in the

Election Act as well. Since LECFA follows the Election Act, we are still

actively considering this. I will be working with my colleague on this

in the months to come. I very much look forward to that.

Also, I just want to recognize that the member is making the

inference, too, about how technology is changing rapidly in this world.

Indeed, that is the case, and it is incumbent on us to consider that.

One of the changes that we are bringing forward today, in the

amendments, is around the role that digital communications play. One of

the amendments we are bringing forward is allowing Elections B.C. to

compel online platforms to produce records on advertising — a small but

important step towards the acknowledgment of that changing technological

world.

D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the minister for those comments. To

herself and to the Attorney General, I do hope we keep an eye on it. As

the use of technology and the use of a lot of these online functions

increases, I can assure everybody that there will be more and more

issues being brought forward, especially at election time.

Just on

section 1, my last question. It’s actually the only

question, really, on

section 1.

[3:00 p.m.]

Election advertising during the campaign period is partly defined

in 1(a)(

i) as “a communication that promotes or opposes, directly or

indirectly, the election of a candidate or an elector organization that

is endorsing a candidate, including a communication that takes a

position on an issue with which the candidate or elector organization is

associated.”

The definition of election advertising during the pre-campaign

period is partly defined in (1)(b)(

i) as “a communication that promotes

or opposes, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or an

elector organization that is endorsing a candidate.”

My question is: why does the pre-campaign definition not include

“including a communication that takes a position on an issue with which

the candidate or electoral organization is associated”?

Hon. J. Osborne: This question relates to issues advertising, I believe. In this

case, we remain consistent. The amendments do not address this because

they remain consistent with the Election Act. We don’t regulate this

with consideration to freedom-of-expression issues.

D. Ashton: That’s all on

section 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Ashton: On

section 2, can the minister elaborate on what is meant by “on a

commercial basis”?

Hon. J. Osborne: In this case, we refer to advertising undertaken on a commercial

basis, meaning that a person is paid to undertake activities such as

canvassing or mailing — non-volunteer, a person that is paid.

D. Ashton: Does election advertising on a commercial basis also include text

messaging?

Hon. J. Osborne: Texting is a venue or a method of transmission, so if a person is

paid to do this, then yes, it is captured.

D. Ashton: The reason I asked that was that it says in the act,

section

7(2)(

d) is explaining that election advertising does not include “the

transmission of an expression by an individual, on a non-commercial

basis on the internet, by telephone or by text messaging, of his or her

personal views.”

[3:05 p.m.]

Again I come back. There seem to be so many opportunities these

days online that I would just ask again that government does keep an eye

on this. This is changing on a continual basis.

I have nothing further on sections 2 or 3.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

D. Ashton: Similar to my clarification in

section 2, does election

advertising for assent voting on a commercial basis also include text

messaging, under

section 4?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. The rules are consistent for assent voting, as they are in

regular local elections.

D. Ashton: That’s all on

section 4. We could jump to

section 16.

Clauses 4 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

D. Ashton: For the purposes of requiring at least 50 electors of a

jurisdiction as part of the registration process, can an elector be a

member of one or more electoral organizations?

Hon. J. Osborne: The rule regarding 50 members of an electoral organization already

exists under the Local Government Act, and yes, you may be a member of

more than one electoral organization.

D. Ashton: How can an electoral organization be deregistered if it promotes

candidates or values that are contrary to those accepted by British

Columbians?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The act doesn’t have provisions to deregister an electoral

organization based on an issue or on its platform. This would be a

freedom of expression consideration.

D. Ashton: Then who has the authority, or is there authority, to deregister

an electoral organization?

Hon. J. Osborne: Elections B.C. has the authority to deregister an electoral

organization based on the requirements of the act.

D. Ashton: Chair, I’m fine until

section 22.

Clauses 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

D. Ashton: I think, Minister, it comes underneath this section, but the

amount applicable that is allowed for a donation…. Could you just tell

me what that is at this point in time, please?

Hon. J. Osborne: The sponsorship contribution limit is $1,200.

D. Ashton: Minister, does that align with provincial amounts at this point in

time, for maximum amounts?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes.

[3:15 p.m.]

D. Ashton: If memory serves me correctly, though, I thought — with the cost

of inflation, from the last election — it was $1,254, or something like

that. That’s what I was just curious about — if both the totals would be

the same for the maximum contribution.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, it is $1,200 and an inflationary adjustment. We can get back

to the member with the exact figure.

D. Ashton: That is fine for

section 22 at this time. But a question on

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

D. Ashton: It’s regarding advertising through an individual or organization

basis. I think it will fit underneath this. Sometimes individuals take

out advertising as an individual supporting a campaign candidate or not

supporting a campaign candidate. Does that fit underneath here, and who

controls that at this point in time with the changes that are taking

place underneath this election act?

Hon. J. Osborne: Could I ask the member to please repeat the question?

D. Ashton: My question was for individuals. It’s hap­pened in the past

where an individual takes upon the liberty themselves to put an

advertisement out either supporting or not supporting a candidate. Does

that fit underneath this section? Who is the authority over doing that?

I’m assuming it’s Elections B.C., but I’m not positive. Just for my

knowledge.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: We’re still looking into the answer on the question there. But I

will read into the record that the sponsorship contribution or campaign

contribution limit for 2021 is $1,239.18.

D. Ashton: That’s all on 23. I have questions on 24.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

D. Ashton: As this

section adds up an annual financial reporting requirement

of electoral organizations, why hasn’t a similar requirement been made

of independent candidates, as it would aid voters to know what donations

have been made or have not been made to a particular candidate before

election day?

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to why electoral organizations…. The requirement for

annual reporting doesn’t apply to large independent campaigns. I’ll

start off, maybe, by saying how these amendments all together are

creating greater transparency and accountability of the financial

activities of elector organizations in between elections.

[3:25 p.m.]

The amendments do focus on the transparency of elector

organizations, and they aren’t going to apply to independent campaigns.

But in these cases, the existing rules still apply. So for all

candidates, the rules around source contributions, around contribution

limits, still apply, as does the requirement to disclose expenses and

contributions after the election is over.

The rules that we’re proposing are different from what they were

previously. It is an amendment. There are a number of changes, which if

the member opposite would like me to go into, I certainly

can.

Perhaps I will close by saying one of the reasons why independent

campaigns are not being considered at this time is because there are

over 1,600 different independent elections that take place during a

local election. The amount of administration and requirements for that

would be challenging. That’s one of the reasons why they aren’t

considered at this time.

