Orders of the Day

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

On clause 24 (continued).

Hon. S. Robinson: Over the break, I had a little chance to reflect on my previous response. I just want to provide a bit more clarity. I don’t know if it was as clear as it could have been.

The member had asked me, as the minister, about government collecting information and the purpose for the collection. I want to clarify that, while we might share aggregate data to help us understand in terms of policy development, we cannot share personal information that we collect without the legal authority to do so. The amendments in Bill 6 do not change authority for sharing information. I want to make sure that the member understood that.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I almost understand it. But the personal information the minister is referring to, is that…? Before lunch, we were talking about the sharing of data in two different categories. One was within the ministry itself — within different branches of the Ministry of Finance. Then the other area was between the ministry and the municipalities. Can she just clarify for me which one she was referring to?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Within the ministry itself.

M. Bernier: Just before we move off this section, I’m trying to get a couple of things clarified here. Are municipalities still applying for the grants? If the municipalities are applying for the grants as a whole, is the administration actually fully centralized?

I guess where I’m going with this is…. We have been starting to hear from a few municipalities — I even heard from one over lunch, as well — with some of the concerns around a couple of different avenues. The government is taking on a big portion of it through the application process. But there are still some administration components that are required within the municipalities themselves. So it’s not fully centralized. One of them, and I’ll get to it a little later, is even around the collection of penalties.

We talked about that a bit. But again, the application process is through the government now. If there’s a penalty applied, is that going to be the responsibility of the municipality themselves to be following up, or the administrator, under this act?

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

M. Bernier: Where I’m referring to, then, is more…. I guess it’s not so much penalties. It would be the absence of somebody applying for the act. They don’t meet the deadline for the grant. They do or they don’t.

Let me just explain it to you this way. Let’s go into the process, then, if the minister can help me with this, for people that are out there. I’ll use simplistic numbers, not actual grant numbers. Somebody has received a tax notice from their community for $4,000 for property taxes for the calendar year of 2021. They’re eligible as a homeowner for, we’ll say, a $1,000 grant. When they go into city hall, what cheque are they writing to city hall on July 1? We both know the answer, but we want to make sure this is clear.

When we assume somebody has applied now for the homeowner’s grant — the $1,000 that we’ll say they’re eligible for — are they going into city hall and writing a cheque for $3,000, or are they writing a cheque for $4,000 and getting rebated back $1,000?

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

M. Bernier: If they’re writing the cheque for $3,000…. Again, I’m making this simplistic, I hope. At the time, they’re writing the cheque for $3,000. In essence, the $1,000 grant that they applied for to the government…. The government will be sending a cheque, a transfer, to the municipality for that $1,000, correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: Correct.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I appreciate the minister indulging me here as we’re just trying to make sure this is somewhat simplified, I guess, using rounded numbers.

I guess the concern, then, for a municipality would be: what if, as I think this through, somebody comes in two days before the deadline and says that they applied for the homeowner’s grant, so they write a cheque for $3,000 to the municipality, and then it’s found out afterwards that they actually applied incorrectly or didn’t apply at all, and there was some confusion in this?

I used the wrong term earlier when I said penalty. Who, then, goes after the homeowner to say: “Actually, you still owe $1,000”? Is it going to be the municipality now re­sponsible to go after the homeowner to claim that money — my assumption is — or is it going to be the government?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, nothing has changed here, so just as has always been the case, the municipality would be having to connect with the homeowner to collect on the taxes that they still owe.

M. Bernier: This goes back to, I guess, where I was going with the penalty portion of it, because if you pay your taxes late, past the deadline of July 2, there is a penalty imposed by the municipality. I’m assuming the minister will say, then, if somebody accidentally filled out their homeowner’s grant incorrectly and there was still a sum, whatever that sum being, that’s owed to the municipality, then there could be a penalty imposed to the outstanding sum. Now that’s the municipality’s role to collect that penalty and the additional sum, since it might not have been caught by the ministry — incorrectly applying for the homeowner’s grant.

Hon. S. Robinson: We, as the ones responsible for the homeowner grant, communicate with the municipality when the homeowner grant application was made, to make sure that that is accurate information. So if the homeowner applied for it on June 30, then certainly the municipality would…. We would communicate with the municipality that the grant application was made in a timely fashion and no penalties should be applied.

If the homeowner makes an error, then certainly, as a province, we would work with the homeowner to make sure that their grant application is accurate and communicate that with them. But just like now, if somebody makes a homeowner grant application that they’re not eligible for and, subsequently, they’re late paying their taxes, then that is up to the municipality about whether or not to pursue the penalty fees that are related with the late tax remittance.

M. Bernier: One of the concerns along this line that I’m hearing from municipalities is…. Human nature being the way it is, and although the minister acknowledged yesterday by reading out, numerous times, the website — that people can go on now…. And no, I have not yet, even though she offered the opportunity for me to do. The majority of people, for whatever reasons, go in, in the last couple of days prior to a deadline. So there’s where municipalities have mentioned to me those concerns around: who is the one truly going to be put in the position now to go after people for something that may or may not have been done inaccurately — by accident? So just using that example in the past again….

