Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

26, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 – PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 33; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 33, Pension Benefits

Standards Amendment Act.

P. Milobar: Sorry. I thought the minister would open, so I'm just getting my papers organized

here.

Just a couple questions on

section 1. I'll just maybe preface all my questions ahead

of time to the minister. Throughout today, I'm just going to be seeking some clarification

pieces, but there are also some potential typos and/or wording errors that I want

to make sure compare to the legislation that's existing that's getting amended. It's

in that spirit that I'm trying to get to the bottom of things. It's not that we're

opposed to the bill by any means.

I'm just wondering, on clause 1, if the minister could provide an estimation of how

many variable life benefit plans will be offered as a result of these changes.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce who's with me. That's all I'll do for an opening. I have Joey

Primeau, the senior executive director of policy and legislation division, and Cynthia

Callahan, director of pensions and commercial financial corporate sector policy branch.

That's a difficult question to answer. We won't know. It's going to take over a year

to implement the legislation. It is voluntary, and it'll depend on the defined contribution

plans and whether they come on board.

P. Milobar: Then in

section 1, under the definition changes for pension, it appears that the definition

of "pension" in the existing act is being repealed, which has an (

a) and a (

b) in

it, and being replaced by an (a), (

b) and (c), which is all fine and understandable,

except for at the end of (c). It says, "whether or not the pension is continued to

another person; , and," then there's nothing after "and." I'm just wondering: "and"

what?

Hon. K. Conroy: That happens a number of times. It's not part of the amendment. It's a part of the

clause.

P. Milobar: I'm sorry. I don't understand what that means. It's not part of an amendment. It's

not part of a clause. The (

c) ends with the word "and," but there's nothing following.

So I don't know what and…. And people will no longer have a pension? And people will

have twice as much of a pension? What follows "and," or is it not supposed to be there?

Hon. K. Conroy"and (

e) by adding the following

definitions….": In this circumstance, the "and" is for the (e). So it's "and (

e) by adding the following

definitions… . "

P. Milobar: Well, that's adding variable…. That's adding completely different

definitions, I guess.

I don't see that in the previous part of clause 1, where…. So I guess the question

I have then is: since it's in bold, is the minister saying that the final copy of

the new piece of legislation will not show "and" once it goes to print? So it doesn't

need to be removed at this stage. It's just a placeholder word, for lack of a better

term.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the member is correct.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On clause 4.

P. Milobar: This seems to be changes to the conditions in which unionized multi-employer pensions

can allow employees to join their plans. I'm just wondering if any and, if so, which

unions requested this change.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The change was requested by the advisory — on behalf of the plans, not by the individual

unions. Changes can involve up to 100 collective agreements and 100 different unions.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Was there consultation, then, done with the broader labour sector

and unions? If so, what was the feedback on this clause?

Hon. K. Conroy: No. The amendment provides options for plans that are unable to track employee earnings

to comply with the PBSA. Those employees that work for more than one employer under

a collective agreement are the ones that are affected. Some plans have, as I said,

up to 100 collective agreements. This was a way of tracking the employees' earnings.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

P. Milobar: This is around the employees' notice being given around the contribution increases

"in accordance with a method for determining increases in member contributions…" and

what happens if a member "…does not, within the prescribed period after receiving

that notice, elect in the prescribed manner not to be subject to the increase described

in the notice."

I just want to confirm. If I'm a member of a plan, and the plan gets hold of me and

says, "We're going to increase the contribution limits," what happens? Does that mean

that that member, as long as they meet the timeline…? If they say, "I don't want my

contribution to increase," what happens at that point?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member would opt out, and their contributions wouldn't increase.

P. Milobar: Obviously, this process of notifying and having a contribution increase is effectively

similar to what would be considered a negative-billing option if you were with a cell

phone provider or a cable company when they say: "Respond by this date, or your rate

is going up."

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: It's an automatic feature. It's a default to support financial interests because it's

accepted, it's general practice, that people procrastinate on issues like this. If

they don't do anything, then their pension contributions would automatically go up,

as would their pension.

P. Milobar: What are the notice requirements, then, under this clause, in terms of ensuring that

the funds provide notice in good faith in terms of timelines? Does it have to be registered

mail? Is it simply saying: "Well, we sent you an email. It may or may not have gone

to your spam folder."? What are the notice provisions for the fund?

Hon. K. Conroy: It would be prescribed in regulations.

Clauses 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

P. Milobar: Again, this might be nothing, but language can matter in terms of what actually gets

removed or not. So this amendment says: "Sections 70(1)(c)(

i) and 72(1)(

a) and (3)

are amended by striking out "or (3)."

When I go to 72(1)(

a) and (3), the language actually does say "or (3)." When I go

to 70(1)(c)(i), it actually…. At the very end is the only place there would be a (3),

and it is actually "and (3)." So I'm just wondering the significance of why — if the

proper one is actually being removed in 70(1)(c)(i).

Hon. K. Conroy: It is correct. It says: 70(1)(c)(i), and (

i) just says to cross out "or (3)."

P. Milobar: Well, I understand that, but when I go to the act, Bill 38, the 2012 Pension Benefits

Standards Act, which appears to be what we're amending with this piece of legislation

here, when you read the current act that's being amended and go to 70(1)(c)(i), it

reads: "section 57(4)(b), (

c) or (d), 79(1)(a)(i)" and "(3)."It doesn't say "or (3)."

So the language in the bill that is being removed says "or (3)." And when you read

72(1)(

a) and (3), it very clearly, in this current piece of legislation, says "or

(3)."

