First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 25

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

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Lee

A. Mercier

R. Merrifield

R. Leonard

M. Elmore

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

(continued)

S. Furstenau

H. Yao

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

A. Olsen

T. Shypitka

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

M. Lee: Just to continue on my remarks, following the lunch break there. I

was speaking just before the break that under

section 55(3) of Bill 5,

while the Lieutenant-Governor appoints the fairness officer, it is the

ICBC board that may, subject to the approval of the minister, set the

remuneration.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

This is the challenge — that even though the Lieutenant-Governor

will select the individual to serve as the fairness officer, it is ICBC

that fairness officer’s appointment. As I mentioned before the break,

that would mean, of course, that in terms of the appointment itself, the

manner in which that individual is reviewed in terms of his or her

performance, it’s all up to the board of ICBC to deal with

that.

[1:35 p.m.]

Then, of course, the fairness officer will have the ability to

retain staff to assist that officer in his or her role. But pursuant to

sections 55(4) and (5) of Bill 5, it is the ICBC board that will approve

the budget. So this so-called independent fairness officer will have the

terms of their employment, their salary and their budget decided by the

very organization that they’re supposed to be overseeing. That is not

independent. That is being totally beholden to the corporate structure

of ICBC that you’re supposed to be overseeing.

The Attorney General has also said that the fairness officer has

the power to make recommendations to ICBC to ensure fairness. That is

what is set out, as I mentioned in the outset of my remarks today, in

section 56. Although the duties and the powers of the fairness officer,

as set out in

section 56, on the surface sound reasonable or beneficial

to measure fairness, you would expect that this government would then

provide the level of authority to this fairness officer to ensure that

injured and vulnerable British Columbians are being protected in how

ICBC implements this new no-fault regime.

If you turn to subsection 56(1), it does say: “The fairness

officer…may investigate (

a) a decision or recommendation made, (

b) an

act done or omitted, or (

c) a procedure used….” The challenge is this.

It’s the restriction set out on the jurisdiction of the fairness officer

in sub 57(1) of the bill, and that clearly states: “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.”

As I spent some time, before the break, going through…. The new

regulations that were also to come into effect on May 1, issued last

Friday by order-in-council, all speak to the payment. How much is an

injured British Columbian entitled to for their injury? This is the

challenge, because the real purpose for ICBC, under the no-fault scheme,

is to pay, to injured British Columbians, the health and disability

benefits, as well as other compensation. That is what British Columbians

expect ICBC to do here.

The fairness officer should be in a position to ensure that this

is done fairly, yet this bill, under

section 57, prohibits the fairness

officer from even making a recommendation about what ICBC is paying or

not paying an injured British Columbian. Also, the fairness officer

cannot even make a recommendation about when an ICBC adjuster holds an

injured British Columbian at fault for an accident.

We know — and British Columbians who deal with ICBC — that it

comes down to these important determinations: the fault determination

for responsibility, as well as the benefits and compensation. These are

the fundamental points that British Columbians need from their

insurer.

[1:40 p.m.]

As I mentioned at the outset, with the challenge to the CRT and

their jurisdiction being seen as unconstitutional, that was another area

where British Columbians were expected to seek relief, to seek fairness,

to resolve their disputes. Without that, and with a fairness officer

that is very highly restricted in their jurisdiction, what are British

Columbians left with?

This is after, of course, under the previous bills that we debated

at length last summer, this government taking away any ability — other

than in certain very high-level threshold circumstances — of injured

British Columbians coming forward to seek legal relief.

When you look at this Bill 5, we have a situation where it doesn’t

meet what the Attorney General had indicated he would provide — the

peace of mind. Peace of mind isn’t provided just by words on the page, a

fairness officer that doesn’t actually have real authority to get into

the matters that most affect injured British Columbians.

We know that the challenge with ICBC has been that they lack the

trust and the confidence of British Columbians. This is the challenge

that this government has acknowledged — that with the track record of

delays or denying benefits, now there are no consequences to their

decisions. Without a fairness officer that can actually look into or

even comment on the amount payable by the corporation or the extent that

a person is responsible for an accident…. Without those important

determinations, that’s taken off the table. British Columbians are left

with very little.

It’s been well over a year since the Attorney General made his

first speech about the fairness officer and what it would look like.

This is now just seven weeks before ICBC has full control over the lives

of injured British Columbians. With this bill, Bill 5, we see now just

exactly what this fairness officer is. It’s a toothless, powerless

entity that is controlled by ICBC every step of the way.

The minister in charge of ICBC has the important responsibility of

checking and balancing the incredible power ICBC wields over British

Columbians, who are forced to buy their auto insurance from this

monopoly under this no-fault regime. This bill is another example of

their total failure of that responsibility. The NDP have given full

power and control to ICBC, and British Columbians should be very, very

concerned.

A. Mercier: I guess once all the chairs at the feast are pulled away, there’s

nothing to do but stand around and point fingers. This bill, this act,

is about fairness. This is about restoring public trust in ICBC, public

trust that was decimated by the last government.

Before I begin, I’d like to just touch on a few comments that a

couple of our colleagues from the opposition benches have made over the

course of this debate. I’m not going to get too much into the strange

fixation with the Attorney General that the member for Vancouver-Langara

has, but I will say that what we’ve just heard is an outdated view of

the legal system — that rights can only be protected in courts. Those

comments are largely ignorant of the rise of the modern administrative

state, of all of the protections that have been put in place in the

entire province of administrative law.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now, I’ll agree with the member from Langara on one point. He said

in his speech that court challenges ain’t cheap. Boy, he is sure right

about that. The cost pressure from excessive litigation, combined with

Liberal mismanagement of the Crown corporation, are what have led us

into the mess that we are cleaning up right now through enhanced care

and through acts like Bill 5.

I want to just say a word about our good friend the Attorney

General. I just want to say what an honour it has been to know and to

get to know the Attorney General — especially in this role but

previously as well — and how refreshing it is to have an Attorney

General that’s focused on people and not narrow interest groups. You’ve

seen that through his advocacy on ICBC and the policy implementation and

formulation on the ICBC file.

Really, the Attorney General is an example to the entire legal

profession. He’s a paragon of competence and ethical correctness that I

think we all ought to aspire to. I would hope that other lawyers in this

House would also take that example.

I want to turn now to the bill. In doing so, I just want to go

back to a comment made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie,

namely: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, guess what. The

system’s broken. Public trust in the system has been broken.

The B.C. Liberals destroyed public trust in ICBC in their last

term in government. They approached ICBC like a vulture capital fund

approaches a new acquisition. They ran it like Mitt Romney ran Bain

Capital, putting their hands into the piggy bank, trying to strip away

as much value as they could, until there was nothing but a carcass left.

They even tried to sell the building to a lobbyist. What that meant was

that $1.2 billion was stolen from ICBC, was stolen from ratepayers and

led to increased rates. That led to intense cost pressures, as well, and

put the entire system at risk.

This is about good public policy. This is about good process. This

is ultimately about fairness — fairness for folks who are going through

the system and fairness for ratepayers as well. We even had to pass a

law. This is just…. It’s almost satire. But we had to pass a law banning

the government from stealing money from ICBC, from treating it like a

piggy bank, from taking excess optional capital out of the

corporation.

Passing that law means that the next government won’t be able to

do that, should the public ever forgive the B.C. Liberal Party for what

they did to this province. I’m not sure they will. That has meant that

the corporation is on good financial footing, that they’re able to

reinvest that excess optional capital in rebates for ratepayers, putting

money back into the pockets of folks in communities like mine, in

Langley.

Now, on the member for Prince George–Mackenzie’s comment that if

it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, I would urge him to take the advice that

the members from the opposition were giving earlier today in this

chamber, in question period, and that’s to look in the mirror. You broke

it; we’re fixing it.

At the end of the day, what this ultimately comes down to is

delegated authority. We’ve heard from the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie that he doesn’t think this is necessary because there’s

already a fairness commissioner in place that’s accountable to ICBC and

is functionally a creature of ICBC.

Well, part of restoring public trust means that we need to look at

the question of delegated authority and whether or not that fairness

commissioner can wear two hats, which is to be a fairness commissioner

that looks into the processes and procedures used by the Crown while

also being a creature of the Crown.

What this bill does is create an independent fairness officer

whose authority is delegated by the Legislature by the act. That means

that folks can have reasonably strong certainty that the fairness

officer is acting in an independent manner.

The job and the role of the fairness officer…. I’m a little

confused by the member for Vancouver-Langara’s speech, which seemed to,

at one point, suggest that the fairness officer should be some kind of

court of appeal for damages in legal determinations of liability. Given

his commentary on what he views as the tragedy of removing things from

the hands of courts necessarily, that was a little confusing, to say the

least. But the role of the fairness commissioner is really about what we

call natural justice or procedural fairness.

[1:50 p.m.]

Turning to the legislation and some of the legislation our friend

from Vancouver-Langara turned to, Bill 5,

section 56, it’s very clear.

“The fairness officer…may investigate (

a) a decision or recommendation

made,

an act done or omitted, or a procedure used by the corporation

during or with respect to a corporation process that aggrieves or may

aggrieve a person.”

That is the province of administrative law right there, and that

is making sure that folks have the procedural protections and fairness

and a guarantee of that and someone with reasonable independence that

they can turn to, to ascertain these questions. So that’s incredibly

important. Incredibly important.

Additionally, that officer is able to make recommendations to

resolve fairness complaints to deal with systemic issues about fairness,

and those recommendations aren’t just going to die in some black box in

a corporate boardroom. They have to be reported out to the

minister.

Ultimately, this is about creating accountable processes to make

sure that there’s proper oversight, not to create a black box of missing

cabinet documents and accounting tricks so that no one knows what’s

really going on while ICBC is robbed blind.

Bill 5 is a good act. It’s process-focused and ensures natural and

procedural fairness. Quite frankly, ICBC shouldn’t be a star chamber,

and this addresses that by creating transparency that will ultimately go

to helping restore the public trust in ICBC, which, I realize, is a

difficult job because of what the last government did to that

corporation.

Furthermore, the independence here is clear. It’s very structural,

right? The fairness officer will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor

through order-in-council and no longer be a creation of the corporation

itself. The costs will be borne by ICBC and ultimately the

minister.

Through the minister’s accountability to this House, there will be

strong public accountability to make sure that there is independence in

that sense. ICBC’s board is going to be required to report to the

minister responsible on all recommendations provided to it by the

fairness officer. And like I said before, that ensures this doesn’t just

get filed away in some banker’s box somewhere and dies in a storage

closet.

This is part of a broader system reform. This is moving from an

adversarial litigation-focused system that puts the needs of lawyers and

others first, to a system of enhanced care that puts the needs of

individuals, of the victims of accidents, at the forefront and not

special interest groups, not lawyers working on contingency. This is

about people, at the end of the day. It’s also going to lead to a 20

percent rate rebate or a rate decrease.

This is very clear. This is a good act. I hope that the members of

this House and in committee will take a very clear look at it, line by

line, and see what a good act it is and that it’s not

misrepresented.

We’ve heard a lot of very confusing misrepresentations and

criticisms here. “Oh well, look, this really does nothing. All you’re

doing is you’re appointing a fairness officer by statute as opposed to

having a fairness commissioner appointed by the board.” And: “Oh hey,

look, this is actually really disastrous. They don’t have all these

powers, and it’s going to destroy the whole system.” Well, which is

it?

It’s very clear that this is a good act. It’s going to result in

ensuring the procedural fairness and natural justice for those who have

issues with ICBC’s procedures and processes. That is where it begins and

where it should end. It shouldn’t be given legal jurisdiction to make

legal determinations about damages and liability. That’s not its

purpose. It rightfully isn’t its purpose. You know, there are avenues to

make those determinations. That’s appropriate and as it should

be.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I strongly support this

act.

[1:55 p.m.]

Point of Order

M. Lee: I’m rising on a point of personal privilege.

I’m just listening to the comments from my colleague across the way

and the member for Langley. I would ask you to consider and ask the member

to withdraw his comments when they allege criminal conduct by the previous

government. Uses of the word “stealing” are clearly not parliamentary

language, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I will take it under advisement.

Debate Continued

R. Merrifield: I’ll remove my first sentence. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara

has already taken exception there.

I want to thank my colleagues, both the MLA for Prince

George–Mackenzie as well as for Vancouver-Langara, for their comments.

I’ll try not to duplicate too much of it.

I do want to say, on a couple of points outside of what has just

been mentioned by our colleague the member for Langley, that the

revenues that he alleged…. They went into generalized revenue.

Generalized revenue comes from taxpayers.

The member for Langley spoke about rebates, but I just want to

remind the member that rates have skyrocketed in the last two years

under their government, in some cases by 40 percent, 50 percent, 60

percent and, in some cases, 40 percent year-over-year. So to give back a

0.004 percent rebate after having taken an additional 40, 50, 60 percent

from taxpayers and from ratepayers isn’t really a rebate at

all.

I’m going to also talk about just really what I see as the major

issues of this bill. My goal as an MLA is really to make life easier for

British Columbians. I want to increase their health and welfare, and I

also want to decrease cost and complexity. Today we’re examining this

bill that really has the government changing ICBC, and it doesn’t seem

to fit any of these criteria that I just mentioned.

In this instance, it really looks at…. I’m going to take exception

with the changes to the ICBC fairness officer. The proposed position is

just not really new. It’s not adding anything, and the changes, then,

seem very unnecessary.

My largest concern is that the independent governance right now,

responsible to a board, is then going to be taken out of that context

and now responsible to government. We’re arguing over independence and

at which place or space this particular position is independent. I want

to say that really we’re arguing about whose dependence this position is

on. Is it to ICBC, or is it to government?

Well, government doesn’t have a great record over the last couple

of years or months or even days of governing in these particular

instances. I’m concerned that we’re taking this commissioner and putting

it into an officer but really giving it very similar duties.

At present, this independence, as I see it…. Right now the ICBC

fairness commissioner is appointed by and is responsible and reports

directly to the ICBC board of directors. Well, boards of directors have

very strict adherence to certain governance aspects and due diligence

and can be held liable if their due diligence is not done.

Government doesn’t necessarily have that same…. Bill 5 is going to

change who this fairness officer actually reports to, because it will be

independent of ICBC’s board but now dependent, completely dependent, on

government.

In this change, the officer is going to rely on the legal

framework, rather than simply having a terms of reference. Like the

existing commissioner, the officer will have the scope to investigate

and make recommendations to resolve customer complaints about the policy

and process ICBC used to make a decision.

[2:00 p.m.]

It really doesn’t seem that there are a lot of changes or

differences. In terms of it being better in the case of the ratepayer, I

just simply don’t see that. It should be noted that this position

expressly prohibits and is prohibited from investigating matters related

to accident claims and paid amounts. Then why would they require

independence from a board? The addition of time and cost without a

different outcome is nothing more than bureaucracy. Are we simply

increasing bureaucracy?

If we calculate the time that we are all taking to debate this

bill, while paying everyone here to do this but not achieving a

different outcome, that meets the requirements for nothing more than a

bureaucratic change. Again, I’m looking forward to getting more into the

details of this legislation and the proposal for a new ICBC fairness

officer, but I feel like we already have a working process.

Ultimately, we want the average ICBC ratepayers — the people who

drive in this province and may rely on their vehicle to travel to and

from work or, perhaps, someone driving an elderly parent to a medical

appointment — to be served by this new position. We want to make sure

that this new position provides them with an effective and valuable

service that is for their benefit — not just an increase in red tape,

not a decrease in accountability and not to do nothing more than

bureaucratic changes.

I have yet to understand, and nothing that I’ve heard so far in

this debate has convinced me that this new position actually protects

the legal rights of British Columbians. I don’t see how it’s going to

reduce costs. If anything, I see how it adds complexity and costs and

takes away independence from a board while putting it into the hands of

government, which is really just bureaucracy and, I think, will result

in higher costs.

I’m going to leave my comments there at this point and look

forward to taking more of a look when we get further into

debate.

R. Leonard: It is my privilege to speak today to Bill 5, the Insurance

Corporation Amendment Act, 2021.

It is a bill to create the position of a fairness officer to be

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor, not ICBC, and to set out their

powers and duties in relation to fairness complaints. This fairness

officer would be independent of ICBC, not someone who works for ICBC.

It’s someone who is an objective third party, who ICBC customers can

turn to, to review the fairness of the process that led to the decision

in their case.

It’s important to note that the fairness officer is remunerated

out of the ICBC budget — that’s important — and that the terms and

conditions of the position are subject to the minister’s approval. Also,

the fairness officer’s budgeting process is prescribed by regulation.

That fairness officer is appointed for three-year terms.

Some people may not get excited about oversight, over process, but

it is the framework that, if built properly, ensures transparency and

accountability, something that’s so important to our public. That builds

greater public confidence in the new way of doing business with ICBC,

knowing that those principles are being honoured.

As of May 1, ICBC’s enhanced care coverage will come into effect.

It’ll provide access to significantly improve care and recovery

benefits, regardless of who is responsible for the crash. This is a

significant shift in ICBC’s culture to one that’s focused on helping

injured people get better. It’s fair to say that we can be optimistic

that there will be less demand for dispute resolution overall, but it is

a shift, and it deserves an independent eye to make sure of the fairness

of ICBC’s processes, an eye that is entrenched in legislation rather

than policy.

Earlier this morning, listening to the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson speak of competence…. I would remind this House of the ICBC

dumpster fire our government inherited from that former minister in the

now opposition. They raided the ICBC coffers to the tune of $1.2

billion, which caused drivers’ premiums to increase. It’s hard to forget

that number, $1.2 billion.

[2:05 p.m.]

Let’s talk about incompetence by the former B.C. Liberal

government. The opposition also concealed the financial issues ICBC

faced, using accounting tricks to hide hundreds of millions of dollars

of losses. As the minister responsible at the time, the member for

Kamloops–South Thompson tried to give away ICBC’s building worth $3

million and signed off on $1 million in bonuses to ICBC executives while

the corporation was circling the drain. That all adds up to an egregious

incompetence.

The opposition opposes our plan for enhanced care. We’ve heard

them in question period and their comments raised in this House. The

record suggests that the people of B.C. would be poorly served by their

path. Following their previous path would result in double-digit

increases.

There are a lot of comparisons made to some of the other

provinces, saying that they have better systems. Well, some Alberta

drivers recently saw their rates increase by nearly 30 percent, and the

rate shock in Ontario brought by private insurers is through the roof. I

heard that one Brampton family received a 62.5 percent hike. That’s not

affordable.

With the changes instituted so far by our government, ICBC

customers are getting rebates. With our new enhanced care model, which

starts May 1, the people of B.C. will see a more affordable system that

will be positively focused on care and recovery. The independent

fairness officer is independent of ICBC, ensuring customers will have a

place to turn to if they are concerned about the fairness of the process

leading to a decision, an action or a practice of ICBC.

To be clear, it’s issues like: was all of the evidence considered?

Did ICBC hear the customer’s points that they raised? Did the customer

get an explanation from ICBC as to why the customer’s points were not

enough?

Establishing a more independent fairness officer builds on our

government’s goal to make sure people get the care they need, when they

need it, and for as long as they need it. Independently overseeing

checks and safeguards for procedural fairness is an integral part of

making sure our public insurer serves us well, through what is often the

darkest of times, when we suffer injury in a motor vehicle

accident.

In conclusion, I want to express my wholehearted support for Bill

5 to create that independent fairness officer.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be joining you from the traditional

territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh

Nations.

I’m pleased to rise and speak in favour of Bill 5 at second

reading, the Insurance Corporation Act, with respect to the fairness

officer. We’re entering into these deliberations today on second reading

on Bill 5 and talking about the significance of the fairness officer and

how that fits into our transition to an enhanced care model in

ICBC.

I just want to contextualize my remarks in the context of the

shift that we’ve seen in ICBC, why our government has made these changes

and really understand the role that the fairness officer will play in

terms of ensuring that British Columbians receive the quality coverage

of insurance and, certainly, the care that they deserve in the event of

motor vehicle accidents.

We know that the previous system could be characterized as a

litigation-based auto insurance system. In my view, it wasn’t working

for people. We knew rates were increasing, benefits were low. It was

really a system where we saw just a disproportionate amount going

towards court costs and legal fees.

[2:10 p.m.]

If someone is injured in a crash, their insurance should cover

them and ensure they’re supported so that they can get better. The

previous system — well, the current system, until we transition —

encouraged people to lawyer up and go through years of court

proceedings, sometimes only receiving a fraction of their settlement

once excessive legal fees are paid. Certainly not the situation I think

that British Columbians expect if they find them or their loved ones or

their family in the terrible situation of injury or death through motor

vehicle accidents. They should be adequately supported.

It’s with the expectation that that system is unacceptable to

British Columbians — on the one hand, facing skyrocketing rates and, on

the other hand, while ICBC lost hundreds of millions of dollars; we

really saw that hemorrhaging out of ICBC — that our government made the

decision to transition to the new enhanced care coverage

model.

This leads into the role that the fairness officer plays in the

context to deliver those benefits, to ensure that the model is

implemented and really to restore trust amongst British Columbians. You

know, we’ve seen that trust eroded over a number of years, due to the

mismanagement of the previous government.

The enhanced care coverage model. We’ve looked at auto insurance

systems across the country. The enhanced care coverage model comes from

successful programs in place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. These two

provinces have been able to consistently deliver, on the one hand, the

lowest insurance rates in Canada and, on the other, the highest levels

of accident benefits.

Often you would think that those were in contradiction to each

other. But we know that people in those provinces have been enjoying low

rates and high levels of coverage for years. So in maintaining a public

system, we’ve taken components that have been in these systems and

delivering the results that we want and that British Columbians

deserve.

Now, the enhanced care model, in terms of ensuring that British

Columbians have low rates and also enhanced coverage in the event of

accidents on the road, comes out of the mishandling of ICBC. We know

that during its time, the opposition raided $1.2 billion from the

coffers of ICBC, which caused drivers’ premiums to increase. The role of

Bill 5 and the fairness officer is being put in place to address,

really, that erosion of trust that has happened in ICBC.

In addition, the previous government — and it was the member

currently for Kamloops–South Thompson — even tried to give away a $3

million building that ICBC owned. When he was minister, he tried to give

that away to lobbyists. He signed off on $1 million in bonuses to six

executives in just two years, a practice that was stopped by our

government.

It really didn’t show putting people and British Columbians and

their welfare at the centre of ICBC. Really, the previous government had

a record of not only benefiting their close friends and lobbyists but,

on the one hand, increasing premium rates and, on the other hand,

limiting benefits.

That’s the context in terms of moving to ICBC with the enhanced

care model. We know that the old government ignored ICBC problems and

allowed it to become a system that made lawyers rich while it kept

drivers paying ever-higher premiums. The changes that we’re making to

ICBC will save British Columbians money on their insurance and also

deliver better support and take better care of British Columbians if

they’re injured in a crash.

[2:15 p.m.]

How do we achieve that? On the one hand, to reduce rates, it’s

taking out of the equation the role of lawyers and really forcing

British Columbians to go to court to get the benefit and care they need.

So we’re removing expensive lawyers and legal costs from the system,

which will save money on insurance and also allow for more funds and

more resources to go towards providing better care. So anyone injured in

a crash gets the care they need without having to hire a lawyer to get

the benefits that they paid in for the insurance and that they

deserve.

Bill 5 plays a key role in terms of this transition to

operationalize the enhanced care model. The ICBC fairness officer will

come into place. We know that the ICBC enhanced care coverage comes in

later this year, May 1, and any British Columbian injured in a crash

will have access to significantly improved care, improved recovery

benefits. This is regardless of who was responsible for the

crash.

Previously, in our system, it was an impossible situation. You had

individuals who were the victims of a crash and injured needing to also

sue ICBC. They were covered by ICBC, but they had to sue ICBC to sue the

other driver, who was also covered by ICBC, and go to court. The

situation was that the driver who was responsible had a lawyer; the

victim of the accident had a lawyer. They’re both going to court. So

ICBC was in the position of defending against the person who was in the

accident and also prosecuting and trying to get benefits out of the

driver. This wasn’t a system that was working for people.

The transition to the enhanced care coverage, removing the need

for British Columbians to go to court to get the care that they require

is a transformation of our system. I think that British Columbians…. It

meets the head-nod test. British Columbians expect that when they buy

insurance, public insurance, it should insure them in the event of

accident or injury while they’re driving, and it shouldn’t put them in a

position where they have to go to court, on the one hand, to sue ICBC

and, on the other, to defend against ICBC.

Now, the process around what’s…. In terms of the transition to

this model and also the need to restore public trust…. The previous

government had eroded that trust by siphoning $1.2 billion out of the

system and by the increasing rates and also such a system of litigation.

This is the role of the fairness officer. The purpose is to establish an

independent fairness officer to ensure…. This lines up with the goal and

reinforces the goal and plays the role to ensure that people get the

care they need, when they need it and for as long as they need it. And

we need to ensure that there’s procedural fairness towards this

goal.

Bill 5 will move towards creating a more independent body to

consider customer complaints about ICBC processes as part of — I

referenced earlier — our broader effort to build public trust in the

corporation as one dedicated to both affordable auto insurance coverage

and caring for people who are injured in traffic crashes. The role of

the fairness officer is to be an avenue in the event that either party

disagrees with the decision that ICBC has reached.

ICBC, of course, undertakes every effort to ensure the process is

fair in dealing with an individual, but certainly, there may be

occasions when policies and processes lead to unfair decision-making.

The role of the ICBC fairness officer is to ensure that ICBC customers,

British Columbians, will have an objective third party to review the

fairness of the process that led to the decision in their case. This

would be within the jurisdiction of the fairness officer to deliberate

on those cases.

[2:20 p.m.]

If the officer determines that the decision was unfair, a

recommendation is made, and that’s an avenue that is available for

British Columbians and customers of ICBC.

I know questions have come up, from the other side, asking: why is

it that Bill 5 is proposing to establish a fairness officer when we have

an ICBC fairness commissioner? I’d like to address that point and

explain that. I think if members take a look at the jurisdiction, the

role and the scope of responsibility, that will answer that

question.

The changes to the Insurance Corporation Act, in Bill 5, are…. The

intent is to further public trust in ICBC and to ensure that its

processes have a more independent person reviewing fairness complaints.

What’s being proposed with Bill 5, with this legislation, is that the

fairness officer will be appointed by government rather than ICBC.

That’s one critical distinction between the ICBC fairness officer and

the fairness commissioner.

The fairness commissioner is appointed by ICBC and plays that

role. The fairness officer will be appointed by government — so outside

of ICBC — to have the perspective of an objective third party. So that’s

one important distinction.

As well, the reporting-out requirements for the new fairness

officer will enhance accountability to the government, ICBC and the

public. So that’s another area, a distinction and a contrast,

distinguishing roles and differences between the fairness commissioner

and the fairness officer.

What are some other contrasts? What are some other differences

between the fairness officer and the commissioner? The current fairness

commissioner has been successful in holding ICBC to account. The

fairness officer, into law, will…. The mandate will be set out in the

subject to approval of the ministry.

We know that the current fairness commissioner reports annually to

the board on the matters that have been heard. The fairness officer will

be required to submit a report to the ICBC board, and the report will be

posted on a publicly accessible website. That will be available, and

there will be that transparency to the public as well. There’s the

reporting requirement, and it will be accessible to the

public.

Now we have the…. Questions have been raised with respect to…. I

think that that lays out some of the contrasts between the fairness

commissioner and the fairness officer. We also have other avenues in

place for British Columbians to bring concerns, specifically to ICBC,

more broadly. We have, as well, the civil resolution tribunal and the

Ombudsperson.

We know that the enhanced care coverage is really proposed to be

transformational to the culture of ICBC. It enables ICBC to focus solely

on helping injured people get better and allows ICBC, as an

organization, to focus on that and not be split between having to

mitigate between and defend itself against injured ICBC customers who

are seeking benefits. That requires a…. It’s a transformative change in

culture.

ICBC will be working collaboratively with an individual to support

them with navigating through the health care team, with recovery and

care in mind. That will lead to less of a demand for dispute resolution

overall. We’re really taking out that inherent contradiction in terms

of…. Let ICBC pretty much…. It could be expected, previously, that you

had to get into a fight to really…. You had to fight for the benefits

that you were entitled to.

[2:25 p.m.]

We want to ensure that ICBC as an organization focuses on

providing that support and benefits to people to ensure that they are

supported through their recovery and that the role of the fairness

officer will be…. The regulations will lay out the duties and functions.

And the general responsibility for the fairness officer will look to

focus on ensuring that ICBC’s policies and practices leading to a

decision are fair so that British Columbians can have that confidence

and that they also have an avenue to raise concerns if they disagree

with a decision.

Now, we mentioned the Ombudsperson. British Columbians know that

the Ombudsperson takes a wide range of concerns that British Columbians

have not been able to resolve with government. Any matter can be taken

to the Ombudsperson for consideration, and the Ombudsperson will

continue to be an avenue for British Columbians to resolve their

concerns if they’re not satisfied.

We have also introduced the civil resolution tribunal, which is

independent from ICBC. That’s another area that’s to be laid out further

and articulated in the terms of the role that will be played and laying

out the jurisdiction as well. That’s to be determined.

With respect to Bill 5 and questions around the findings of the

officer, will the findings be binding, and what is the scope of powers

that is different from the officer and the commissioner? Now with Bill

5, the fairness officer’s recommendations are non-binding. However, the

ICBC board is required to report to the minister responsible for ICBC on

the recommendations from the fairness officer and to provide a

summary

of the board’s response to those recommendations. So that creates

another level of oversight and engagement to the ICBC board and also

going to the minister.

It also provides an opportunity for the commissioner to be brought

into the conversation. The difference is that the jurisdiction of the

fairness officer will be in legislation — that’s a significant

difference — rather than in ICBC policy that the commissioner is

included under.

That’s some of the scope, some of the differences, the distinction

between the fairness officer and fairness commissioner within ICBC. The

main goal and objective is to ensure that procedural fairness is

rigorously upheld, that public trust is restored within ICBC and that

processes are clearly in place for British Columbians to bring concerns

forward if they do not agree with decisions made in ICBC.

It’s proposed that the fairness officer’s terms will be three

years, renewable. There’ll be a period of transition, as well, in terms

of working out the relationship between the fairness officer and

fairness commissioner. We know, as well, that in terms of who will pay

for the fairness office, that will also come under ICBC, including costs

associated with operations and staffing.

We expect that the additional responsibility of the fairness

officer will add to and support the culture of transparency and support

the shift towards the enhanced care model and, really, the organization,

ICBC, being able to focus on providing care for those who are injured.

Also, procedural fairness is laid out, and options are

available.

[2:30 p.m.]

There has been a lot…. It’s been a big overhaul in ICBC. It’s

focused on providing better care, providing enhanced care, bringing down

costs for British Columbians, removing lawyers and legal fees from the

equation and really removing such a conflict-ridden process. It’s really

the last thing that folks involved in accidents and needing to get care

need to be involved in.

I know all of us, all MLAs, in our offices right across British

Columbia, have constituents who come in and family members and friends

who unfortunately have been involved in accidents. Often it can take

years in terms of going through the process. It’s very stressful. It’s

terrible to be in an accident or to have friends and family injured and

to be put into a legal situation where they have to go to court, and

they have to really fight it out in terms of getting benefits. They’re

often recovering from injuries, and it’s a challenge to get adequate

medical treatment. It’s just a system that wasn’t working for

people.

With the enhanced care model coming in May 1 focusing on providing

care to those who are injured in accidents and ensuring they are

supported for their full recovery, bringing down costs of insurance for

British Columbians and really providing the confidence of British

Columbians in the transformation of the system and ensuring there is

procedural fairness, British Columbians know that not only the fairness

commissioner, which is appointed by ICBC, but in addition, the fairness

officer are also avenues in terms of what is available to ensure that

the procedural fairness is carried out.

Just to conclude in terms of the second reading for Bill 5, I’m in

support of this bill. It’s another important step towards restoring the

trust in ICBC, supporting bringing in the enhanced model of care in

ICBC. I’m confident that the role of the fairness commissioner will help

to restore the trust that British Columbians have in ICBC that has been

badly eroded under the previous government.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill

5 at second reading.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver-Langara rose on a point of personal

privilege to raise a point regarding parliamentary language. I would like to

note that the proper mechanism to raise such a concern is to do so as a

point of order.

With respect to comments made by the member for Langley, I find that

although the member was critical of the former government and the language

chosen was intemperate, in my view at the time and currently, it does not

require an unequivocal withdrawal, which is the only avenue open.

I will also remind all members that when considering unparliamentary

language, the Chair takes into account the tone, the manner, the intention.

I will continue to listen closely to the debate, and I would advise all

members, especially new ones, to look at their colleagues for how they

handle such delicate issues and follow accordingly.

Debate Continued

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your comments. I think it’s

always good for us to try to raise the dignity of this noble institution

that we are so fortunate and privileged to be a part of.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’m delighted to be speaking today to Bill 5, the Insurance

Corporation Amendment Act, 2021. This bill speaks about bringing in a

fairness officer, which, on the surface, sure sounds like a very good

thing. We all want fairness in our institutions and our government

services and how the public is treated. So this bill identifies the role

of the fairness officer and the relationship that that officer will have

with ICBC and also identifies that the officer can “make

recommendations” to ICBC, but this officer will not be able to compel

ICBC to take actions.

[2:35 p.m.]

The fairness officer will be appointed by cabinet, and the

fairness officer will make public the type and number of issues that

they hear, along with the recommendations to ICBC.

Section 55 of the bill identifies how the officer will be

appointed and the term of appointment, which is three years.

Section 56

outlines that the fairness officer may investigate decisions, acts or

procedures by ICBC. The officer may also make recommendations to ICBC to

resolve fairness complaints or systemic problems with fairness and may

provide advice to members of the public.

There are a number of questions that we look forward to canvassing

and, I’m sure, hearing canvassed by the members of the official

opposition during committee stage, including: if the fairness officer,

for example, cannot comment on amounts payable by ICBC, does this mean

that any issue relating to benefits is out of scope of the officer?

Also, would the officer be able to comment on services provided to

claimants? It would be good to get clarification on this. Also, it would

be interesting to know how this fairness officer can actually help

individuals in a timely fashion if ICBC’s responses only need to come a

year later to the prior fiscal year.

Other points that have been raised over the debate in the chamber

this afternoon have been around how independent this fairness officer

will be, how capable the officer will be to make any changes to

decisions that have been made. I guess for me, the question would be:

would the expectation be that this fairness officer would be,

essentially, explaining process to the public if they’re unhappy with an

outcome with ICBC? Or if this fairness officer can truly make sure that

outcomes are indeed truly fair, what abilities will this person have to

do that if they can’t actually comment on outcomes in terms of financial

or services?

One of the things that’s been talked about quite a bit this

afternoon is the overall distrust for ICBC, a Crown corporation that has

had, as has been spoken about a few times today, a myriad of problems

over the past years. This is not unlike a number of Crown corporations

in British Columbia. ICBC, however, has a particularly crucial role to

play at times in people’s lives that often are life-changing moments. An

accident that causes serious injury can be a point in a person’s life

that really marks a very different direction that their life might

go.

The role and responsibility that ICBC has to people is at moments

when they are, potentially, at the most vulnerable moments in their

lives. I think that if we recognize that this Crown corporation plays

this very pivotal role in people’s lives…. I think when we debated the

bills last year, a lot of us heard many very personal stories about

people who had been in accidents and had interactions with ICBC that

were less than satisfactory, that left them feeling that this Crown

corporation didn’t take care of their needs and didn’t serve them at a

time when they needed that more than ever.

I’m aware that the minister is making the case that we are going

to see a transition from that, but I think it’s really important that

the changes are being questioned deeply by members of the

Legislature.

Other Crown corporations…. I just wanted to touch on this a little

bit. There are 29 Crown corporations in British Columbia. Those Crown

corporations include B.C. Hydro, B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the B.C.

Lottery Corp. and Community Living B.C. I think we might be able to

agree that we have some pretty significant and worrying issues with how

Crown corporations in B.C. are operating.

[2:40 p.m.]

We have this example today of a fairness officer that’s being

brought in to oversee the processes in claim decisions in ICBC, which

indicates that there have been problems with those processes. From the

B.C. government website: “Crown corporations are public sector

organizations established and funded by the B.C. government to provide

specialized goods and services to citizens. They operate at varying

levels of government control and report on their planning, governance

and accountabilities.”

So publicly funded organizations that deliver services to the

people of British Columbia. I think that what we should all be striving

for is that any of these publicly funded institutions that deliver

services to the people of British Columbia are trustworthy, are

organizations that we can be proud of as a province. But we’ve seen many

examples and instances where this is not the case. There is a worrying

lack and loss of trust in many of our Crown corporations in British

Columbia. We have these oversight mechanisms for these Crown

corporations, but the Crown corporations don’t necessarily want to

operate with that oversight.

Just recently, for example, B.C. Hydro refused outright to respond

to direct questions about Site C from their oversight body, the B.C.

Utilities Commission. Under the Oil and Gas Commission, we have seen a

proliferation of abandoned and orphaned wells. So the regulatory body

that is overseeing oil and gas extraction in British Columbia has also

overseen a huge proliferation of abandoned wells. Just a few days ago,

there was an

article that came out. There is an $81 million estimate for

orphaned site liability from the Oil and Gas Commission statements,

which…. Their own statements say they could go up to $116

million.

I think the people of British Columbia can say: “Hold on. Here’s a

publicly funded body that is supposed to deliver goods and services to

the people of British Columbia. Under their watch, they won’t answer

questions from oversight bodies. They have allowed these massive

liabilities to grow, which ultimately fall to the taxpayers of British

Columbia.”

We have a money-laundering inquiry underway in B.C., which will

perhaps determine to what extent the B.C. Lottery Corporation did not

carry out its duties to prevent money laundering in our

province.

We are talking today about a fairness officer for ICBC, but I

think we should absolutely put that into the context of what our

expectations of government and government bodies should be in our

province. I want to have the highest expectations. But those

expectations, that trust, that goodwill, actually have to be earned. It

has to be maintained, and it has to be built. All of these organizations

should have, at the centre of their operations, at the centre of their

mission, public trust, because once it’s lost, it’s very hard to gain it

back.

We’ve heard in the debate this afternoon the accusations kind of

flying back and forth. Which government is responsible? Ultimately, I

would say we are all responsible for ensuring that these public

institutions are trustworthy. If we are hearing from the public that

they do not trust these public institutions, we should take that

incredibly seriously.

A proliferation. We have a proliferation of oversight offices and

officers in British Columbia. It’s probably similar in other places, but

just off the top of my head, we’ve heard it today already — about the

Ombudsperson overseeing fair process in government services. We have the

Representative for Children and Youth. When I started in 2017, there

were close to 80 reports that had been written by that office about the

operations of the Ministry of Children and Families. Those reports have

continued to come, yet we’ve seen little to no change in that

ministry.

[2:45 p.m.]

We have the — I think it was 2015 or 2016 — Auditor General report

on professional reliance and government oversight in the mining

industry. It was of great interest to me at the time because of what we

were seeing unfold in Shawnigan Lake. The Auditor General has also

written reports on the safety of drinking water in British Columbia,

something we should all be very concerned about.

We now have the new superintendent of professional governance to

oversee the professional reliance model in British Columbia, to ensure

that the regulators of qualified professionals are carrying out their

duties to ensure that the public is being fairly served and properly

served. Reports come out from these oversight agencies and offices, yet

we see a lack of urgency to address the very serious and often systemic

issues that are identified in these reports.

I think that as we debate a bill like Bill 5 and a fairness

officer for a Crown corporation, it’s important for us to recognize that

we might have a larger systemic issue that we’re looking at here, which

is that our institutions are needing more and more oversight because

there are more and more examples of the public feeling that they are not

being served by these publicly funded institutions that are meant to

exist to serve the public.

I look forward to committee stage of this bill. I will continue to

advocate for all of us remembering that service to the public and trust

of the people of this province needs to be at the centre of everything

we are doing in here. If it’s a small change to

an act, or if it is a

complete overhaul of how a system works, in both cases, we need to be

mindful of the people that we serve.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Recognizing the member for Richmond South Centre.

H. Yao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak.

Before I continue, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge that

I’m speaking to everyone from Coast Salish unceded territory, and I

thank them for allowing us to live, work and play on their ancestral

land.

There are a lot of details being shared by all sides of the aisle,

and there are many, many discussions around Bill 5. But if the Speaker

allows, if you don’t mind me entertaining the members within this House

with more of a personal story, I would like to share.

Obviously, like many members here, I was young when I first got my

driver’s licence. It was an exciting moment. I actually worked and paid

for my own first car. Back then, my parents taught me to respect and

trust ICBC. When we get in a car accident, speak to ICBC. We have an

issue? You know what? Somebody might want to address the accident under

the table? No, go through ICBC. It’s a Crown corporation that will put

your mind at ease.

Unfortunately, a few years ago while I was in a car with a few of

my friends, I actually got into a car accident. That rainy, cold night

was a night that has changed my life in many ways and also reminded me

how vulnerable an individual member of a population can be, especially

people in Richmond South Centre.

That night I actually had my vehicle parked, because we were

waiting for the light to change. But another vehicle turned, and it ran

right into my vehicle. And it was followed by someone else who just

drove right past. They didn’t even stop. The RCMP came, took notes and

left. I thought this was obviously the other driver’s fault. Nothing for

me to get worried about. What happened next truly shocked me to the

bone.

When I first talked to the ICBC estimator, his first comment was:

“Based upon the accident, based upon your dent in your vehicle, it is

obvious you were at fault.” I had three friends in my vehicle, all of

whom could look at me and say: “We were parked. We were stopped.” I

shouldn’t say parked — just stopped, waiting for the light to change.

How could we possibly be the ones considered moving?

[2:50 p.m.]

At that point, I brought my concern to the ICBC caseworker. Pardon

my language if I did not utilize the title properly. She mentioned that

because the three friends I had in my vehicle were all sitting in my

car, they were ultimately not acceptable as witnesses. But the other

driver somehow had a witness who saw everything and provided a full,

detailed account of what had happened.

That was a rainy, cold night. I was in my car, and I know the

other driver was in the other car. The only other vehicle who passed by,

the only pedestrian I saw, was someone who just drove by and didn’t

stop. The next person was the RCMP officer.

As an individual who wanted to say, “I have seen a system that’s

not working out. Who do I speak to? I don’t think this is fair, the way

I’ve been treated,” ICBC told me: “We have a commissioner you can talk

to. They’re ICBC staff. They are part of ICBC. You can talk to them, and

the individual commissioner will be there to assist you with your

concern.” That brought fear in my mind. That brought fear in many things

I was addressing.

One, I have two ICBC staff automatically telling me I was at

fault, without really looking into the situation, despite the fact that,

based on my awareness, it’s not my fault. At the same time, I wanted to

trust this Crown corporation, but I think we do need a secondary channel

that is independent for us to share our concerns and to be able to

address our issues.

When Bill 5 was first introduced, and when I first read Bill 5, I

was relieved. It was something I wish I saw existed a few years ago,

somewhere I could have somebody telling me there’s an independent

fairness officer whom you can speak to, to express your

concern.

I agree with many members who talked in the past that we need to

start building trust in our Crown corporations. We need to start

building confidence in our Crown corporations. I think when we look at

something like Bill 5, even the previous bill, Bill 7, it’s always

talking about proactively building trust, building fairness into a Crown

corporation that we all rely heavily upon.

As a person right now, I know individuals who come to my office

are already semi-politically aware of what is available in the

community. From having my CA assisting them to bc211 to various

different kinds of non-profit sector support, they know who they can

reach out to. But I want to remind everybody I’m a representative for

the Richmond South Centre riding, a riding that’s one of the densest

ridings and one of the smallest ridings and also has the highest

population of immigrant and new and young families.

I cannot imagine if I had to deal with something…. I was

privileged enough to handle the financial burden of that mistake. What

do other families have to deal with if they don’t have somebody who they

can actually go to? I’m not asking for specific detail. Obviously there

is a lot of discussion around the detail, talking about Bill

But ask if the average British Columbian, when they walk into

ICBC, they would say: “ICBC is not fair.” Wouldn’t the fact of having a

fairness officer available that’s independent and appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor bring a certain amount of relief to the average

British Columbian? To able to say we can actually still continuously

challenge when we seek out fairness, injustices brought into our

circle.

That’s the reason why I support Bill 5 and am enthusiastically

standing here talking to the members. The story — although it ended in

me paying the financial burden for it, I was privileged enough to

address it. I was privileged enough to know now if the same thing

happened again, especially with the introduction of Bill 5…. Hopefully,

by May of this year, Bill 5 will be able to bring us the fairness

officer, who we can rely and depend upon to express our concern with

ICBC’s staff — demonstrate customer service concern that is not fair to

individual ICBC insurance payers.

If you don’t mind me saying, I wholly support Bill 5, and like

many colleagues who have spoken earlier…. Are there more things to do?

There is a lot more to do. Do we need to build more trust for what is a

Crown corporation? I would love to see our government, which is

progressive, continuously putting human rights, equality and diversity

at the front line, to put at the fore.

We have a parliamentary secretary for non-profit services. We have

a parliamentary secretary for anti-racism. We’ll continue to introduce a

different kind of strategy to bring a fairer and safer society for us

all to enjoy.

[2:55 p.m.]

As MLA for Richmond South Centre and, of course, a speaker for our

people of Richmond South Centre, I’m excited to see a proactive bill

like Bill 7 allowing our residential tenancy branch to address issues

proactively.

Now, looking at Bill 5, talking about it…. There’s going to be an

independent fairness officer who we can actually trust enough to go talk

to when we felt we could no longer trust ICBC or whatever staff was the

front face of ICBC. That’s putting us defensively that we seek

additional channels. This is a fabulous channel. I noticed some members

are talking about financial compensation and injury judicial issues. Of

course, we all know there’s the civil resolution tribunal, which is

looking at that component.

Of course, the Ombudsperson is still a great asset to our

community. If you don’t mind me mentioning to many, many of my

colleagues in here, for individuals who are immigrants or for someone

who is new to our society or who just recently became an adult and is

working in our community, many of them don’t even know what an

ombudsperson is. If I would be honest with you, shamelessly speaking, I

had a hard time learning to pronounce the word

“ombudsperson.”

I’m just excited and proud of our government, continuously putting

people first, continuously finding ways of how we can reduce the fees

for ICBC, reduce the rates of ICBC and find ways to make it affordable.

We’re continuously putting British Columbians first, to build that

trust, to build that understanding and continuously fine-tune our

government services to earn the confidence back that was lost years

ago.

I’m not going to even talk about a dumpster fire. I’m not even

talking about a million-dollar executive bonus. I’m not even going to

talk about those. The only thing I do want to emphasize is that we are

heading in the right direction.

More work needs to be done, but as we continue to follow the right

trajectory, I know our government will continuously make British

Columbia a fairer place, a safer place, a more trustworthy place for

British Columbians to grow up, raise their families and live and enjoy

life.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further speakers…. I recognize the Attorney General.

Actually, there is a further speaker, the Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for recognizing me. I appreciate it. I

just wanted to rise and make a couple of remarks about the fairness

commissioner and the intention behind it. I hear a number of members

raising concerns about the fact that this is an internal-to-ICBC

office.

The fairness commissioner was never intended to be an external

watchdog. That’s the Ombudsperson; that’s the CRT. The fairness

commissioner is intended to be within the organization to help them

proactively identify issues of fairness within their own processes.

Sometimes in large systems, you can set up a process that makes a lot of

sense from an organizational perspective, but from the perspective of a

consumer or the person who is using the service, it’s profoundly unfair,

leaves them feeling like they were not treated well.

It’s important to have an office that people can go to and say:

“This isn’t about the money or about the particularities of my

collision. This process that you’ve set up is ridiculous, and you need

to have a look at that.” To have an office that can receive those

submissions from the public and provide recommendations to ICBC and to

the public, shared with the public, provides another level of internal

accountability.

I would say it’s a basic of a modern corporation, including a

Crown corporation especially, to be responsive in that way and to

provide an internal process — I would say ombudsperson, but we have an

external ombudsperson — where people can bring these complaints and

concerns forward and they can be acted on by the corporation.

It’s not some kind of a trick that this is set up within ICBC.

This was the design. This was the intent, for ICBC to proactively

identify these issues. I can tell you, having been minister responsible

for ICBC, there’s nothing more disheartening than learning about a

problem with ICBC’s processes through the media.

Instead, there needs to be a way for them to proactively recognize

it and address it before it becomes an issue and erodes some of the

trust that a lot of the members are talking about here in this place.

It’s meant to help restore that trust, because the corporation needs to

be able to identify problems and proactively solve them.

That is by design. It is intentional. There are external watchdogs

to ensure that people are treated properly. But also, we need to give

the company the opportunity to address issues proactively and identify

issues proactively, one additional level of safeguard.

[3:00 p.m.]

I just wanted to rise and make that point because I heard a number

of members raising different issues or saying we already have a working

process, or something like that. The fairness commissioner’s office was

not working. It was not working as it was structured, and it is an

important internal safeguard.

That’s all, hon. Speaker. Thank you very much. I’ll take my

place.

Deputy Speaker: Now, seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General to close second reading

debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to close second reading debate and to

make note of some of the comments that I’ve heard during the discussion

around this particular piece of legislation and the implementation of a

fairness commissioner. I think the Attorney laid out very well why we

are having this.

This is part of the legislative package that we have put in place

to make ICBC the public corporation that British Columbians have had

pride in for more than 40 years and which we have seen…. Over the last

decade, that trust in the corporation had been eroded, and it had been

eroded for a number of reasons.

It had been eroded by government policy, in terms of, in essence,

artificial taxation, if you like, and by the removal of ICBC reserves

into general revenue for government. Then rates were going up because of

this activity. It reached record levels, in terms of — people have used

this term — “plundering” the reserves at ICBC to go into general

revenue.

We saw significant increases in rates. Whenever questions were

asked, we were told: “Oh, don’t worry. It’s not 14 percent. It’s not 18

percent. It’s going to be 4 percent.” Then, after the election, the

government at that time…. All of a sudden, your rates are going

up.

We saw a corporation that had operated under Social Credit, NDP,

Social Credit, NDP and initial Liberal administrations doing extremely

well. We had seen how the 2001 government had set out to, in essence,

privatize ICBC. They brought in an expert from one of the largest

private sector employers, from the Pattison Group, to do that. His

recommendation, after looking at the corporation, was: “No, no. We have

something that works extremely well here. We have something that’s well

suited to British Columbia.”

What we saw after that, though, was this determination to

continually undermine and undermine ICBC to the point where at the last

election, when we outlined that we were making changes to ensure that

ICBC remained a public auto insurance agency that was able to provide

affordable insurance right across British Columbia, it was: “No, no. You

know what? We really need, basically, to just get rid of it. It’s time.

Why do we have…?” The term, I think, that was used…. This “failed

state-owned monopoly” was the term that was used during the election

campaign.

Well, guess what. People rejected that. They rejected it

significantly. The reality is that we are continuing the work and doing

what we said we would do: to ensure that the public has a public auto

insurer that is able to provide public insurance at an affordable

price.

We made some significant reforms, taking the tort system out of

ICBC, similar to what has taken place in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The

result has been the ability to give the largest reduction in insurance

rates in the history of ICBC, going back more than 40 years, going back

to, I guess, when…. I had just started driving.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A long time ago, as my colleague says, when I drove my Chevy Nova.

I did not have it when I first started here, but I did have my Chevy

Nova, which I was really, really…. That was my car.

Anyway, the point being, what we have done is seen a significant

reduction in auto rates. Coupled with that, we have also, because of

COVID, said there is a COVID rebate, which is also taking place and

which is going out.

[3:05 p.m.]

May 1 is when we shift to managed care, and that in­volves a

complete change in terms of ICBC. The focus and the attention are now on

the individual, in terms of: “What does it mean to make you better? You

have the care that you need. You will get it for as long as you need

it.”

Before there was a cap of $300,000. For example, if you were in a

catastrophic accident and it was your fault — in that split second, you

made a mistake, and you were at fault — there was a $300,000 cap. That’s

gone. What it means is that if you are injured, you will receive the

care that you need. And it encompasses all the different kinds of levels

of care, whether it is hospital care, whether it is physiotherapy,

whether it is chiropractic. Whatever the kind of care it is that you

need, you are now able to get.

That’s what people want. They want to know that they are going to

be able to get better. Because that road to recovery does not

necessarily…. Some people recover quickly from an accident; others

don’t. I know there was some criticism in the comments earlier about

what you were going to get in terms of a particular kind of injury.

That’s very similar to standard policies. But that’s over and above the

benefits that you get in terms of the care that you need, for as long as

you need it.

A key part of that is in also ensuring that the procedures and the

policies in place that people will be dealing with are fair and that

they work. That’s why the Fairness Office is a critical part of that, to

be proactive, as my colleague the Attorney General said, in terms of:

“Hey, this is what we’re hearing; this is what we’re seeing. Here are

the recommendations on how we can fix this. Here’s how we can do this

ahead of time.”

It’s not something that’s coming down the road but, rather, in

essence, in real time. This is another important critical component of

the transference of ICBC to that public insurer that has served this

province so well over the years. It will help ensure its long-term

stability, and this is going to be another component of that.

I’ve appreciated the comments that members have made in this House

around this. I have no doubt that we will have a clause-by-clause

examination through the committee stage. I think that that is the

appropriate thing to do, and I look forward at that point to answering

further questions.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 5, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Finance Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:10 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I look forward to questions from my colleague across the way as it

pertains to the Finance Statutes Amendment Act. I know that he has a

number of questions for us, as we go through all…. I believe it’s 178

sections. I look forward.

I’ve got a number of staff with me, by my earpiece, who are going

to do more than whisper sweet nothings in my ear. They’re going to help

us get through what I hope will be an engaging and elucidating exercise

as we go through this reading of this bill.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. I thank her staff, first of all, who

are speaking to her in her head as we go through this virtual stage.

We’ve done this for a while now. We’re trying to get used to it. I hope

the minister has charged up her earpieces, unlike the last time we did

this.

As the minister said, we have 178, 179 sections here. We’re going

to breeze through some of them more quickly than others. It is quite a

technical bill, encompassing about 11 acts, as we’ve discussed earlier.

Some of the changes, to me, needed to be made around some of the

amalgamations into a single regulator, if you want, for lack of better

terms in some ways.

I want to, I guess, basically just start off on the first

section

here. It’s around the Financial Institutions Act in

section 1. I just

want to maybe give the minister an opportunity, as we start off this

discussion around the changes in this legislation.

Obviously, when I look at the Perrin report and a few other

reports that have come forward, and discussions around who’s been asking

for this, the direction and ideas around the minister and oversight and

moving it into a single body, I’m just curious if the minister, then,

could just…. Over the last couple of years, there’s been a lot of

discussion moving to this. If she can kind of give some background

information for people watching of why we’re actually doing these

changes.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, this bill before us responds to recommendations from two

different groups. The first one is the Perrin report. That’s the

Real Estate Regulatory Structure Review , which was released

in September 2018. The second one is the expert panel report, which was

released in May 2019, that supported those recommendations.

We had two different bodies. They both made recommendations that

we incorporated into this bill.

M. Bernier: I’ve read those reports. Of course, on this side of the House,

we’re completely in favour of moving towards something that’s going to

create more fairness, efficiency and, more importantly, something that’s

going to be, I guess, looked at as trying to solve a lot of the issues

that have been addressed through the different reports, that we’re

trying to streamline.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Real Estate Council and others have publicly said that they’re

in favour of these changes. Have any organizations, through

consultations, said that they’re worried? Or have they been against this

in discussions with the minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: I can certainly let the member know that there has been widespread

support for creating a single regulator. Having two different regulators

has created some confusion. The B.C. Real Estate Association, the office

of the superintendent and the Real Estate Council of B.C. have all

acknowledged and support this direction.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I’m not trying to throw, necessarily, softballs

to the minister. But it is important that we ask some of these questions

even though we know the answers, to get some of this on the record. I

appreciate that.

More specifically to

section 1, which is under the Financial

Institutions Act — because we’ll get through a couple of these — can the

minister provide an overview of the role of the superintendent of

financial institutions and really explain how that is going to fit in

now with that position with the BCFSA organization?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This real estate component is joining an existing regulator, the

BCFSA, where there is a responsibility for financial institutions,

insurance and trust companies, credit unions, and the superintendent of

financial institutions. The BCFSA, as a larger body, brings in

oversight, as well, for pensions as well as mortgage brokers. So the

superintendent of financial institutions has the subset of the financial

institutions that it’s responsible for.

M. Bernier: Not so much in the bill in

section 1 but in the explanatory notes

in this section, I had a question, just as an example. It says the

superintendent will have the power to consent to the acquisition of

certain assets by a trust company or insurance company.

Can the minister give an example of what that means in the

explanatory notes of what a certain asset might be?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: An example that the member had asked for: say, for example, that

an institution wanted to purchase a major asset and the asset is worth,

let’s say, more than 50 percent of their current assets, then they need

regulatory approval to make such a purchase. Right now it currently

requires that they get this approval from the BCFSA. This proposes to

transfer that to the superintendent.

M. Bernier: Is there going to be any supporting office or staff to the

superintendent with this move, or will it be amalgamated into existing

workloads? And if there is, what’s the cost of that?

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s no more staff required. This just changes the

authority.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: Just quickly to the minister on clause 2. Then can she explain the

rationale behind removing the minister from this clause?

Hon. S. Robinson: This actually, in fact, corrects an oversight in the current

legislation by removing reference to the minister in

section 23. Since

2004, the minister no longer has a role in providing consent respecting

amalgamations, continuances, arrangements and such things.

Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

M. Bernier: Quickly, in clause 15 here, obviously there are a couple of

changes. There’s some transferring. There’s some reverse in

transferring. Reading through it….

Of course, the minister has her staff who can help with this. I’m

trying to understand this. Is this just leaving some of the authority

still with the minister and staying the same in corrections? I’m trying

to understand, if the minister could explain that part of it.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This

section repeals the current power of the authority to

delegate most of its power and duties to the superintendent, as the

proposed legislation transfers most of the regulatory powers directly to

the superintendent. It also adopts a new power for the minister to

transfer the remaining regulatory powers — essentially, powers

respecting the incorporation, amalgamation and winding up of financial

institutions — to the superintendent by regulation.

[3:30 p.m.]

I think it’s helpful for the member to know that this reflects the

proposed board governance reforms to generally focus on the authority’s

board duties on strategic and corporate board responsibilities, general

oversight of statutory decision–makers and broad policy. In place of

empowering the authority to delegate its regulatory powers, the proposed

legislation transfers most of the regulatory powers directly to the

superintendent.

M. Bernier: Just for confirmation, then. Not only from the minister’s answers,

but going through this, obviously one of the concerns will be that the

minister has delegated a lot of authority to a statutory decision–maker

without, necessarily, government oversight. Especially in the Perrin

report and others, there was making sure that government still had

control — allowed not only through legislation but through policy

advisement direction to the regulator, through that partnership, I guess

you would say.

Can the minister explain what the role of the minister will be in

delegating decisions, or how that conversation process will go — dealing

with the regulator to ensure that cabinet, government, has not

relinquished all of its oversight to a statutory

decision–maker?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to make sure the member understands that what we have

before us here is really a transfer of powers between regulators. So

this is already, really, what the transfer is, but there is certainly

still the power to bring it back into government, if need be. That is

definitely here in this section.

Clauses 15 to 33 inclusive approved.

On clause 34.

M. Bernier: It’s my understanding, on this clause here, we’re talking about

some of the criteria. We’re talking about freezing of property assets

and that. It doesn’t look like the criteria or anything is changing.

Again, I understand a lot of this is transferring from one regulatory

body to another. Of course, a lot of that can get lost through the

technicalities of jumbling between 11 different acts.

[3:35 p.m.]

It looks like it’s just the transfer of the authority; not a

change, I can see. Can the minister maybe explain, just so we have that

here: when you look at freezing of an asset, what would bring that

about, and what would the regulations be or the parameters for, I guess,

dispute, for lack of a better terms on that as well — just the process

around freezing of assets?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite that this is, as he pointed

out, very much just a transfer of the authority. In the case of freezing

assets, in this case it’s about who’s making that decision. The reason

you would freeze assets — again, this gives the regulator an important

tool. If there is fraud or some other concern, they need this tool in

order to do their role.

Clauses 34 to 43 inclusive approved.

On clause 44.

M. Bernier: Again, I appreciate this. We will move through it quickly, because

the minister and I both acknowledge that some of this we’re asking just

to make sure we get on the record, for anybody down the road who might

have interest in this. And you know, in speaking with some of the

groups, of course everybody seems to be in favour of moving forward to

the single regulator again — as well as this side of the

House.

section 44, I just want the confirmation. I think the minister

actually answered this a little earlier on. It’s assuming and assuring

that decision-making authority — either revoking or administering — is

still through the Lieutenant-Governor, which means, through OIC or

through cabinet, that decision-making can still be involved with the

regulator.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Earlier in this bill we were talking about the transfer of power

from the BCFSA board to the superintendent. That was earlier.

This particular clause is a little bit different. This has already

existed. In this clause, it is about the Lieutenant-Governor taking

enforcement powers from the insurance council to the superintendent. It

had already existed. Here in this clause, what we’ve done is modernized

the language and just made it current in today’s world.

Clauses 44 and 45 approved.

On clause 46.

M. Bernier: We are getting into a bit of discussion on the superintendent of

real estate, and of course, we’re talking about the amalgamation — the

whole point of this bill. Who’s going to be assuming the

responsibilities, then, under this change, with the superintendent of

real estate in the new organizational structure?

Hon. S. Robinson: Under the B.C. FSA act, the CEO assumes that

responsibility.

M. Bernier: Are there any discussions, preliminary or otherwise, then, through

the minister or through the organization, that the roles,

responsibilities or duties are going to be much different between this,

as we go from two organizations into one? Obviously, we have the

superintendent of real estate. We’re just trying to see if there’s going

to be any difference in the duties, I guess, or roles. How do they see

that going forward?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There are three areas that will be new for the superintendent.

That will be education, licensing and discipline.

M. Bernier: When you say new, does that mean those were not part of the role

when we were part of the real estate council and the person was there?

The minister is nodding yes. So this is a transfer of that, it sounds

like the Minister is saying. Do I have that correct, if you want to

say?

The Chair: Through the Chair makes it easier.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you, Chair. There’s sort of this really narrow part, and

it’s just sort of nodding. So I appreciate the member seeking

clarifications to this. It had previously been part of the real estate

council authority, and these are the new responsibilities that are being

transferred.

Clauses 46 to 56 inclusive approved.

On clause 57.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence. It is interesting, in the

House, when it’s like two of us in here almost having a discussion. So I

appreciate that.

In this

section here, going into 57 and then for the next few,

we’re talking about the conduct, complaints, investigations, etc., as

we’re moving forward. So this

section presumably relates again to those

investigative powers that we were kind of talking about. Can the

minister outline how investigations are expected to change as a result

of the amalgamation.

Hon. S. Robinson: Under the current model, the existing model, the real estate

council is responsible for licensee discipline. The superintendent

investigates unlicensed and sometimes licensed, hence some of the

challenges. So under the new model that’s being proposed in front of us,

all investigations will happen under the superintendent.

M. Bernier: With the consolidation, amalgamation, are there any extra

resources that are going to be given to the group in order to do these

investigations?

Hon. S. Robinson: Existing staff will be pooled. There’s not an anticipation of any

sort of requirement. However, really, it is ultimately up to the

superintendent to make the determinations about what it is that they

need in order to deliver on these commitments.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: In some of the reports that we referenced earlier, it was talking

about policy gaps or some of the challenges that they were facing.

That’s why the recommendation was to move into one regulator.

Can the minister maybe explain what she feels some of those policy

gaps were? Just give an example of some of those gaps and why we’re

doing this.

Hon. S. Robinson: I guess the biggest concerns are the potential overlaps in the

current model and the current framework and the unclear authorities of

the superintendent versus the authorities of the real estate

council.

For example, a superintendent can investigate or direct council to

issue a notice of hearing, and it wasn’t clear. That would result in

sort of a stalemate or a frustration, and the process wouldn’t happen. I

know that the member would agree that that’s not good public service.

The more clear we can be around lines of authority, then the better

service the public will get.

Clauses 57 to 63 inclusive approved.

On clause 64.

M. Bernier: It’s another amendment. We’ve seen a lot of this throughout the

whole bill here.

We’re talking about the disciplinary proceedings, licensing and

that, in this

section here. Can the minister tell us…? For the use of

consent orders, will they be substantially changing? Was that recognized

as a gap, and is this another one that’s trying to solve one of the

issues from a report?

Hon. S. Robinson: Right now the current limit on acceptance of consent orders, at

least 21 days prior to a scheduled hearing, has not been enforced in

recent years. That’s due to the practical advantage and added

flexibility of increasing the time to negotiate consent orders prior to

convening a hearing. As a result, this practice is being formally added

into this legislation.

Clause 64 approved.

On clause 65.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Transferring the power — again, on the disciplinary side — from a

committee, it looks like, to the actual superintendent, if I’m

understanding this

section correctly…. How will the disciplinary process

change? How does she see that changing?

Hon. S. Robinson: The proposed amendments allow the superintendent to convene a

hearing, either by written submissions or an oral hearing. This

flexibility is to benefit licensees as well as the superintendent, who

will be able to consider the requests of licensees and determine which

manner of hearing is most appropriate.

M. Bernier: Are there any assumptions or knowledge based on the fact where

more resources might need to be made available now for this

process?

Hon. S. Robinson: What had been existing, in terms of hearings…. Council members had

to sit on a committee, and that was pretty resource-intensive. In this

new framework, the superintendent gets to make the determination.

Resourcing will really depend on the structure that the superintendent

wants to set up for the hearing.

Clauses 65 to 71 inclusive approved.

On clause 72.

M. Bernier: In this section, in the clause, it’s a bit more about real estate,

real estate agents, agencies and that.

Can the minister tell us how she sees these changing — how that

will change the enforcement, I guess, of this? I know there’s been lots

of discussions in the past years around some problems that needed to be

changed. Putting into one regulator might assist in that, in dealing

with some bad apples, I guess we could say. I think they were referred

to in the past.

Can the minister, then, just talk about the enforcement against

unlicensed real estate agents? Will that be changing at all?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I had mentioned before, around the confusion under the model

that has currently existed and then what we’re proposing here in terms

of providing some clarity, under the new discipline model, the

superintendent will have carriage over licensed and unlicensed

activities. That’s being reflected here so that there’s much more

clarity.

I hope that answers the member’s question. It’s really about

making sure that everybody understands who has responsibility for all of

these activities.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: With the responsibility now being singularly focused, then, is

there going to be any increased…? Does this increase the tools, I guess,

with one regulator, as far as enforcement goes, or is this basically,

again, just a transfer of existing policy and regulation around

enforcement into one regulator?

Hon. S. Robinson: This isn’t about tools, per se. It’s really about just having one

body and everyone having clarity about who is responsible for

discipline, in this case, as the member had asked. So there’s much

greater clarity for everybody involved.

M. Bernier: Does the minister, though, have any, maybe, ideas of estimates

around the current level of unlicensed activity that might be taking

place in real estate?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, we don’t have any data.

Clauses 72 to 79 inclusive approved.

On clause 80.

The Chair: On clause 80, the member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Moving along quite quickly there. It’s almost

hard to turn the pages to keep up with you. I appreciate that,

though.

section 80, can the minister tell us the average fine that was

levied under the previous sections?

Hon. S. Robinson: Sorry. Can the member clarify the question? I wasn’t quite sure I

caught the question.

M. Bernier: Yeah. I mean, we’re basically changing it now so that the maximum

fine can go up to $100,000. Basically, what I’m asking is: can the

minister tell us what the average fines used to be before we increased

it up to $100,000?

Hon. S. Robinson: Administrative penalties were not often administered in the

past.

Staff don’t have the data currently at hand. If the member would

like, we could certainly get him that information.

M. Bernier: Thank you. You kind of went to where I was going next. I was going

to say: if they were administered, how often?

If that’s the case, can the minister explain the rationale, then,

of…? If the previous fines were not a deterrent or were not levied, why

the increase to $100,000 now as the new fine?

Hon. S. Robinson: Because the scope of administrative penalties is expanding, the

maximum penalty is also expanding to reflect that.

It’s intended to capture those offences that would have previously

proceeded to a discipline committee, where the maximum penalty is

$250,000 for an individual, but which otherwise are not contentious with

respect to the evidence of wrongdoing.

M. Bernier: Can the minister, then, explain maybe what some of those

contraventions would be so that people understand?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Contraventions can certainly vary in scope. Something as simple as

information can require some sort of a minor ticket. But there’s a whole

range at the upper end. It would be, perhaps, professional misconduct or

providing false information to a consumer that would be egregious in

some manner that would require a more stringent or tough sort of penalty

as required.

Clause 80 approved.

On clause 81.

M. Bernier: When we’re talking about the contraventions, what types of

training or educational penalties are envisioned, then, under

section

81?

Hon. S. Robinson: As it currently sits, you could only require someone to take

education through the hearing process. That was the only place where you

could require it. With this change, it makes it also available through

an administrative penalty so that it’s another tool to help make sure

that licensees do the right thing by updating and by getting some sort

of remediation done through the requirement to take courses.

M. Bernier: Are the courses already available, or is this a new program that’s

going to have to be developed and administered?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, these courses are already available.

M. Bernier: I probably know the answer to this. How do we enforce attendance

at these courses?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his question. They do need to

demonstrate completion with a record of completion. That needs to be

demonstrated. The other place that it is tracked is the renewal process

of their licence, which happens every two years. So if they didn’t get

it done, that would certainly impact on their ability to

renew.

Clause 81 approved.

On clause 82.

M. Bernier: This clause here says the superintendent may publish a copy of

infractions or penalties. Is that happening right now, or is this a new

change?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is new for administrative penalties.

M. Bernier: Is the thought, then, to make it searchable online? Obviously

that’s something that would, going forward, be really important to do,

and I’m just curious if that’s the plan.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it would be searchable online as recorded by the

superintendent in terms of what actions they’ve taken.

Clauses 82 to 98 inclusive approved.

On clause 99.

M. Bernier: This

section is enabling cabinet to make, amend or repeal rules

made by the BCFSA. We brought it up a few other times earlier in the

course of the discussion today. It looks like it has the opportunity to

provide cabinet the power to override the rule-making authority of the

BCFSA.

Can the minister maybe give an example of when she feels that

would be important to do?

[4:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister of Finance on 99.

Hon. S. Robinson: Ninety-nine, thank you. Agent 99.

The Chair: Gretzky, I was actually thinking.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked a question about cabinet taking action. If

government felt that there was a rule that was sort of contrary to

public policy, would be an example.

I also think it’s important to point out that this is consistent

with the B.C. Securities Act and the Financial Institutions Act.

Recognizing that government does have an oversight role is important.

We’ve never had to use it, but it’s there, certainly, as a fail-safe in

case it’s needed.

M. Bernier: If somebody goes through all the processes after an appeal, and

they feel that everything has been exhausted, does that mean because of

that answer — I’m trying to understand — that somebody can now, at the

end, appeal and put pressure, I guess, on cabinet to overrule a

decision?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to clarify for the member that this isn’t about individual

cases. This is about a rule that’s a policy frame for the regulator.

It’s not about individual cases, per se, but more about rules for the

real estate operators, how they operate and how they are governed. So

it’s much more for rules for the industry. That’s what the fail-safe is

for, not for individual cases.

Clauses 99 and 100 approved.

On clause 101.

M. Bernier: Looking through 101 here, this establishes, I believe, a procedure

for the BCFSA for adopting new rules, including publications of comments

— ministerial consent, actually. Will this rule-making process be

similar to other Crown corporations? Let’s say like

WorkSafeBC.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is the same process as the B.C. Securities Commission and the

Financial Services Authority. So it’s not an unusual process.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: What would the process be, then, for appealing a ruling made by

the authority in a situation like that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think we have a bit of a language barrier, so I’m just going to

get some things clear for the record. I think that will help.

Rules that we’re talking about here are like regulations. If a

licensee breaks the rules, then there’s a hearing, and then there’s

evidence, and then there’s a decision. The decision can be appealed,

which is like in other places. I just want to make sure that we’re using

the same language.

Clauses 101 to 125 inclusive approved.

On clause 126.

M. Bernier: This

section here, 126, is really one of the final things that’s

needed, as far as the dissolution of the real estate council in this

section. I’m just curious what the plan is. Will the members of the real

estate council be getting severances? Are they transferring roles and

responsibilities? What’s happening with the actual council, if the

minister can explain that one?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member has done some significant reading since we

tabled this bill. I want to acknowledge his thoroughness, because I know

it wasn’t easy.

In this section, it dissolves the council, as the member rightly

points out, and it rescinds the appointment of council members. It also

contains specific provisions to ensure seamless transition, which I

think is really important, to the new regulatory model. That includes

transferring operations, activities and affairs to the authority,

including transferring proceedings related to a decision made by the

council under the RESA to the new superintendent, and ensures that

rulings, orders or judgments in favour or against the council may be

enforced by or against the authority.

[4:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I didn’t quite understand, though, if that

meant the council itself. A seamless transition is fine. But does that

mean that the people that were on the council are no longer going to be

there now that it’s going to be, obviously, with one regulator? If so,

is there severance? Is there any cost, I guess is where I’m going with

this, attributed to moving to a single regulator?

Hon. S. Robinson: Council members that the member spoke about…. They aren’t paid.

Staff — and I want to thank him for asking about the staff — are going

to be offered positions in the new framework. So we’re not anticipating

any significant cost.

Clauses 126 to 179 inclusive approved.

Schedules approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 8, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I call for a five-minute recess.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be recessed for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Bill 6 for committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:43 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re heading into going clause by clause, committee stage, on

Bill 6, the Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021.

I’ve got several staff — Jordan Goss, Jeff Henderson and Janette

Demianchuk — all in my ear, helping us get through this stage of this

bill.

The Chair: I would like to ask that we consider clause 1.

M. Bernier: I’m still trying to get used to the new terminology of a clause

rather than a section. So please forgive me if I make that mistake as we

go through….

We talked about Bill 6, the homeowner’s grant, during second

reading. Of course, a lot of concerns were raised at that time regarding

the intentions of government in taking in the oversight, if you want to

say it, a little bit…. I’ll change my terminology from the last bill, on

Bill 8, that we just discussed.

We’re centralizing, as the minister has said, within government.

That created a lot of angst and concern from some people about what,

maybe, the intentions were of government. Why was this change taking

place? Of course, this was a good opportunity…. I told the minister

during second reading that I would be bringing up some of those concerns

or, more pointedly, just some of the ideas that people have that they

want answers to.

[4:45 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll start in the overview

section here and really allow the

minister an opportunity, on the record, to put a lot of those concerns

or fears that I’ve been hearing, and colleagues have been hearing in

opposition, about the intentions of government for doing

this.

Is the minister able to stand in the House today and confirm that

the homeowner’s grant…? As it is, there’s no plan on changing the

homeowner’s grant under her government?

Hon. S. Robinson: I can confirm for the member that there is no intent to change the

homeowner grant.

M. Bernier: When the minister says, “No plan on changing,” is she talking

about the values or just the concepts of a homeowner’s grant?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have no intent to change the program. I do want to point out to

the member that we do change the grant threshold. It gets monitored

every year to ensure that over 90 percent are eligible for the grant.

That we certainly are committed to. We have demonstrated our commitment,

and we’ll continue to be committed to it, but the grant amount will not

be changing.