I know in my riding, too, that we’d have some seniors that would come in one or two days before the deadline. They’d go to the counter with their piece of paper that has the little tab at the bottom. They check off the two or three things in order to qualify for the homeowner’s grant while they’re at the counter. It gets stamped, and then they pay their taxes, at which point somebody is right there telling them: “Actually, you filled out the wrong one. You should have filled out here.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Now it’s going to be online. So one of the concerns that I’m hearing not only from some of these people — again, municipalities — is if somebody does walk in a day or two before and says, “Well, I just filled it out online yesterday,” we’re now taking their word for it. I’m assuming — and Minister, correct me if I’m wrong — this is not going to be as real time as we would hope. If I apply this morning, the municipality is not getting notified that afternoon that I applied for the homeowner’s grant, correctly or incorrectly.

Therein lie some of the challenges. I canvassed that a little earlier during the debate, around the flexibility within the ministry and the municipality in the first year. Obviously, we hope this…. I mean, I think we’re supporting the centralization idea, but I think it is fair to acknowledge and say that there are some people who have concerns in this first year. That doesn’t necessarily mean they will act on those and work earlier to apply for the homeowner’s grant.

Then there are municipalities, as well, that are saying: “Well, if this is truly centralized, now all of a sudden we’re in the position where we have to ask the people, when they come to the counter: ‘Did you apply for your homeowner’s grant, yes or no? Did you do it correctly?’ I guess we’re taking their word for it.” Now all of a sudden if they find out it was wrong, the municipality is the one that’s put in the position, with staff, to now go after people — whether it’s for penalties, on titles and that. That’s just one of the things that I flag on that.

Again, I guess, to the minister. The municipalities are still put in the front, dealing with the people. I believe I heard the answer, a couple of days ago, that there’s not going to be much flexibility in year one. Is it fair to say, then, that the municipalities are still, really, at the front, dealing with this issue?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, this is a property tax program. This is how municipalities get their revenues. It’s their main source of revenue. This is a tax for them to do their operating budgets and their capital budgets. It is based on that, and they have been collecting it. They will always, I would imagine, continue to be the face of it.

As I was listening to the member’s question, I was thinking: “Well, you know, in my community in Coquitlam, a lot of people are…. It’s a lot online now.” Many municipalities are already doing this online. So a lot of folks are very much familiar with an online process.

Also, there are some that do…. We have a quick mail drop in the underground parking in Coquitlam, where you can just drop in, instead of having to stand by the desk and get the stamp. Because people would wait for hours, which was inefficient and problematic — to wait for hours in front of a counter. You can drop off your taxes and tick off all the boxes.

Like the member suggested, there are those — not me — that do it last minute. God bless you for living life on the edge. They would drop it off July 1, because they’d make it by the deadline of July 2. By the time that gets processed, days have passed as well. You know, there is recognition about what comes in at what time. Then there’s the process that happens in order to reconcile all the pieces. That’s certainly going to happen, going forward, as well — this idea of reconciling.

Certainly, in our consultations with local governments and in our consultation with UBCM, which the member knows full well, they are very supportive of this. It’s seen as a release, by local governments, from a piece of administration that they’ve had to do for many years. I didn’t hear anyone screaming that they wanted to hang on to this very important program. We know that local governments will continue to work with us to make sure that it rolls out seamlessly.

We have everything in place. There has been lots of work that has gone on in order to put this together so that it can meet the needs of citizens as easily and as seamlessly as possible.

Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

M. Bernier: Again, some of this stuff is just technicalities, I guess, in some ways, but it’s an opportunity, also, to put a few things out there — more for information as well. And I apologize. On section 28, I’ll have a question, but I just want to go to the minister’s last comments, and then give her an opportunity as well.

[1:50 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll do this. One of the other concerns — again, I know it’ll be an easy answer for the minister to do this — is people who have their taxes paid for through their financial institution. We haven’t really covered that one off yet, so for clarity, I’ll give the minister an opportunity to explain that, the way the municipality notifies a financial institution.

Some people that I’ve been hearing from are worried that now this is another example. The bank is going to pay the whole thing owing, and then they have to figure out how to get a rebate on the homeowner’s grant. I’m pretty sure the minister knows the answer to it. It’ll give her an answer to put on the record.

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

M. Bernier: Just for clarity for those watching at home. Things haven’t changed, so maybe I’ll just mention…. That means that the bank will be notified of the taxes owing minus the homeowner’s grant. If the person has already applied and the municipality has been notified, the bank will be notified accordingly of owings. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize that each financial institution will have their own process, so to list that all out here is probably not going to be particularly helpful. There’s nothing here with these amendments that changes any of that portion of how people pay their taxes. This is really just around where the application is made for the grant. It’s made to the province, and the province communicates to the municipality. That’s where the reconciling will happen. The way people pay their taxes doesn’t change at all.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I might have worded my points maybe a little bit confusingly, but that was the gist of where we were trying to go, I think, just for people who had concerns out there of how this was going to happen. As you know, so many people out there might just have monetary amounts deducted and put into an account and then paid for by the bank. But it is still their responsibility, we all acknowledge, to apply for whatever grants they’re entitled to under the present system, as the minister was saying, which is not changing.