On the other piece though, when you actually read the piece of legislation, it's "and

(3)." I just want to make sure that we just don't need to make a quick amendment to

be removing "and (3)" in 71(c)(

i) instead of "or (3)," because "or (3)"…. That phrase,

together, does not exist.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We think the member has Bill 38, which he referred to, and this is Bill 33. This is

the defined Pension Benefits Standards Act, so we're referring to Bill 33.

P. Milobar: Bill 33 is supposed to be amending Bill 38, 2012, the Pension Benefits Standards Act,

as I read it in this. That's why I'm just making sure I'm reading back to the proper

clause. At the very beginning of Bill 33, it's a

section of the pension benefits standards

2012, so that's what I've printed off, and that's what we've been working off of for

all of these to this point.

I'm making sure that I'm reading the right copy of the existing legislation that Bill

33 is amending. In this right now, if you go to

section 72 of the existing legislation

and you read 1(a), it very clearly says "or (3)." When you go to (3) on that, it says

"or (3)", which is what the amendment that we're dealing with in clause 10 is supposed

to be doing.

When you read 70, though, however, 1(c)(i), it ends with "and (3) not "or (3)". Again,

I warned the minister at the beginning of this, it was going to seem nitpicky, but

I'm not trying to be nitpicky in the least. I'm just trying to make sure we actually

have not an error that's hanging out there, because an "and" or an "or" can make a

substantive difference, and I want to make sure we're actually removing the right

piece.

I'm not sure if the staff are looking at the same copy of the legislation that we're

amending in the current act, but we appear to be trying to remove something that doesn't

actually exist in that

section instead of what I think the intent to remove was.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify for the member, the 2012 Pension Benefits Standards Act was amended

in 2014, and

section 70(1)(c)(

i) was amended at that time.

P. Milobar: Okay.

Then can I get clarification that other than section (1), which was being amended

very clearly in the version of 2012? I don't understand why we'd be amending 2012

if there's a more current legislation in 2014, but that's what Bill 33….

When I read Bill 33, "His Majesty, by and with the advice and the consent of the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia, enacts…" the following: "1

Section 1

(1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 30, is amended…."

Now I'm hearing that we're actually…. I should have been doing my research comparing

language from a version of 2014, not 2012, as was indicated at the very first sentence

of this bill.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I'll try to clarify this. The current Pension Benefits Standards Act is on B.C. Laws

online. But the bill that the member is referring to, Bill 38 of 2012 — it was amended

in 2014. We're thinking that the member doesn't have the amended portion of Bill 38,

2012, which is now where we're amending it.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you for that. I guess I'm just wondering how we're reasonably supposed

to know, other than the very opening sentence, we're working off of a totally different….

If a piece of legislation was created in 2012 and then was amended in 2014, those

definitions would then still need to be amended, whether it was the 2012 version or

the 2014 version, because technically, that '14 would be the most current version.

So we amended

definitions of a 2012 version, and then I don't see where it would lead

me as the critic to know that we're now working off of the 2014 version.

We purposely pulled off and printed off the 2012 copy, which, again…. The first sentence

says that's what

definitions are being amended and things of that nature, despite

the fact there was even more current amendments made to this piece of legislation

in 2014, is what I'm hearing. It makes it a little difficult, then. I don't know what

to say other than I guess I don't really have questions because all my questions are

based on the document that the government told me they were amending.

I guess we'll just have to trust, despite the fact we actually have some amendments

that the government has had to catch on their own, that everything else is written

accurately in the amendments in this bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: Trying to explain it and make sure that we get this clear. What it is, is on the laws

website, the Queen's Printer website, it would put all the amendments in for the appropriate

bill. I mean, there's Bill 10 that was done in 2014. That is a clause that the member

is referring to, which would….

So the actual changes to the bill are based on the actual laws that are published

on the B.C. Laws website.

P. Milobar: I do understand that. But again, in the sections and the clauses we're dealing with,

the only specification at this point is the 2012 version. At no point up to clause

10, which we're dealing with, do I see 2014 referenced. I do see amendments made later

on in the bill to a 2011 version and the 2014 version, but I don't in clause 10 and

leading up to clause 10.

[11:40 a.m.]

The only reference is actually 2012. If we go to the Family Law Act…. It's updating

the 2011 Family Law Act. Later on in the bill, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans

Act is 2014. It's specified there which act it's actually amending. The only reference

to any amending on this one, this bill, in terms of this

section of the bill, the

Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023, is to the Pension Benefits Standards

Act of 2012.

I guess my question would be…. Given that we're close to having a break for lunch

anyways…. If the minister could confirm what versions I should be looking for, for

the various other sections.

Until we get into those ones that I mentioned, I would suggest we could take a break

for lunch, and I will get staff to pull me those other versions that I should be working

off of for these clauses. Trying to guess, without this piece of legislation telling

me where I should be looking, will be a little difficult.

Hon. K. Conroy: The drafting approach is to refer to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, under the

SBC 2012, in referring to the B.C. Laws consolidation. I suggest the member look on

the B.C. Laws consolidation.

P. Milobar: I'm truly not trying to be difficult here. The wording I've provided the minister,

which I'm questioning, the "or" or the "and," in my version exists, and it seems like

it doesn't exist for them.

The minister just referred me to go pull back up the 2012 version, and that's what

I've been asking questions about. But earlier they were saying 2014.

Is the minister saying the 2012 version should have 2014 amendments on it? That seems

to be completely backwards to how a calendar works.

Hon. K. Conroy: I'll just add…. It's a 2012 act, with the amendments consolidated. That's how it's

referred to through legislation. That's how the drafters refer to it.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada