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 terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment, including 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 itself that will be determining and setting the terms and conditions of 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 legislation, and the terms and conditions of the position are also 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 5.

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, 2021

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.

In 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.

On 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 failing to display a sign in a window or failing to update contact 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, 2021

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, 2021

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 readability for the taxpayer — just for an example, in this section, replacing the word “supply” with “give,” that sort of simpler language. The other one that caught my attention was “documentary evidence.” What it means is records.

This is really about simplifying the language, doing our best, I think, to make the work that we do here as legislators a little bit more readable so that when the public goes online to take a look at the laws, they have an easier time understanding what it is that we’re meaning. Using simpler language is what’s here in this clause.

M. Bernier: Well, in section 13 of the bill here — section 5.4 of the act, which is what we’re talking about — it also talks about the request from the grant administrator that an eligible person must give to the administrator “any information or records” that they require. What kinds of records would that be, and who’s he asking those records of?

Hon. S. Robinson: In this instance, I think the member is referring to records that an administrator might require if there is an extended absence from the principal residence. In this case, if someone has gone into long-term care, for example, or into a hospital for an extended period of time, or even gone away to school, they would just need to provide evidence that that’s in fact the case so that that could be acknowledged, that it’s still their principal residence.

M. Bernier: I’m assuming the minister’s acknowledging, then, that this is not something that was done before…. The minister said that, really, nothing’s changed. Government is just taking it in. But that sounds to me like this is a new piece that’s been added.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This has always been the case. This amendment does not change the scope or the objective of the existing provision. It’s just really a language change.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

M. Bernier: Subsection 6(c)(4) here. There’s been a repealing and a whole section being substituted in. I’m wondering if the minister can explain what the change is, and I’ll help the minister here.

It’s talking about, “(4) A person is not entitled to a grant and is not eligible for a supplement in respect of property taxes imposed,” and it goes on. So this is a new substitution into the act.

What was the intention of this. What’s being changed?

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s a number of modernizing that happened in this clause. It’s not new. There’s nothing new here. It improves the flow of how the sections are arranged in the act so that it reads better as well as really just clarifying.

I think we need to keep in mind that a lot of this legislation is much older legislation, and having the opportunity to make it more readable, I think, is the opportunity that we’re taking here as well.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

M. Bernier: I acknowledge that a big portion of this act originally…. I think it was 1996, if I remember, for a lot of it. It’s had a bunch of changes along since the days…. It started in the ’70s. There have been a lot of things that have fluctuated, and the minister acknowledged that at the beginning — that this has been going on for decades, really. I just wanted to put that there.

On section 15…. I’m not trying to wordsmith, by any means, but I look at these…. I know that staff can help if the minister doesn’t know the answer to this one. But I always wonder why we would look at something like this. It’s changing a word from somebody who’s eligible for a grant to somebody who’s now entitled to a grant.

Why is that change needed? There must be a difference of what we’re trying to accomplish here or maybe, as the minister said, clean up terminology. Why would that be changed to “entitled,” now no longer “eligible”?

Hon. S. Robinson: The term “eligible” has been used to describe both grants and supplements. However, in other parts of the act, “entitled” is used in reference to grants. Really, what we’re doing here is just making the act internally consistent, so we’re using the same language through­out.

[5:20 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I had a question for the minister a few sections back. Perhaps if you can just provide some clarity on this. It is along the lines of seeking clarification to what the member for Peace River South was asking about earlier. The minister’s response to the now clause 13 but formerly section 13 was that nothing new is happening here. It’s just simply granting the power from the former body that was doing this to now the provincial government.

I just want to be clear that the information that’s gathered by the grant administrator or the information that was gathered by the municipal government always came to the provincial government. It was always information that the provincial government had. We’re not changing who holds the information necessarily. It’s just: who has the right to collect it? Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to welcome the member. It’s nice to look up and see him up on the big screen. I want to reassure the member that this has always been the case, as the grant administrator. That hasn’t changed in terms what information the grant administrator has been able to ask for. That’s exactly correct.

The Chair: Since I can’t tell, I’m just going to ask the member for Saanich North and the Islands if there’s another question. No? Okay. We’ll continue on.

Back to clause 15. Apologies. We’re working through the terminology. Many of us have said section for years and years and years, but to provide greater clarity, we’re using clause.

Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. Bernier: I think this section gives me an opportunity just to put a few things out there. We’re talking about the grant applications themselves. I’ll have a few questions that I’ll want to get into.

Some of the challenges, obviously, that we want to highlight and that we face are…. The minister, in her opening remarks and as we were talking about the consolidation to bring this more wholly into government…. It’s the online component of applications.

Some of the concerns we have, not to necessarily get too political on some of the other application processes that have happened recently that haven’t necessarily fared as smoothly as promised…. There are a lot of concerns out there, especially in the elderly community, and right or wrong, a good portion of homeowners are people in their older years. I’ve been hearing from many that they’re concerned about the fact that….

You know, this has been something where people have been able to just go into the city hall, the town hall, fill out the application, check a couple of boxes. They didn’t really have to supply any other information. Check two or three boxes, sign a signature and then pay the balance. There’s a lot of confusion out there now on how this is going to roll out, so I want to give the minister an opportunity to maybe be a little bit more clear for people — to help with this. I know there’ll be opportunities later, I’m sure.

[5:25 p.m.]

For somebody in my riding, when they go into city hall to pay their taxes because they’re not paying through a bank or online, how is that process now going to look? Is the city going to say: “Did you fill out your homeowners grant already?” Now are they going to have to check something at the city hall to say, “Yes, they have,” so they know how much to pay? If there’s a misunderstanding, what kind of follow-up is there going to be? Are we going to have a bunch of people on July 2, after this is all done, all of a sudden with penalties maybe accrued because they only paid a certain amount, not counting the homeowner’s grant, without filling out the proper forms?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think it’s really important to recognize that there will be two processes that people can choose in order to claim their homeowner grant. One is online, and the other is over the phone.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I do want to point out…. The member talked about people walking into their city halls. I have to say…. We both come from local government, so we’ve certainly heard the complaints. I don’t know if the member has had his share of complaints around the long lineups at city hall in order to pay property taxes and the frustration that comes with waiting in line physically in buildings. So that doesn’t always work well either.

I do recall that when my community went online for paying property taxes, which is when I was in local government, it made a huge difference. People were incredibly grateful to not have to get into a lineup in order to pay their taxes.

Over the phone is not something that most municipalities offer, so as a province, we’ll have two methods for folks to do that. There’ll be a wide range of time for people to actually make the application, so it’s not the bolus effect that I think we see in some programs. It won’t be the same.

[5:30 p.m.]

The other thing that I think is important to recognize is that many municipalities, like mine, are already online. So it’s not going to really change much. When people will get their tax notice, it will say on the notice that to claim your homeowner’s grant, you can go here or you can call. People can do it those two ways.

I also want to let the member know, and anyone else who’s watching, that this is currently in operation for rural taxpayers because they don’t have a municipality to do the homeowner’s grant. It’s an existing system that is certainly capable of handling the changeover to all properties.

M. Bernier: If the minister can clarify on her last point. Then I just want to ask a few more questions further on this, though.

What is the process right now for regional districts? It’s my understanding that it’s not necessarily just online and that people can still fill out the form, drop it off at the regional district office or mail it in. It wasn’t just an online system. The reason I say that is that I know, just like many people in this House, that in a good portion of the rural part of my riding, there’s no such thing as Internet. They’re unable to do it online. It kind of defeats the purpose if they have to drive to the town hall to borrow a computer to do it online.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s query. That’s why we do have a telephone application. Last year, for the rural areas, there were only two ways to make an application for the homeowner’s grant in rural British Columbia. Those were online and over the phone, and it worked quite well.

M. Bernier: Are those the only two options that are going to be available this year, then, for people in the first year? I say that because I do acknowledge the minister’s comment earlier, where she was saying that a lot of municipalities have gone to online.

Yes, it has been very successful, I know, in mine and others — that option. Municipalities, in fact, to try to curb their staff costs — it was quite a large push — do it online, but right now “online” means going to the municipality as the “collector,” under the terminology, I assume. I’m just curious if there’s going to be any flexibility — just to follow up on my first question on this section — in this transition year?

Back to that point, the lineups are getting smaller because of online, but it doesn’t work for everyone. Phone lines, as we’ve seen, don’t also necessarily always work for everyone.

I’m curious. In the first year, is there going to be any flexibility, or is it going to be pretty stringent? These are your only options, and if you don’t hear about them, follow them, then you’ve lost your chance to claim the homeowner’s grant.

Hon. S. Robinson: Phone and Internet are the two options. Because we’ll have the two options simultaneously, as we also already have so many people comfortable with Internet, given that the municipalities have been doing that for ten years maybe — maybe longer — and as the rural areas have already adjusted, we’re not expecting to see that many challenges. That’s why we have the phone.

[5:35 p.m.]

The other thing I think is important to recognize is that by phone and by using the Internet, doing an online application, you can get a near-immediate adjudication. It’s done, whereas with mail — and God bless Canada Post — sometimes it can take a while. By not having reached anyone, not getting a confirmation of any kind that you’ve submitted your grant, people will be left not knowing. That creates a different kind of risk, in terms of potential late penalty fees.

Moving to a system that can adjudicate more efficiently, where people can get back a number that says that they’re confirmed, will certainly ease the angst that some people might feel in making the application.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. It didn’t quite answer completely, though, one of the questions I have. It was: what happens if people fail this in this first year, in this transition year, of this change?

It sounds like we’re taking everything away from the municipality. I assume that’s the case. There’s not going to be any role for the municipality, other than telling people, when they come in for their homeowner’s grant: “You came to the wrong place.”

I still have concerns. Again, as we’ve seen, applying online doesn’t always work instantaneously. Phone lines don’t work instantaneously, as the minister just said. So I’m just trying to confirm. How hard and fast is this going to be this year, for the transition year, for so many, I’ll say, seniors, mostly, out there, who are so used to doing it a certain way? There’s going to be some obvious confusion with the change.

Now all of a sudden, to my earlier point, the cutoff…. July 2, I believe it is. At the end of that day, if they didn’t apply for their homeowner’s grant, is there going to be an opportunity for them to get hold of the province? Or is it going to be: “Sorry. You’re paying your full taxes now, and you’re not eligible”?

Hon. S. Robinson: When I think about how my home­owner grant operates in my city of Coquitlam, the fabulous city of Coquitlam, I typically get my tax notice in late spring. Municipalities have until, I believe, the end of May to get their tax notices out. Then it usually sits by the computer for a little while until I figure out and decide it’s time to do bills or whatever, and I do what I need to do. You have, really, until July to get it done.

[5:40 p.m.]

With this change, there are a number of things that I think are an incredible advantage. Not only will there be a notice about where to go for your homeowner grant when the municipalities send out their tax notices in May, or earlier, but people can even do it now, in the tax year. They can actually go online at www.gov.bc.ca/homeownergrant, and they can make their application today.

I want to encourage the member…. When he leaves here, perhaps he might want to take advantage and not have to wait. There’s a real breadth of time for people to take advantage of the opportunity.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m not going to read out the phone number.

There are many days in the year before July 2, when people can make the application. It doesn’t have to sit by their computer in hopes that they remember to get it done in time. This is, again, consistent across the province, so anyone anywhere in British Columbia can make an application through the same portal, the same phone number, and get the information that they need and submit their homeowner grant application.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for her responses to this. I think that it’s an important opportunity that we’re taking here to ask these questions about how this program is going to be delivered.

Along the same lines as the line of questioning from the member for Peace River South, just wanting to again ask the minister questions around the scalability of the services and the robustness of the services that the provincial government is prepared to provide for this and if there are any additional resources that are being put into place. We have seen — and the member for Peace River South noted it, and certainly my constituency staff are noting it, from the number of people that are contacting us — the delivery of some of these programs and grants that British Columbians have been applying for has not been as smooth as I think the government would have liked it to be.

I want to just make sure that the provincial government is resourcing, and your ministry is resourcing, appropriately for scale. I think it’s one thing to say residents living in regional districts have been able to do this and that we’ve got some experience. It’s another thing to say that all homeowners in British Columbia will be using this service.

I just want to make sure that we’ve taken the appropriate measures to ensure that we’ve got the right kind of bandwidth, the right number of people answering phones, and that when British Columbians are given this task of changing how they do things, we’re going to be there to be able to provide the support that they need and that it is as easy as is being articulated in your responses previously.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Certainly, with a change in a program, there is an expectation that there will be an increase in call volumes, and staff are prepared for additional call volumes. They’ll certainly be available. The system is open to apply now. I could read the link into the record again, if the member is interested: gov.bc.ca/homeownergrant.

What’s really interesting — and I think is helpful for the member to know — is that with the speculation and vacancy tax, we process 1.6 million applications. That gets adjudicated and moved through the system online. With this program, it’s 1.1 million. So there’s certainly comfort with that kind of volume among staff.

Given that it is a new program, they are going to be looking at additional resources to help with the phones and help people adjust to a new system. I recognize that they’ll be needing a bit of extra support, but they’re also confident that they’ll be able to address the needs of homeowners.

A. Olsen: Has the minister and the Ministry of Finance put in place any backup contingencies for if the call volumes and the…? Recognizing that there is quite a large window, but it is important. This is the time to ask these questions — that the ministry has put in place any contingencies in case they’re overwhelmed and that there’s a fallback plan to be able to provide this service for British Columbians.

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for his question.

Given that we’ve run some very significant programs — the biggest programs we’ve ever run — and there have been, absolutely, hiccups and challenges with that, I certainly appreciate the query. Staff do have a backup for added support. There is a contingency that internal resources will be seconded in order to provide additional supports, should they be necessary. That’s what we’ve done, certainly, over the last number of months. So people are well prepared, going forward with this new program.

[5:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: This is…. Well, I don’t want to get into counting, because I might miss some. But there are now a number of different times in which a homeowner or a property owner is now registering with the provincial government and the provincial government is collecting information from British Columbians about the properties that they own or that they have interest in.

I’m wondering if the ministry has considered streamlining that process in order to remove some of the burden. I know that we regularly get concerns raised by our constituents with respect to the speculation and vacancy tax, as an example, and now the homeowner grant is coming to the province.

Is there any work being done within the Ministry of Finance to streamline that process for British Columbians where perhaps the number of times that we’re requesting information can be all brought into one place and easily determined what programs they’re eligible for or entitled to — depending on which language you want to use? Is there any of that work being done within the ministry? It seems that we’re now setting up a second process for this.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question.

Government, I want to stress, is always looking for ways to streamline for citizens, always looking for ways to make it more efficient for people so that when we ask for information, we only need it once. These two programs — the member had mentioned the speculation and vacancy tax — are very different programs. The speculation and vacancy tax, when you get your form for 2021, looks back to 2020, and your homeowner grant you get for 2021 is for 2021. They’re each looking in different directions.

I certainly appreciate the member addressing and asking the question about streamlining. I think it’s really important that we continue to do that. I certainly look forward to ongoing conversations about ways that we can be more efficient, which not only saves staff time and resource time but also time for citizens as well.

A. Olsen: I think of a number of different ways that the government collects and holds information about citizens and residents and property owners and all of the different variables. I just think of it in terms of a database that could be used for multiple different purposes, whether it’s looking forward or backward. It’s just information being held that could be applied to different programs.

If a resident or a property owner, constituent, citizen of B.C., had access to their profile and they could have in front of them all of the different programs and services that the British Columbia government has that pertain to them, they could do it all in one place. It’s not, I think, lost on anybody in this House that with every new process we put in place, not only are there the administrative challenges of delivering that service, but there are also the financial realities of putting that structure in place.

What it sounds like is a separate structure for one program. I’m not trying to suggest that these programs are the same. They’re not. However, the B.C. government takes actions based on the information that they gather about these programs.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m thinking we’re setting up, probably to be more efficient, a system where the provincial government houses the data collection of this. I’m just wondering what the cost is to setting up or making the current system…. The minister has already noted that the provincial government does this already, to some extent. What is the cost of expanding this service to British Columbians?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about costing. Any specific costing…. I invite the member to join us in estimates, because I think that’s where we’re going to have that discussion. I look forward to that. But I want to assure the member that the Ministry of Finance is leveraging existing resources to centralize this information.

T. Shypitka: Just a couple quick questions here. The minister was recently quoted saying that there will be “rigour to the homeowner grant administration to help fight tax evasion, reduce fraud and ensure people are paying the right amount of tax.”

Can the minister tell me how will this new process do that? What has local government not been doing that the government now is going to be doing?

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for his question.

Currently, when municipalities process the homeowner grant, they don’t talk to each other — or share information, of course — as two separate municipalities. So there certainly is the risk, because they don’t have access to each other’s information, that someone could claim the homeowner grant in two different municipalities. There are limited ways of trying to sort that out, because you’re only eligible for one home.

The other information I’m anticipating that the member might be asking is…. Through the social insurance number, we can confirm eligibility requirements like citizenship and permanent residency. So it’s just a way to make sure that those that are eligible are taking the opportunity to make use of the homeowner grant. That’s who it’s for.

[6:00 p.m.]

These are things that we can put in place by centralizing it. We can make sure that eligibility requirements are being met and that we don’t have people taking advantage of the fact that we have an uncentralized system, where we have 162 different local governments administering the same program.

T. Shypitka: Well, the minister said some interesting things: sharing information, streamlining and tying information together via a SIN number.

The minister may know that the SIN number is a federally issued number, a personal identification number for residents. That number’s purpose is not as an identifier for tax evasion or fraud. It’s for benefits and employment through Canada. Using this identifier for tax evasion and fraud streamlining and bringing information together may be in contravention to what the SIN number is intended for in the first place.

Can the minister tell me what her thoughts are about using a SIN number as an identifier?

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Chair, I want to make sure that the member understands and appreciates that the social insurance number is a common identifier for many tax programs — not just for the income tax program but, certainly, for the property tax deferment program and for the speculation tax program. This is not an unusual component of making sure of eligibility for programs and using it to identify which citizens or permanent residents are making applications.

T. Shypitka: Well, that’s interesting. We’ve seen this process in place for many years. Regional districts, local governments, municipalities and B.C. Assessment have never used a SIN number to identify.

I’m seeing this shift now to going over to government, and I’m wondering: is this the main thrust of how you’re going to eliminate fraud or — from your quote here — reduce fraud and ensure that people are paying the right amount of tax? Is this what government is saying is going to be the magic bullet that’s going to prevent this?

Hon. S. Robinson: I guess the short answer to the member is yes. It was a commitment made in 2018, in the 30-point housing plan: to reduce fraud and tax evasion. We certainly have recognized that there have been some challenges. We want to make sure — I know that British Columbians want to make sure — that the homeowner grant program is protected. That’s of value.

[6:05 p.m.]

I know that the member opposite has certainly canvassed that, and it deserves to be protected. It really helps families. It helps seniors. It helps people with disabilities stay in their home. It’s a really important part of what we have here in British Columbia. But I know that British Columbians also want to make sure that those who are truly eligible are the ones who benefit from that. It’s important that we do reduce fraud and tax evasion in a program like this, and I can’t imagine anyone not being happy with that.

The Chair: Kootenay East, wait one moment. We’ll deal with Peace River South and come back to you.

M. Bernier: I appreciate everybody’s flexibility, as well as Hansard. I thank them for understanding and being so flexible as we’re trying to manoeuvre through this too. We’ll go back to the member for Kootenay East.

I guess all I was going to ask in that same line to the minister. The minister keeps referring to the fact that we need to look at stopping fraud and curbing fraud now. There’s no argument, I don’t think, from anybody in the House for that. But when the minister keeps referencing it back to the homeowner grant, there must be some data. How many people have actually claimed the homeowner grant twice and committed fraud, as the minister would put it, that we’re now going to be able to stop?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. We estimate that it’s about 3 percent, based on some audit samples.

T. Shypitka: I just wanted to go back to this SIN number issue here.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands kind of alluded to it. He looked at retrieving or collecting personal information from people. It would be great to probably have it all in one place, to have access to a resident’s profile, as he put it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that don’t want their personal information accessible to others.

I guess the question to the minister is: how does the ministry or the government plan to store that personal information?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. The storage of personal information is absolutely critical. We will be storing this information in our tax administration system, where we currently store other tax information.

T. Shypitka: This information that will be collected by the homeowner’s grant will be then put into a general pot of information of B.C. residents. Is that what I’m trying to understand here?

Hon. S. Robinson: Right now government collects tax information. British Columbians pay taxes here. So there’s a repository. I know, shocking — absolutely shocking.

There’s a repository of information about taxpayers, about what they pay and about who they are, whether or not they’re married or have dependents. All of that information is currently stored in a system, and that is very much recognized as sensitive information and very well protected.

The intent with this additional information through the homeowner grant is to incorporate that into that system so that that’s treated as tax information is currently treated.

T. Shypitka: Just a couple of logistic questions here to finish it off. This is just my understanding. Why is the 65-plus grant not happening this year? Streamlined through government that you’re proposing with the home­owner’s grant?

Hon. S. Robinson: Can I just ask the member to clarify? I didn’t quite hear what he was referring to.

T. Shypitka: There’s a 65-plus grant that is available, and apparently it’s not being part of this. That will have to be paid locally, if I am understanding this correctly? Or maybe I’m getting some bad information.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to double-check. I think he’s referring to the seniors portion of the homeowner’s grant, and there’s no change to that.

T. Shypitka: All right, no change, but it will be paid the same way, I’m assuming, as what the homeowner’s grant eligibility will be for.

The last question here. What happens to prepaid taxes? For example, a lot of people will pay their taxes ahead of time. Now most of these people have their taxes already paid in advance. What happens now? Is there a reconciliation with the local governments to pay government? How does that work?

Hon. S. Robinson: There will be no change.

T. Shypitka: Sorry, the minister might not have understood my question. There are people who have prepaid the municipalities their allotment for their taxes, their personal taxes. How will that affect their homeowner’s grant if they overpaid their taxes?

Hon. S. Robinson: If they’ve overpaid, really, then the municipality would have to either credit the account or give them a refund. It’s how it currently operates as well. So when I say there’s no change, there’s no change to what an overpayment looks like when you have paid and then claim your grant. It’s the same process.

[6:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Last question. We’ve heard a lot about how fair this is going to be for B.C. residents. Did the government ever consider, perhaps, a hybrid solution, especially for the first year, where those who wish to participate online can do so. Those who may not have the means or the transportation or whatever it is can do it the old-fashioned way and just go down to their local city hall?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked if we’d considered a hybrid. That would make things much more complicated, actually.

This is, really, a simple…. It is a transition, for sure. Having two ways to claim the grant makes it much more simple. You can either go online at gov.bc.ca/homeownergrant or call in order to claim your grant. People can still go down to city hall to pay their taxes. They’re still able to do that. I don’t want anyone to think that that wouldn’t be available to them. But they don’t….

In order to claim the homeowner grant, this will be the simplest way to go, rather than doing some sort of hybrid.

T. Shypitka: To sum up, the choice, I guess, is more stringent and not as flexible, especially when people have been doing this for decades. Just to fit them in a box all at one time, especially with people who don’t have the means of information as readily available to them as some people do….

I would choose to argue with the minister on that one. That doesn’t represent an easier platform.

I’ll leave it at that, and I’ll turn it over to the next in line.

The Chair: Does the minister have a response before I call the vote? No.

Interjection.

The Chair: Oh, you have one more?

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Noting the hour, I still have a few minutes. We weren’t quite done on this clause, but I appreciate you trying to move things along.

Actually, just a couple of points through that last discussion that I have. I will say this, somewhat respectfully, if it’s possible. The minister highlights that the government has all this information already. It’s in a safe data bank. I guess they could have used that to put out the COVID recovery grants back in the winter, when we suggested that.

That aside, the minister, though…. I just want to make sure she clarifies this for me, if I understand. I’m really surprised by the number she gave when she mentioned fraud, on an audit, of 3 percent. With my quick math in my head — she’ll correct me if I’m wrong, or her staff will — that’s about 33,000 homeowners.

Is the minister saying there have been approximately…? Again, if my math is right, very quickly doing it, does that mean there are 33,000 people they suspect have been defrauding the government through double homeowner grants? Aside from a rough audit, do they have any other analytical data that would verify that?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member’s math is very good. But I also think, in that number, are some people making mistakes, for example. I think we need to recognize that that would be part of the audit.

The member does raise a really good question. We don’t have good data. So centralization will really help us understand what’s going on so that where people are making mistakes we can correct them, so that people understand what the nature of the program is, so that it’s fair. I think that’s also really important to British Columbians — that it’s fair — and also that we understand what’s going on and how to identify fraud and make sure that we can take corrective action.

M. Bernier: So as the government is going to be able to do all this, does that mean they’ll be able to identify people who qualify who haven’t applied?

[6:20 p.m.]

We’ve talked about people who may be defrauding the system. Again, we all agree that we want to make sure this is streamlined the best for taxpayers, for the province of B.C. and for homeowners to not jeopardize anything going forward.

I’m curious, though, if we can use that data. It came to me just now as we’re talking. If somebody didn’t apply, or maybe if there are people in past years who haven’t applied but who did qualify, will the government now be able to proactively go after people — with letters, emails or whatever information they have on them — to say: “You qualify, and you haven’t…. Don’t forget to”?

Hon. S. Robinson: We need to remember that this is a voluntary program. People do need to make an application. However, the centralization that’s being proposed here creates a real opportunity to make sure that people get the full grant amount.

For example, a senior makes an application — they do it online — and it will ask for their birth year. So it will automatically give them not just a regular grant but the seniors’ grant. Also, if they’re not eligible but their spouse is, it’ll automatically pull that up so that they get the full eligibility, whereas in the current system, they may not know that they can do that, so they may not put the X in the right box and not take advantage of the full grant.

The other thing I think is important to note is that there are certainly going to be some audit functions, and we’ll be able to go back six years if someone hasn’t taken full advantage of the grant. There’ll be an opportunity to, I guess, backdate and make sure that they get the full benefit of the grant they’d have been entitled to if they hadn’t known that they could make the application for the full grant. That will keep people whole in that respect.

M. Bernier: We’ve talked a lot about, I guess, a little bit of extra workload, to go along with some of the other members of the House that were speaking earlier — for Saanich North and the Islands, for instance. I’m just curious, then. If there’s going to be all of this extra work coming in, has there been a determination…?

I know the minister said to bring it up in estimates, but obviously, the bill is in front of us. There must be an opportunity…. The minister must have some idea or some advice that’s been given of, maybe, extra staff that’ll need to be hired — or a cost implication to the ministry and government — to take this in.

As the minister herself said, rightfully so, this has been, for many municipalities — most, in fact — a bit of a burden. As a former UBCM executive person myself, as well, the minister well knows that a lot of municipalities considered this a downloading, in some ways. You don’t get to hear of uploading, very often, back to government, but that can come with a cost as well. I’m just curious what determination has been placed for that.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for his question. As I’d said earlier, the Ministry of Finance is able to leverage existing resources to centralize this information. We have a significantly well-experienced complement of staff who recognize that they can use their existing resources. We can get into details around estimates if the member wants to get specific costing. At this point, there is certainly recognition, with the ease of online, of encouraging all of that online application. It’ll be way more efficient and easier to manage.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.