D. Ashton: A question, a follow-up. Why didn’t the minister and her staff

include a provision for real-time donation disclosures for both elector

organizations and independent candidates?

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, I think this is really recognizing a capacity challenge,

with over 1,600 different elections taking place, with over 3,000

candidates at one time in a general local election. Recognizing those

capacity challenges means it’s not considered in these amendments at

this time.

D. Ashton: To the minister, I can understand that. Especially with the

numbers and the capacity that maybe Elections B.C. has. Just a point is

that there are a lot of changes taking place here. Real-time

information, these days, is of the essence in a lot of situations. So

just a point — and maybe for future consideration.

As part of the proposed new

section being added to the act, which

section 45.1(2)(b), it indicates an annual financial report include

“information respecting identification of significant contributors.” May

I ask what the dollar value is for “significant contributors” in this

instance?

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The definition of a “significant contributor” is contained in the

definitions of the act. In relation to campaign contributions, I

paraphrase here. I’m not directly quoting the definition. But it is

essentially an eligible individual who makes a campaign contribution of

$100 or more or multiple contributions to a candidate and/or an

electoral organization that total $100 or more.

The Chair: Member for Penticton, I’ll just assume you want to speak after

the minister is done. Would that be correct?

D. Ashton: Yes, thank you. Just a follow-up, Mr. Chair, through yourself, and

welcome to the chair.

Minister, now with the reporting being required over the period of

time between elections, that would include those amounts also? Or that

would include…. If a person regularly made a contribution, it would be

reportable as a significant contributor if it’s $100 or more over the

period of time between the elections on a yearly basis. That’s a

question. Sorry.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, that’s on an annual basis, the $100 figure.

D. Ashton:

Section 45 is my next questions.

Clauses 24 to 44 inclusive approved.

On clause 45.

D. Ashton: Why have the monetary penalties been updated to allow for the

discretion of the B.C. electoral officer?

Hon. J. Osborne: These amendments contain a suite of administrative monetary

penalties that are all aligned and to be used at the discretion of the

Chief Electoral Officer. We did consult with Elections B.C. on this, and

they are supportive of it. I would note that what it does is allow the

Chief Electoral Officer to look on a case-by-case basis at the specific

considerations at hand and ensure that high penalties are applied when

it is appropriate to do so.

D. Ashton: The discretion is at the Chief Electoral Officer.

The appeal process. Is there one, and if so, where is that

through?

Hon. J. Osborne: One can apply to the court for relief from a penalty.

[3:35 p.m.]

D. Ashton: So now that is to the court. It is the B.C. Provincial Court, I’m

assuming. Is there not any appeal process to the Chief Electoral

Officer, who has assessed the penalty?

Hon. J. Osborne: This is an existing process in the act. A person who applies for a

remedy does so to the B.C. Supreme Court.

Clauses 45 to 50 inclusive approved.

On clause 51.

D. Ashton: The

section adds penalties for third-party sponsorship, including

up to a $5,000 penalty for an individual, or up to a $10,000 penalty for

an organization, for failing to comply with independence requirements,

failing to register as a third-party sponsor or failing to include

sponsorship information. Are these $5,000 and $10,000 penalty limits

high enough, especially for our larger cities like Vancouver, which are

traditionally known to involve individuals or organizations that have,

as I guess I’ll frame it, deep pockets?

Hon. J. Osborne: Those penalty amounts are consistent with the offence penalty

amounts already in LECFA. We would monitor this through the next

election to ensure that it is an effective deterrent.

D. Ashton: The minister and I basically come from smaller areas where I

haven’t seen, successfully, slates that have ever really been put

forward and organizations that are behind the scenes.

When I say “organizations,” it can be those with interests in who

retains a seat on council or school board or regional district, or

organizations that are out there promoting politics in British Columbia

or promoting opportunities for elected officials and/or individuals who

would like to become an elected official. One that comes to mind is the

Columbia Institute. It’s well known for putting their views forward to

individuals who would like to attain a higher office or attain an

elected office.

[3:40 p.m.]

Are institutions and entities like that organization I just

mentioned and, I’ll say, unions and people that have an expressed

interest in putting somebody forward…? How are they going to be

monitored in the process of an election to ensure that all rules are

followed?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thanks for the question. Elections B.C. retains the responsibility

to monitor organizations throughout the campaign period and throughout

the campaign, throughout elections. If an organization is behaving as a

third-party sponsor and they should be registering as a third-party

sponsor, Elections B.C. will monitor that.

I’ll take the opportunity, too, to point out that the amendments

we’re bringing forward today do introduce new administrative monetary

penalties and new investigative tools for Elections B.C. This adds to

that oversight and monitoring framework that ensures that people and

organizations are playing by the rules.

D. Ashton: Is there a complaint process through Elections B.C. that you or

your staff know of if an issue was to come up and a complaint was put

forward so that new form of investigation that you just mentioned could

take place?

Hon. J. Osborne: Anybody can contact Elections B.C., and on their website, there is

a process outlined for how to do so.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. I’m fine with

section 51, Mr. Chair,

and on 52, I have questions.

Clause 51 approved.

On clause 52.

D. Ashton: Similar to my previous question to the minister regarding penalty

limits for third-party sponsors, is the $5,000 penalty for an elector

organization entering into a financing arrangement before it is

registered? Or has the registration suspended been high

enough?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Like my previous answer, I think this is another case where these

amounts are already in LECFA. We will monitor the next elections to

ensure that they are an effective deterrent and set at the appropriate

level.

D. Ashton: Monitoring it. Not only is the government monitoring it, but

Elections B.C. will monitor it. With the new rules in place, the

opportunity to address those issues will also be in place,

correct?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Absolutely. A good opportunity to point out, again, just how

important it is to monitor the local elections, to work with our

partners like Elections B.C., to hear directly from local governments,

to have our staff monitoring the media to make amendments and bring

forward improvements on a regular basis.

The whole point of this is to improve the transparency and

accountability of elections and ensure that people remain at the heart

of good decision-making, so thank you to the member opposite for the

question.

Clauses 52 to 56 inclusive approved.

On clause 57.

D. Ashton: As part of the proposed new sections being added to the act…. The

new subsection 76.3(2)(

a) indicates: “(

a) if known by the advertiser,

the name of the individual or organization that sponsored the election

advertising communication.” In what instance would an advertiser not

know the name of an individual or organization that sponsored election

advertising communications? Just a question, please.

Hon. J. Osborne: The way that this is written is to ensure that we capture whether

it is a known or unknown advertiser. That is for

completeness.

D. Ashton: Minister, why not make it mandatory that advertisers must collect

the name of an individual or organization that is sponsoring election

advertising communication before the advertisers agree to place the

advertisement?

[3:50 p.m.]

I just think about individual sections that I have talked about

before where this has come up, where you have entities out there that

may or may not be supportive of a candidate or are supportive of a

candidate on an individual basis.

Hon. J. Osborne: Could I please ask the member to repeat the question? Thank

you.

D. Ashton: Absolutely, sure. It was: why not make it mandatory that

advertisers must collect the name of an individual or an organization

that is sponsoring the ad­vertising communications before the

advertiser puts the advertisement in place? Again, it’s a registration

process that I’m thinking of.

Hon. J. Osborne: In this case, this was brought over from the Election Act to make

LECFA consistent with it. It really is directed at the platforms that

host advertising, be it radio or television or Facebook, say. To go

further and add those requirements might be seen as an overreach into

telling them how to conduct their business and was not

considered.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. But I know that electronically, like on

Facebook and on Twitter, the registration process can be arduous and

take a while for approval. So I’m just curious. I guess maybe I’m

throwing a line to the Elections B.C. organization to say: “Maybe if you

made this a mandatory rule….” I know, as an elected official, that we

have to ensure that we have all our ducks in a row before we put our

advertising in place. Quite often that involves pre-payment of

advertisement dollars to be put up front and/or fixed rates.

I’m just thinking out loud that this may be more of a benefit to

the new rule changes that are taking place to help Elections B.C. ensure

there’s not a little bit of skullduggery. So I’ll leave that.

Clauses 57 to 65 inclusive approved.

On clause 66.

[3:55 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Maybe to jump back — and I know it’s passed. It’s just that in the

addition to 76.4(3), it indicated: “A court may make an order under this

section without notice to any person.” Just for staff’s and for the

minister’s notice, what purpose would this serve of no notice being

served? I apologize. We scooted by it. I missed my own question on it.

Just something for the future to maybe think about what is transpiring

in that

section again.

Under 66…. So 66 allows for sponsorship contribution limits to be

made by regulation on it. Is there an annual look at contributions

through Elections B.C., other than the cost of living? Is there an

opportunity to review all requirements? Since we’re changing and going

to a four-year basis where everything has to be accounted, will there be

an opportunity to come forward if things are not working the way that

government thought?

Hon. J. Osborne: These limits were chosen to be consistent with Elections B.C., and

we will continue to monitor them, as we will monitor a number of things,

in the coming next set of general elections. I’ll point out, too, that

Elections B.C. does establish the inflationary component, and if they

have feedback on the base amount itself, they will provide that to

us.

Clauses 66 to 70 inclusive approved.

On clause 71.

D. Ashton: The elimination of the 30-day local residency. May I ask for an

explanation of why this is transpiring?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The issue of the 30-day residency requirement was something that

we heard from local governments after the last general local elections,

especially from those communities that have more transient populations,

people moving in and out. What we heard about was the

disenfranchisement, essentially, of those individuals who had moved from

one community to another in the 30 days preceding an

election.

In the spirit of ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to

participate in democracy, this was an amendment that we decided to bring

forward to remove that disenfranchisement.

D. Ashton: Thank you for that. I would concur that we want to ensure that

democracy takes place. But listen. We are probably talking about a

handful of people throughout the province, excluding students going back

to university and/or college.

I just think, personally, that when you’re in a new community and

you don’t know the individuals that are running or you don’t know your

school board officials or you don’t know your regional district

officials or you don’t know your council officials, it gives you an

opportunity to be a little bit proactive and start asking the

questions.

I don’t condemn it or condone it. I’m just curious about why this

would come in. Believe me. To establish a residency, to ensure that an

individual or an individual’s family is present and to really understand

about the dynamics of the new community that they’ve moved

into….

I will leave it at this point in time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Up to 77, no questions at this point in

time.

Clauses 71 to 76 inclusive approved.

On clause 77.

D. Ashton: I’m actually fine with 77. It’ll be 78.

Clause 77 approved.

On clause 78.

D. Ashton: So 78 to 92 allow for canvassing in co-op, strata and rental

properties. As many of us know, where we’ve been out door-knocking, you

do come to a strata complex and have the unequal opportunity, especially

in some of the more urban areas, of gaining access to tall buildings and

strata opportunities there, and rental properties.

May I ask…? It allows it. But has the province or Elections B.C.

thought about how access can be gained to individual sites like that? If

a posting is put in place where “no soliciting” is specifically stated,

what takes precedence, the no soliciting or the Election Act allowing an

individual to campaign in those areas?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. It has increasingly become important for people to be able to

access strata properties, apartment buildings, those kinds of buildings,

in order to conduct their campaigning activities. So these amendments

will allow canvassing in strata properties.

The way this will work is that canvassers will need to meet

certain conditions. For example, while canvassing voters or distributing

candidate information, the candidate or their authorized representative

would be required to carry government-issued identification and either

proof of candidacy or information indicating that they are authorized by

the candidate to canvass. Additionally, there are limited hours under

which this activity could occur: from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m.

These changes were recently made for provincial elections after

review of the 2017 provincial election. So this aligns LECFA with the

provincial requirements.

D. Ashton: So this supersedes a co-op and/or a strata if there is a posting

of no solicitation. That would still allow an individual or an entity,

along with campaign individuals, to go forward and knock on the doors

and gain access to a large tower apartment block or a strata block or a

condo block in a major city — or any city, I would say.

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, the intention here is to prohibit strata or similar

buildings from being able to prevent unreasonable access…. So in the

case of a “no solicitation” sign, this applies to candidates or their

authorized representatives for the purposes of campaigning or

distributing information.

D. Ashton: To the minister, well, I think that maybe in the next election,

I’m going to ask for somebody from Elections B.C. to come with me when I

knock on that strata door and see what the response will be. But I

understand.

Mr. Chair, I have no further questions, other than a quick comment

at the end, after adoption.

The Chair: If you have a quick comment, you might want to make it now

before I go through the rest of the clauses, member for

Penticton.

D. Ashton: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the minister and, especially, thank her

staff, who I’ve had the pleasure of working with over my tenure as an

elected official in Victoria. To me…. I just hope that these new rules

and regulations take into account those outside of the Lower Mainland

that may or may not run on slates.

There are an awful lot of communities in British Columbia where

everybody knows everybody. I just hope the rules and regulations don’t

become too overbearing. Other than provincial politics…. My campaigns

were run off the kitchen table.

[4:10 p.m.]

I really think it’s important that we continue to remember that

there are large municipalities in British Columbia where slates are

prevalent and large organizations are prevalent. There is a vast area in

British Columbia where individuals run for elected office, and they

don’t have anybody other than themselves or maybe their family. I really

think that needs to be taken into consideration, not only by the

government but also by Elections B.C.

The minister, on several occasions, has mentioned

de­mocracy, and democracy is incredibly important. Democracy, in

my opinion, encompasses everybody, whether you run with a slate and you

have a huge organization behind you or whether you have your kids

stuffing envelopes to get into the mail.

Once again, I would really, really like to thank the minister. I

look forward to working with her, for all the citizens of British

Columbia, on this file that she has. I would really like to thank her

staff that have done an admirable job of bringing this

forward.

I look forward to ensuring that the next election that the new

rules are in place with is run fairly and is run without too many

obstacles through regulation so that “democracy” can take place all

through British Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, again, to the minister.

Clauses 78 to 102 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 9, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to request a ten-minute recess.

Mr. Speaker: This House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage of Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:25 p.m.

On clause 2.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because this is a three-clause bill, and we’ve dealt with clause 1

and clause 3 is on commencement, the bulk of it — well, everything else

— is based in clause 2. We’ve been having an easy way to sort of deal

with the questions as they come up because they kind of bounce around

within that section.

Anyway, in our discussions yesterday, we were talking about

tabling reports that had been public and having access. I indicated

that, yes, of course, the reports would be public and, yes, they’ll be

tabled by ICBC. But I also said that I expect, as minister, to be

tabling those reports in the House.

I want to make it clear that that is something that will take

place, and therefore, I have shared with my colleague across the way an

amendment that will make absolutely clear that that is what is to

happen. So I would move the amendment that I have provided to do just

that.

[ CLAUSE 2, in the proposed sections 59 to 61, by deleting

the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Report to corporation

(1) The fairness officer

must submit, on a prescribed basis, a report to the minister and

the corporation that includes the following information:

(

a) the number of fairness complaints

received;

(

b) the number of fairness complaints heard by the

fairness officer;

(

c) any other prescribed information.

(2) As soon as practicable on the receipt of the report

submitted under subsection (1), the minister must either, as

applicable,

(

a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if

it is in session, or

(

b) file the report with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.

Publication of information

60 The fairness officer must publish, on

a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the fairness

officer,

(

a) the rules made under

section 58, and

(

b) as soon as practicable after the minister has

complied with

section 59 (2), the report submitted to

the corporation under

referred to in

section 59 (1) .

Corporation report

(1) The corporation must, no

later than August 31 in each year, submit to the minister an annual

report.

(2) An annual report submitted under subsection (1) must

include

(

a) a

summary of the corporation’s responses in the

previous fiscal year to the fairness officer’s recommendations, if any,

and

(

b) any other prescribed matter.

(2.1) As soon as practicable on the receipt of the

report submitted under subsection (1), the minister must either, as

applicable,

(

a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if

it is in session, or

(

b) file the report with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.

(3) The corporation must publish the annual report, as soon

as practicable after submitting the report to the

minister has complied with subsection (2.1) , on a publicly

accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the

corporation.]

The Chair: We’ll take a moment while the amendment is

circulated.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The proposed amendments to sections 59, 60 and 61 in

part 3 relate

to the reporting duties of the fairness officer and the corporation and

submission of specified reports to the minister and the Legislative

Assembly.

Section 59 will provide that the fairness officer must submit a

report to the board of ICBC regarding the number of complaints that were

filed, the number of complaints heard by the fairness officer and any

other prescribed information. The proposed amendment requires that the

fairness officer must also submit that report to the minister and that

the minister must lay that report before the Legislative Assembly if it

is in session or file the report with the Clerk if the Legislative

Assembly is not in session.

Section 60 requires the fairness officer to publish the rules made

under

section 58 and the report submitted under

section 59 on a publicly

accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the fairness officer.

The proposed amendment continues to require the fairness officer to

publish the rules under

section 58 and to publish the re­port

under

section 59, but the report under

section 59 is only published

after the requirement to table the report with the Legislature has been

met.

[4:30 p.m.]

Section 61 requires the corporation to submit an annual report to

the minister no later than August 31 in each year which includes a

summary of ICBC’s re­sponses to any recommendations of the

fairness officer in the previous fiscal year and any other prescribed

matters. The annual report must be published on a publicly accessible

website. The proposed amendment adds a requirement for the minister to

lay ICBC’s report before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or

file a report with the Clerk if the Legislative Assembly is not in

session. It also requires the report to be published on a publicly

accessible website only after the minister has tabled the report with

the Legislature.

This proposed amendment provides for even further accountability

and transparency by putting the fairness of the officer’s report and

ICBC’s responses in front of the House. I think it makes it clear —

yesterday, when I committed to the House that that would take place —

that, in fact, this will happen.

M. Morris: I very much appreciate the minister listening to our comments

yesterday and providing the amendment here today. We’re in favour of

that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Amendment approved.

On clause 2 as amended.

M. Morris: As I spoke about in our discussion in second reading, the whole

purpose of the fairness officer, and the impetus behind the government

presenting this bill, was transparency and fairness within

ICBC.

I guess I’m a little bit confused by the transparency part. I’m

just wondering. In

section 55(3), under clause 2, if government’s

intention is to truly have an independent fairness officer, why have the

officer?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fairness officer is going to be working within ICBC. They’re

going to be working, obviously, closely with the board to ensure that

ICBC’s processes are fair.

They will be responsible for providing the resources necessary for

the officer to fulfil their mandate. It is appropriate, given the rest

and, in particular, remuneration.

That being said, they are both…. Because this is a

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment, they are also subject to my

approval. They will set the terms, but then I also am the one that has

to approve them. It’s not just dependent on ICBC. It also has to meet

with the approval of myself as minister.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response in terms of the interaction….

remuneration are subject to the approval of the minister.

Does the government consider, then, that the fairness officer is

independent from ICBC?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question would be yes. There is a significantly

greater degree of independence of the new position than the old

position.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response.

It is a relative test of independence that the government is

proposing that we consider here in this House, meaning the fairness

officer is more independent than the current office that’s in place. Is

that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your question, hon. Member, would be yes. Just in

terms of how that takes place, the fairness officer will have a greater

degree of independence from ICBC. In part (1), it’s appointed by

the approval of myself as minister. The fairness officer’s mandate will

be in legislation.

In terms of the budget, a process will be laid out in the

regulations where, if there’s a disagreement between the officer and the

board on what is necessary for the officer to fulfil their mandate, the

officer can submit a special report to the minister regarding the

budget. This will provide the minister with the opportunity to bring a

resolution to any dispute on the budget that the officer requires and if

there’s a potential dispute with the board.

The goal is not to create an additional independent office similar

to the Ombudsperson, who still has the ability to look at issues as

well. That’s why I make the point that it is more independent in answer

to your question.

M. Lee: There are a couple of ways to come at the response of the

government here. In this particular provision of clause 2, then, why

fairness officer? If the objective of the government is to achieve

greater independence for the fairness officer, why have this provision

set out this way and in this manner?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll just reiterate, I guess, the points I made a moment

ago.

[4:40 p.m.]

That is that the officer works within ICBC. They will work within

that structure. They work closely with the board, which has remuneration

policies in place with ICBC. At the same time, it is an LGIC, a

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, appointment, so I will, as minister,

have to approve any remuneration package that is put in

place.

At the same time, in terms of the independence, as I said a moment

ago, if the fairness officer believes that the budget is not adequate —

or there’s an issue with the budget that’s required for them to be able

to do their job — there will be a mechanism where I, as minister, have

the ability to resolve any issues on that basis. I think that by

legislating this in terms of the mandate, we have made it clear that

this is an officer who has a mandate and has significantly greater

independence than the previous position.

M. Lee: Just because…. The minister, in his response — perhaps for the

second or third time, certainly for the second time — referred to this

relative measure: that this fairness officer has greater independence

than in the current set-up. This, again, the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie had questioned quite a bit in his second reading

speech, in terms of the current arrangement.

We know, of course, that in the context of the no-fault regime,

there’s a greater onus on this fairness officer, at least in the way the

government has positioned this office. It was supposed to give peace of

mind, in the words of the Attorney General, regarding individual

circumstances of injured British Columbians. That is not a procedural,

systemic issue. That’s a specific issue relating to a specific

individual dealing with ICBC.

Certainly in terms of peace of mind, if that was the test or the

positioning that the government wants to put on this new regime, on the

fairness officer and in the way that this officer is positioned within

this regime, you’d think that the officer would be independent — not

just more independent than the current office is, but independent. When

the remuneration and the budget, that adds an additional layer of

influence by the board.

We know that in many instances, in terms of…. You know, when I was

the acting corporate secretary of B.C. Hydro, for close to a year in my

legal practice, I know the interaction between a Crown corporation, the

deputy minister, the minister’s office, the minister, the board and the

CEO of a Crown corporation. We know the function and the level of

reporting and accountability.

Unless the minister is prepared to have a direct hand on the board

of ICBC for the decisions and the interactions that they would have with

the fairness officer and unless I’m hearing from the minister or anyone

who serves in his capacity in the future that they’re going to have that

hands-on oversight of the board of ICBC to ensure that the independence

of the fairness office and the officer, him-or herself — I’m not seeing

that in this bill. I don’t see that.

I appreciate that the minister did listen to our concerns relating

to ensuring that the report is publicly available and that he made that

adjustment to the bill. But I dare say that there are other adjustments

that are necessary for this bill to at least clarify the independence of

the fairness officer.

[4:45 p.m.]

Let me ask this to the minister. The minister did refer to the

Ombudsperson and not wanting to replicate the function of the

Ombudsperson here. If we consider that comment, if there was no fairness

officer in place at all, is that possible? Does the minister see any

challenge with just merely having the Ombudsperson take care of any

fairness complaints within ICBC?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is trying to say, and I’ll make this

clear. We have said that this fairness officer is independent. Their

mandate is legislated. They will be dealing with the processes and the

procedures of ICBC and how they do things. They will be reporting. They

will be making recommendations. That report will be public.

I indicated that that report would be tabled in this House. We

have been abundantly clear on that. I will also now be abundantly clear

on this. This individual’s role is ICBC, its procedures, its practices,

its policies, 365 days a year. Not an issue of a complaint that somebody

has, and then they say: “Oh, I’ve got to go to the Ombudsperson’s office

and then join that queue.”

This is specific to give peace of mind, as we said at

se­cond reading, to people, to know that there is an individual

that is dedicated, completely and totally, to what takes place at ICBC.

That is the right way to go. It is the way that government is moving.

That is the appropriate way to go. That’s why this legislation is here

before you. I would trust and hope that you would support it.

M. Lee: I most certainly appreciate the last response from the minister in

terms of the confirmation about the difference between the Ombudsperson

as an officer of this Legislative Assembly, duly appointed with the

Ombudsperson’s own separate act, versus a fairness officer that is

appointment and remuneration and budget determined or set by the board,

subject to the ap­proval of the minister.

As the minister just said, it’s 365 days of the year. I understand

that. That is the way, again, the government positioned when the

Attorney General stood here in this House, and in front of the media,

and announced the fundamental change to the insurance system of our

province. The fairness office was a key component. As I discussed in my

second reading speech, the civil resolution tribunal was another key

component. But as we learned from the chief justice of our province last

week, it was ruled unconstitutional. That’s the reason why we’re

spending this amount of time on the fairness officer.

It’s because we see already that under this fundamental change,

this insurance regime that this government has put on to this province,

the ways in which injured British Columbians can seek redress to get

their rights addressed through the courts has been taken away. It was

replaced with the CRT. Again, that’s been ruled unconstitutional in

terms of its jurisdiction. It was limited in terms of the evidence

rules, in terms of how many experts one could deploy. That was, again,

ruled unconstitutional in the Attorney General’s first attempt to do

that.

[4:50 p.m.]

There are further challenges here. Now we have the fairness

officer, and this is presented as an independent fairness officer. This

is how this minister continues to communicate that.

I would say that as much as the Attorney General and this minister

would suggest that the fairness officer will provide — this is to

directly quote the Attorney General — “peace of mind that they will be

treated fairly after they’ve been injured in a crash….” After they’ve

been injured in a crash. We will get to that point in a moment in the

latter sections of this particular clause, but the peace of mind is

supposed to be coming from the fairness officer. And this fairness

officer, who is providing that peace of mind, should be independent of

ICBC. But that officer is not. Unless the minister is going to do the

kind of oversight that a board would typically do, it’s the board that

the fairness officer is effectively reporting to. This is a function of

ICBC and their board. This is not a separate function like the

Ombudsperson is.