M. Bernier: Just for confirmation, if I understood the minister correctly….

Obviously, there is a formula built in with the 90 percent. So I believe

what I just heard the minister say is that the intention is that that’s

continuing, which means, obviously, there will be some people that might

fall off the eligibility, while others…. It moderates, I guess,

depending on assessed value of homes and other formulas. Did I hear that

correctly?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes. The member did hear that correctly.

M. Bernier: Obviously, we have people who have concerns right now. When you

look at the track record over the last couple of years with this

government with increased taxes and almost penalizing, targeting

homeowners with spec tax and other avenues where it seems like this

government is not in favour of people owning homes.

In fact, the minister’s own colleague from Chilliwack spoke in the

House just a couple of days ago. He talked about himself being a Gen

X’er, saying that he’s probably the last generation to ever own a home.

That’s kind of scary to a lot of people out there when they’re hearing

somebody from this minister’s government saying that it doesn’t look

like there’s a chance for you to own a home in the future. Now all of a

sudden, we’re debating a homeowner’s grant. That’s why there are some of

these discussions out there.

Obviously, I’ll give the minister an opportunity. I’m assuming she

doesn’t agree with those statements from her colleague.

Hon. S. Robinson: What I actually feel is sad that the next generation is feeling

hopeless about the opportunity to own a home. However, that has nothing

to do with the legislation before us.

Our government is taking significant steps in addressing the

development permitting process to make sure that more homes can be built

faster in a more collaborative style with local governments. That’s why

we’re putting in the biggest investment in housing in B.C.’s history so

that we can help people live in subsidized homes and even look at

affordable home ownership.

I know that that’s the current Minister of Housing…. That’s part

of his mandate. So we’re very committed as a government to create the

kind of housing that people can afford. That is work that is actively

being undertaken after years of neglect, after years of the previous

Liberal government not paying attention.

[4:50 p.m.]

In fact, I recall, in this chamber, the members, when they were on

this side of the House, scoffing at the fact that the members from

Chilliwack and other members of my caucus would be laughing at them for

their frustration about not being able to own a home. That’s certainly

discouraging, I think, for the Gen X and others who would love to own a

home. That work is being undertaken throughout government.

However, what’s before us is a grant that has existed for decades.

It’s a grant that has been administered municipality by municipality

with no coordinated effort. It’s burdensome for local governments. It’s

a piece of administration that they have undertaken, but it’s a

significant piece of administration. And it’s through conversations with

local governments that the opportunity presented itself: what if the

province undertook that administration? Given that we’re already doing

that for rural property owners and administering a grant, this is an

opportunity to relieve the burden for local governments.

I have to say that local governments really are thrilled at this.

It’s one less piece of work that they need to do. This way, it’s

centralized. This way, it’s easier for people to get a grant. If they

have any questions, it’s one phone number for the entire province. They

can get the same information, rather than 162 different local

governments administering the same grant program. This really simplifies

it for local governments and for homeowners as well.

M. Bernier: Obviously, the line of questioning I have at the beginning will

expand into some of the things that the minister has brought up earlier.

But there are over one million people in the province of British

Columbia who have worked very hard throughout their lives, some making a

lot of sacrifices in order to own a home. For some, part of

affordability and being able to afford that home is the reliance on the

homeowner’s grant, which is why I think it’s important that we

acknowledge that.

Will the minister agree with that statement, at least — that the

homeowner’s grant is actually a part of affordability to help people get

into homes?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the homeowner’s grant, for sure, is part of affordability,

just as affordable child care is part of affordability. We give grants

to families, making sure that they can put their children into

professional care that is affordable for them, just as affordable

housing is part of affordability, just as other opportunities for

families to access mental health care are part of affordability when

it’s provided as part of our health care system. There are lots of ways

in which we drive affordability.

Again, this legislation before us is not about changing the grant.

It’s just about where it’s going to be administered. There is no intent

to change the grant.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: I have a few questions here on clause 2. Part of it is talking

about the expansion if there’s a breakdown in a marriage.

Actually, before I get started…. My apologies. Before I get into

2(w), I do want to talk about 2(e), which is around Vancouver. I should

actually try to get that one from the minister on the record, just to

clarify. Obviously, most people know that Vancouver has its own charter,

which can create some interesting dynamics, to say the least, when we’re

trying to make changes like this.

How is this going to affect the city of Vancouver as far as the

homeowner’s grant? Are they still going to be dealing with it

themselves, or is the province taking it in?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member wisely pointed out, Vancouver does have its own

charter, but they are, however, going to participate, and the province

will be administering the homeowner grant for those people who call

Vancouver home.

[4:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Later on in this section, in

section 2, it talks about, again, the

breakdown of a marriage. I’m just kind of curious. Can the minister tell

us what the intention of changing the definition in (

w) is? Is it

expanding or contracting the definition of what a separation would be?

Eligibility purposes, obviously, is why we’re talking about

it.

Hon. S. Robinson: If the member can just clarify. Was it

section 2(w)?

M. Bernier: Just to clarify, I’m referencing

section 2 in the bill. If the

member looks at

section 2 of the bill, it’s

section 1 which is being

amended, subsection (w).

Hon. S. Robinson: This amendment eliminates the re­quirement for a written

separation agreement and substitutes that requirement with the

requirement that the separated spouses continued to live separate and

apart for at least 90 days due to a breakdown of their marriage or

marriage-like relationship in order to be considered separated. The

amendment changes the policy on how to determine whether a person is no

longer a spouse.

However, a transitional provision has been included to allow both

the former and amended definition to apply for the 2021 tax year. This

provides flexibility for how separated spouses qualify for grants during

the 2021 tax year.

M. Bernier: I can see why the minister has asked me to define exactly where

I’m referencing. She has some very well-written notes that her staff has

helped her on, obviously, with that. I appreciate that

answer.

Does she know…? Is this definition or what the minister just read

out similar to the Speculation Tax Act?

Hon. S. Robinson: This amendment ensures consistency with the Family Law Act and the

Income Tax Act as well. It’s similar to the speculation and vacancy

tax.

M. Bernier: Is it similar in the way that this is the similar criteria used

for applying for an exemption from the speculation tax?

Hon. S. Robinson: For the speculation and vacancy tax, you have to be living

together for 12 months. However, under this one, it’s two years. That’s

the difference.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: There were changes, though, that we talked about, around the

definition of “separation,” as the minister said earlier, on the 90 days

and all that.

I guess one of the questions that’s been coming to me and to our

colleagues is: is the government going to be using a similar lens for

the use of the home, for the speculation tax, and start looking at

applying that with the homeowner’s grant, for the

eligibility?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you. I’m not quite sure I understood the question, so I’m

going to ask if the member can re-ask it, so that I have

clarity.

M. Bernier: Well, right now, there are certain criteria when you’re applying

for the speculation tax, and there are certain criteria you have to

fulfil in order to be exempt from the tax. A lot of that is…. This

government has put in the use of the home if you’re in there for more or

less than six months, and there are a lot of other criteria that have

been built in under the speculation tax.

Of course, some people are saying, “Well, maybe I’m in a zone that

presently isn’t part of the speculation tax, but I own a home. I have

the homeowner’s grant. I’m only applying for that homeowner’s grant, but

I’m maybe not in it for six months of the year,” because they do other

things. Is this going to open the door now…? As the minister said in her

opening remarks, they’re worried about fraud, but they’re also

considering gathering this information for future uses.

Some of the concerns that I’m hearing are people saying: “If I go

away, down to a place that I have” — let’s say, in Arizona, in the

wintertime, which, hopefully, people can get to do again someday — “my

home possibly may or may not be vacant for a certain period of time, but

I’m outside of the spec zone area, so I don’t have to worry about that.”

Now all of a sudden, the government’s going to start looking at this

information, through application, possibly. Those are just some of the

concerns I have — that people have been giving to me.

I’ll wrap that up for the minister by just saying: is the minister

looking at using similar criteria around the homeowner’s grant? I’m

sorry if I’m not explaining it well for the minister to find this. We

want to ensure that we’re talking two separate things here. The minister

has said in her opening statements that as this gets centralized,

government is going to have more and more into information. We’ll get

into the whole social insurance number conversation, probably,

later.

Again, it’s just trying to ensure that the lens that’s being used

around the homeowner’s grant is going to be separate from how the

government uses the criteria for the speculation tax. Does that help the

minister at all?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member getting back up on his feet and providing

a little bit more context as to the nature of the question because, in

my mind, and in our government’s mind, these are completely separate

pieces of legislation with completely different purposes and aren’t

related at all.

The speculation and vacancy tax is around speculation in

investment properties and making sure that people are using the homes

for what they’re intended to be. The homeowner grant is a program that

is an institution here in British Columbia, and there’s no intent to do

anything with it except to centralize the program. As I have said

before, this is something that has been talked about with local

governments. They’ve been responsible, for all of these years, for

administering the grant program. As well, the UBCM has been consulted.

They’re eager to see this happen.

[5:05 p.m.]

This is something that was announced back in 2020, which feels

like a million years ago now, but really, it wasn’t that long ago, and

several pieces of work have been done to get us here. Some transition

work has been done so that we can start making that process happen. This

is the final piece — to put it into the legislation so that it’s got

clarity, going forward.

Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On clause 7.

M. Bernier: I just want to give the minister an opportunity to help clarify a

few things here. Obviously, the government works on a fiscal year. Tax

is collected, from what I remember, based on a calendar year, within a

municipality. How do we square this circle? How’s that going to

work?

Hon. S. Robinson: There are no changes based on the calendar year versus fiscal

year. This has been how this program has operated through all of these

years, and there are no accounting changes that need to happen as a

result. It’s the exact same process as we’ve seen through local

governments. It’s just the administrator that’s changing, which is the

provincial government.

M. Bernier: With the administrator changing…. I’m just trying to understand.

Let’s just say it’s a home sale. They work it out on a 1/12 of a year,

of course. If you buy your house in February, you have to pay 2/12 of

the expected taxation for that year.

There’s the conversation now around the homeowner’s grant. I’m not

sure if the minister can explain that to me, and I may have this wrong.

When you do sell a house again, you’re subject to having to pay part of

the taxes on the house. Is that application now waiting until later on

in the year? Somebody’s applying to the province for the homeowner

grant, and that’ll be separate, outside of the sale of a house? Now

that’ll be done by the homeowner, and somebody will be paying the full

tax amount?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a conveyancing piece that the member was speaking to. It

doesn’t change from the way it currently exists under the current

framework. The only thing that changes is, again, who’s administering

it. Instead of local governments, it’ll be the province.

Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

M. Bernier: I guess, on

section 13, I’m just trying to get some clarification

on bringing this into government.

[5:10 p.m.]

How is this going to, I guess, either add to or remove the

red-tape component of applying for the homeowner’s grant? Especially

when you look at…. You’re going to have more records-keeping. In this

section here, we’re talking about a lot of changes, it feels like. Is

there more red tape that’s maybe not necessarily seen directly by the

homeowner? I’ll talk about some of that after. I’m talking, from a

government perspective, about how they’re going to roll this

out.

Hon. S. Robinson: This

section here really is a modernization of the act. It’s

really about clarity and r