We just heard from the minister why that is. Because this

government wants to have a fairness officer that is functioning 365 days

a year. Well, let that person function. Why is this person subject to

the undue influence of the ICBC board? I’m using those words

deliberately, because the way the government is defining “independence”

is not independence. It may be relative; it’s more independence than the

current function of the fairness office. But that was the old system.

That was the system that they got rid of because they have a promise of

a utopia where everybody will be taken care of. Everyone will be subject

to ICBC rule.

The 108 pages that they put out last Friday of a definition of

what you will get if you’re injured. If you lose a limb, lose a finger,

lose an eye. Who is taking care of injured British Columbians? Well, the

fairness officer. But that fairness officer is not independent. So I

fail to see how this government can stand here and present this fairness

officer in truly the way that will provide peace of mind to British

Columbians.

I’ll just ask the minister to have one more opportunity to talk

about, again…. Does the minister see his role in respect of the fairness

office as providing greater oversight to the ICBC board?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear what the member is saying, and I fundamentally have to

disagree with his assertion that the board will have undue influence. In

fact, I disagree with that quite strongly, because the fairness officer

will be mandated to hear complaints. Mandated.

They will, on their own initiative, be able to identify areas of

process, for example, that may lead to an unfair decision in the future

or in the way someone has been treated now. They will be empowered to

make recommendations to the board. Empowered. They don’t have to ask

permission of the board to go and do their work. They are

empowered.

That report is tabled here in this chamber. It is made public. So

it is not even a question of: does the minister have oversight? With

that report being tabled, and even if it was not tabled in this House….

I said yesterday in my remarks that I committed to doing that. I made it

clear through the amendment that it would be tabled, that the questions

around those recommendations will obviously be asked, both publicly

outside and in here, in terms of what the fairness commissioner is

doing, how they are doing it, and the response to their recommendations

and their findings.

[4:55 p.m.]

That, in my view, is pretty transparent. It’s pretty accountable

in terms of accountability. It’s a legislative…. It’s not a board

appointment. It is a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment. There

is a significance. It is independent. They will be able to do their job.

Their mandate is legislated.

I have every confidence that the person who is appointed to do

this job will do this job in the way that the legislation intends and

the way that the public would expect.

M. Lee: I believe my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie will

have an amendment that we’d like to propose to this section,

particularly as we’ve had this discussion and debate. I just wanted to

make two comments in terms of the minister’s response.

I think we’ve already had the exchange of views here. But just,

certainly, acknowledge — as we did in dealing with the amendment, as we

came back onto this bill in this committee stage — that the minister

heard the suggestion that we ought to introduce greater transparency to

the reporting mechanisms. That was what we dealt with in terms of the

amendments that the minister brought forward in this committee stage. So

acknowledge that.

The minister made reference to, certainly, an area of concern that

I know the Leader of the Third Party and ourselves here will have some

question about further. But I just wanted to stop on it because, again,

I’m not talking about greater transparency. We dealt with that, so

thanks very much. I’m talking about independence.

Why am I talking about independence? Because the minister, in his

response, just said something that is a point of contention, which is:

yes, the fairness officer can look at recommendations for what happens

in the future. But he also suggested…. He used these words, which I ask

him to reflect on in future responses to us. He said: “As to how people

would be treated now.” I just stop on the words “treated

now.”

Well, we will get into this. But, again, the reason why it’s

important that the fairness officer has true independence is because, as

we see in subsection 57(1): “The fairness officer may not comment on or

make recommendations respecting (

a) an amount payable by the

corporation, or (

b) the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a

person is responsible for an accident.”

When we talk about how an individual is treated by ICBC now, when

they have a complaint with ICBC now, when they want peace of mind in

terms of what a fairness officer can provide to them now, they’re

talking about: how much am I getting in benefits and compensation? And

who is responsible? The fault determination.

When the member from Richmond south spoke in his second reading

speech, he talked about an unfortunate accident that he was involved in

where he was found at fault. He said: “Really happy to see this fairness

officer come into place, because I wish they had that back when I was

dealing with my injury.” I think he needs to, with respect, read the

bill, because, specifically, fault cannot be commented on or even

recommended on by the fairness officer.

There is no peace of mind for the member from Richmond south, nor

any other British Columbian. That’s why what we’re left with is the

future. We’ll talk about what that future looks like in an ICBC no-fault

way. But that’s the reason why we are spending the time talking about

the independence of the fairness office.

So having made that comment in response, I just invite the member

for Prince George–Mackenzie to move the amendment that we wish to

propose. Unless there’s other comment here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I respond to the member’s comments. I’ve made it clear. The

fairness officer is mandated. That’s independence.

[5:00 p.m.]

I understand where the opposition is coming from. I understand

where the member is coming from. They don’t like the transition. They

don’t like the move that will take place on May 1. I understand that,

but let’s be clear. This is about a fairness officer that will be

independent, that is mandated with a job to do and functions to do. They

don’t have to ask the board for permission. I think it’s important to

stress that point. As of May 1, and when the new fairness officer is

appointed, they will be doing just that by legislation, by mandate, by

reporting to this Legislature.

The member says transparency. They all go together. They’re not

separate. Each one complements the other. So the idea that somehow we’re

not wanting him to be independent, not wanting him to do his job —

because that’s the impression — or that they are not going to be able to

do their job is simply wrong. It’s something that I do not

accept.

We have had discussion on this. I look forward to seeing what the

amendment is that is being put forward, but I just have to reiterate

that. They have a mandate, and they will be doing and fulfilling that

mandate.

S. Furstenau: I’m finding the discussion and the debate very interesting. In my

second reading speech, I talked about other Crown corporations that have

some measure of oversight, which is perhaps what might be what we’re

describing this fairness officer’s role as, an oversight role. We have

ministries with independent offices that operate — for example, the

Representative for Children and Youth operating as an independent

officer but looking at the operations of Ministry for Children and

Families.

I think that the concern that is being expressed around the

independence but also the effectiveness of this role stems, in some

part, from the fact that we see other roles, other oversight bodies,

that maybe aren’t as effective as we’d like them to be, then also

stepping back to the fact that we now need these oversight roles or

these fairness officers for Crown corporations that are supposed to be

serving the public and that are failing to do that in some way, shape or

form. Therefore, we’re putting in this next layer. We’re layering up,

instead of possibly dismantling.

The issue around the fairness officer that I think we have some

concerns around is that, for example, the fairness officer cannot

comment or make recommendations respecting an amount payable or the

extent, as determined by the corporation, that a person is responsible.

I think this is where the point was being made. The member from Richmond

south…. Most people would think: “Oh, there’s a fairness officer. I

don’t like what happened. I can go to that person, and they can help

out.” But that’s not really what this is. When we look at the act,

that’s not going to be the role of this person.

I guess I’ll just put the question to the minister on this, which

is: can he explain to the public exactly…? I’ve heard the minister talk

about the mandate and the role and the independence, but what can the

public exactly expect from this person if they find themselves in an

accident? ICBC makes a determination on a settlement for this person.

They’re not satisfied with what has happened. What exactly would the

fairness officer be able to do in that circumstance?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. The fairness officer…. Let’s

say yourself, for example. You are not happy with the benefits that you

felt that you should be receiving. You would be able to go to the

fairness officer and make your complaint.

While it’s absolutely correct that the fairness officer does not

comment on the benefits that you are paid, they have every authority and

ability to investigate the procedures and the processes that were used

to determine your benefits that you received and to make a

recommendation to ICBC about what they found in terms of those processes

and procedures, with a recommendation on changes that would need to

happen. So ICBC would potentially, depending on what the fairness

commissioner said, reengage.

S. Furstenau: But just to be clear, the fairness officer would look at the

procedures and the process but would not be able to comment or make any

recommendation on the outcome, as in the payment or benefit that has

been conferred to the person?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct, and that has been clear from the beginning in the

legislation and in the second reading of the bill.

M. Morris: I’ll wait just for a second before I introduce the amendments, as

we’re on the topic of fairness now. That was one of the issues that I

wanted to speak about.

I guess I ask the question: what is fairness? How is fairness

defined? Because it’s a very…. It could tend to be a very subjective

term.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I want to make one of the key issues around the fairness

commissioner, and whoever occupies that position, clear. They are,

obviously, going to have to have considerable skills, in essence, in

natural justice, an understanding of how process and procedures are

supposed to be followed and take place and an understanding of how that

happens.

Fairness is ensuring…. ICBC has a mandate to deliver service. It

has a mandate to deliver and ensure that an individual is getting and

receiving the care that they need to recover. That’s why there is not a

cap on the benefits that you can receive.

The fairness commissioner will be making sure that those

procedures and those policies are, in fact, followed and, in doing so,

ensure fairness — and, in doing so, by an individual who has that skill

set and understanding of how these things have to happen. A critical

component is that sense of natural justice.

M. Morris: What is the standard of review for the fairness officer? The

fairness officer would be looking at…. Most review boards or authorities

would be using a standard of reasonableness or correctness. So I’m just

curious as to how the fairness officer would be looking at his files,

the complaints that he has to review.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, as I said a few moments ago, it comes back to the skill set

of the individual so that they understand that process of natural

justice and fairness, so that the processes and the procedures of ICBC

are in place and are being followed properly, so that people have the

ability to be heard and to be listened to. It puts in place that they

have been treated fairly not just by ICBC. But its processes and

procedures that are in place are designed to ensure that people are

treated fairly.

[5:15 p.m.]

The fairness commissioner will have the ability to en­sure

that that is, in fact, what is taking place. If they feel it is not

taking place, then they can make recommendations. Those recommendations

have to be responded to. Those recommendations and those responses come

back and are made public, both at ICBC and in this chamber.

M. Morris: The fairness officer is tasked with investigating and making

decisions on whatever the results of his or her investigations are. What

I don’t see outlined in this particular bill is the…. Where is the

procedural fairness that is built into the act? Also, what does the

fairness officer base his decisions on? Is it reasonableness, or is it

correctness in the process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This position is about ensuring fairness and that people have been

treated properly.

The fairness commissioner is not a judicial position. They’re not

a judge. What they are is there to ensure that if individuals have a

complaint or concern, that that complaint is investigated, that people

are treated fairly. They ensure that the proper procedures and processes

were followed in the determination of whatever the complaint, as my

colleague the Leader of the Third Party said, about what benefits they

were to receive or how they were treated in the determination of those

benefits and will make recommendations.

I think that is crucial. The fact that this position is being

legislated and mandated in the way that it is says to ICBC that this is

a critical component in terms of what happens on May 1 and how people

can expect to be treated in terms of receiving the care that they need

for as long as they need it. There is a mechanism, if they have a

concern, that will ensure that they have been treated fairly.

It comes back to, as I said at the start of this discussion, this

exchange on these particular questions…. The individual occupying this

position, clearly as their skill set, will have very strong skills in

this area in terms of how fairness and natural justice are dealt with.

That is a key component.

M. Morris: We have a fairness officer who is appointed through an

order-in-council but who doesn’t have any decision-making powers or

decision-making ability under this particular bill. He’ll listen to

somebody’s concern, and he’ll make a recommendation to somebody, but he

makes no decision that can be reviewed. Basically, he’s a….

I’m not sure exactly what he is or what that position might be. If

they don’t make decisions pertaining to the complaints that they

receive, what else does they do?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again I’ll repeat that the ability to make recommendations is

significant. It is important, because those recommendations cannot be

ignored. They have to be responded to. They are made public. As I said a

number of times now, they also come back to this chamber.

The fairness commissioner, and I’ll repeat it again, has a

significant mandate to fulfil that is legislated, that gives them

independence and that they will be able to: fulfil that role in a way

that will ensure that people are heard, that they are treated fairly,

and that the processes, policies and procedures that were used in making

determinations were in fact done in a correct and fair

manner.

M. Morris: Does the fairness commissioner make de­cisions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I say, there seems to be some issue with the opposition on the

fairness officer — what power they have. I’ll just repeat again. I think

it’s pretty significant power, which is to make a recommendation, to

make an assessment of what took place — what policies, what processes,

how they were followed. Were they followed in the appropriate way? Then,

from that work, they will make a recommendation.

A recommendation is pretty powerful, particularly when that

recommendation is made public, particularly when the board has to

respond to that recommendation. That’s pretty significant. I think that

it will be a very effective way of ensuring that ICBC, on May 1, works

the way that it is intended to and that people expect it to.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. Morris: Seems to be a significantly elaborate process to appoint somebody

who appears to be merely a customer service representative dealing with

the customer complaints that may come in. There doesn’t appear to be any

decision-making authority granted to this particular position.

Therefore….

He may make recommendations. It’s a pretty elaborate process to

have somebody make recommendations to somebody as to what they should be

doing or what they shouldn’t be doing. I find the lack of

decision-making authority that lies within this position to be

problematic.

I guess part of it is the fact that there’s no real procedural

process involved in this. If somebody makes a complaint, and the

fairness officer comes back and says, “Yeah. No, it looked fair to me,”

where does that individual go next to have his or her concerns

addressed, redressed? What is the process here? Go to the fairness

officer. He arrives at his recommendation, and if the customer that is

making that complaint is not happy, where does he or she go?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. First, I think it’s unfortunate that

my colleague refers to the position as though it’s some sort of

glorified customer service clerk. That is simply incorrect, and it’s

simply not the case.

The individual occupying this position will have to have a

considerable skill set, in terms of fairness, administrative fairness,

natural justice, an understanding of the procedure and process that are

used in making a determination of a benefit, for example. They will be

making recommendations that are public, that will be scrutinized, that

will have to be responded to.

This is a considerable senior position. As I have said, I have

every expectation that the person in that position will do that job to

the absolute best of their ability. I just want to make that clear. This

idea of, in essence, a diminishment of the role, I reject.

[5:30 p.m.]

If an individual is not happy, for example, they would be able

to…. If they felt the process was not fair, that they were not happy

with the recommendation of the fairness officer, they would also be able

to access the Ombudsperson, and they would be able to use that avenue as

well. That would not be denied them in the least.

But as I said earlier, my full expectation, and why this fairness

officer position is here, is that this is an individual and their staff

who will be dealing with ICBC 365 days a year. It’s not another

compartment that they have to deal with. It is their total focus, and it

is their total obligation and duty that they will have.

M. Morris: So my understanding is correct. The fairness officer makes a

recommendation that somebody is not happy with, and that individual can

take that to the Ombudsperson’s office for review.

Now, are they reviewing the recommendation from the fairness

officer, or are they ultimately reviewing the decision that was made and

that led to the fairness complaint in the first place? What would be

reviewed in this particular case? I’m concerned about the procedural

fairness here as well, but I’m also concerned about the standard of

review that somebody, at the end of the day, has to level upon whatever

that complaint is.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I will do for the member is get clarification on the specific

aspect of the Ombudsperson Act as to how it would relate, if that would

assist the member in his question.

[5:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just recognizing the time that we’re at right now, with a few more

minutes left in this proceeding on this day, I would ask that the

minister consider the question that the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie asked two questions ago. I think it would be helpful,

in the further committee process on this bill, to get a clearer

understanding of this.

When an individual has a complaint or a concern as to how they

have been treated with ICBC, what is that complaint process? That is

effectively what my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie asked — a

straightforward question. My understanding, which I’d like the minister

to confirm or at least provide us with some further explanation of —

that can certainly happen now or when we reconvene — is that that

individual of course talks to the adjuster, or the individual…. I don’t

know what the new terminology might be under the new regime. Or that

adjuster’s manager. Presumably, the fairness office is another point of

call.

I’d like the minister also to respond to the nature of the

decision of last week, in terms of the chief justice’s decision ruling

that the CRT does not have jurisdiction. What is the impact on the

no-fault regime? I expect that the CRT, as we looked at the bill last

summer as part of this as well….

In terms of the nature of what the fairness officer needs to

consider, there is a provision that the minister has been speaking

around, which is subsection 56(2)(a), which is: “…the fairness officer

(

a) may make recommendations to the corporation to resolve fairness

complaints.”

In the absence of decision-making power, as the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie has demonstrated in a number of questions and responses

from the minister, in the absence of the ability of the fairness officer

to comment on or make any recommendations respecting the amount payable

by the corporation or the extent that the person is responsible for the

accident, how will the fairness officer resolve fairness complaints?

What is the nature of the fairness complaints that the fairness officer

is able to make recommendations on in order to resolve? That’s my

question.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that there were a number of questions in the member’s

question. In terms of the procedure — the member asked about the

procedure — that’s in

section 58. It authorizes the fairness officer to

make rules regarding the practices and procedures to be followed in

submitting or withdrawing a complaint and the practice and procedures to

be followed by the parties involved in an investigation.

It will be the fairness officer that has the ability and the

authority to set, and subsequently change if warranted, the procedures

related to filing or withdrawing of a fairness complaint and, as I just

said, what is expected of the complainant, what is expected of the

fairness officer and what is expected by ICBC during the investigation

process. It will be the fairness officer that sets what those procedures

are. It will not be, for example, ICBC that sets those.

M. Lee: Well, I think that the minister, perhaps, was addressing another

question from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I think that’s

helpful. I think we can certainly review that further, in terms of the

practices and procedures to be followed by the fairness

officer.

I did ask two other questions. I can restate the questions and see

how much time we have left at this juncture. Again, I’m asking what is

the complaint process that an individual will be following if they have

a complaint about ICBC and they have a dispute? Perhaps I should use

that word because I think that triggered a different response here.

Let’s just focus on the word “dispute.” There’s a disagreement with ICBC

in terms of how they’re being treated. The fairness officer is only one

venue for review, I expect. That’s my understanding, when we looked at

the no-fault regime.

I’m asking the minister to confirm what the other alternatives are

to which an individual who has a dispute, a disagreement, with ICBC will

look to get relief. I’ve named a number of them: the supervisor for the

adjuster, the CRT, the courts, under very high thresholds that the

Attorney General and I had discussion about. I’m asking the minister to

describe that so that we can properly situate this role of the fairness

officer.

My second question relates to subclause 56(2)(a), where it says

that the fairness officer “may make recommendations to the corporation

to resolve fairness complaints.”

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m asking, in light of subclauses 57(1)(

a) and (b), given the

limitations that “the fairness officer may not comment on or make

recommendations” on the amount payable or the extent that an individual

is found responsible for an accident, what kind of fairness complaints

is the fairness officer authorized to resolve if it doesn’t include

anything to do with the amount that is payable by ICBC or the fault

determination?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your second question, that’s laid out in

section 54.

It’s laid out on a question that I in fact dealt with yesterday with my

critic.

The individual, the fairness officer, is able to deal with the

issues that are laid out in

section 54. They involve the administration

of insurance plans under 7(b); the repairing of insured property under

section 7(c); the provision of medical and hospital services to an

insured person; the carrying out of powers and duties related to the

Motor Vehicle Act, Commercial Transport Act and the Off-Road Vehicle

Act; the receiving, holding, managing and collecting of fines, penalties

and sales taxes, for example. Those are a number of the areas that the

fairness commissioner is able to deal with.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday

morning.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.