Section 28, if I’m understanding this also, is amending language to enable for municipalities to pay a grant amount. Can the minister give an example of when a mu­nicipality is paying the grant amount? I’m trying to recon­cile that.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the legalese that is used to write these is really not always as straightforward, so I appreciate the member asking for an example, because I think that helps everybody and all of those that are absolutely riveted by what is occurring here today. They are also really excited to find out what this looks like.

When the province approves a homeowner grant, it communicates to the municipality that it’s been ap­proved, and it gets applied to the property taxes. But if there’s a credit on the balance, this provision allows…. The municipality may refund the owner if they have overpaid their taxes.

M. Bernier: Just to follow that train of thought, to help here, then. Obviously, we live in a different world sometimes than what’s happening out there for everybody else. When the grant has been applied for, the government.… Now, I don’t want to say owes. But that monetary payment then goes to the municipality.

When does that get transferred? And does the minister have an approximation, let’s just say in last year’s budget or something…? What is the cost to government to run this program?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, speak to the fact that the homeowner grant really, operationally, counts as a reduction in the school tax payment. It reduces the burden that municipalities have to pay to the province. It’s sort of just a shift.

[2:00 p.m.]

I also want to recognize — and I want to recognize staff for recognizing — the opportunity to leverage the processes that we already use for rural taxes. The system is already set up. It’s already there. It already works well. It’s just really expanding it to the other municipalities, so the systems that support doing this already exist. I look forward to conversation or questions in estimates when we get to it, if the member is looking for specific details.

Clauses 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

On clause 32.

The Chair: Thank you to the folks on the screen for showing your white cards — appreciate that too.

M. Bernier: It just goes to show how riveting this is, and that our colleagues are all paying attention. That’s great to see.

On clause 32, this is really around the auditing, repayments, reviews. So I’m just kind of curious, if the minister can let me know: with this expansion, are there going to be more FTEs, full-time staff, that are going to be hired to help with auditing and through this process?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I had said before, there had certainly been audits previously. So we are leveraging an existing system. I look forward to budget debate and to the estimates debate. I am keeping track of all of the questions that I’m expecting from the member opposite, so that I have some really good, robust answers for him.

M. Bernier: Well, I’m looking forward to those answers. It’s unfortunate it’s about two months later than normal. But I am looking forward to those answers, as we get to the budget process.

During the process with this, the minister has said that this is going to relieve a lot of…. Maybe burden is the wrong word. But from a local government perspective, it should free up some time. It’s taking it out of local government, putting it into the provincial government.

The UBCM, as the minister has rightfully said, has been, as an organization, supportive, even though there’s some municipalities that are questioning it at this time. But we’ll go through that process. In those discussions, was there any…? Since we’re talking about the benefit to local government, were there any specifics that were highlighted by the UBCM around what this will actually save local governments, or any monetary assistance that this actually has to local governments?

Hon. S. Robinson: With 162 different municipalities, I know that the member can appreciate that some really rely heavily on walk-in — you know, walking to the front counter, as the member has been talking about. Others relied more heavily on mail-in, yet others had already streamlined to online. So it’s really hard to compare and say: “Globally, this is what the impacts were to local governments.”

Some will benefit, certainly, more than others. But overall, there was considerable support for doing this — recognition that it makes life within local governments a little bit easier, removes a burden from them in terms of tracking and monitoring.

[2:05 p.m.]

There was certainly support from UBCM, as the organization…. As well as many of the local governments, of course, that see this as a relief of some burden that they have been operating under for many years.

M. Bernier: I know it’s not necessarily within, obviously, the purview of the minister or the government for that. I was just more canvassing on the conversational aspect that the minister might have had with the UBCM or other local governments, to give an idea more for those listening or taxpayers, that they can say: “Yes, I see the benefit to this.”

The minister has said that there are no more full-time employees at this time, for the administration part. So it was more saying: “Look, this is not just a convenience to you. But is it going to be a savings to taxpayers?” Obviously, we’ll leave that up to local government and the UBCM to discuss that any further if they so wish.

Under this section, as well, we’re talking about the audits and the audit power and stuff that is coming in. What prompted the need, I’ll say then, for government to expand a review of its auditing authority, or more reviews to take place?

Hon. S. Robinson: The only expansion here that is in this legislation is the ability to provide a refund if the homeowner is entitled to receive the additional grant and making sure that they’re eligible for that.

M. Bernier: Well, in 2018, the government did…. I’m trying to remember the actual name of it. The B.C. government contracted a review around the homeowner’s grant, if I remember correctly, in 2018. It sought, like for audit grants and paid, looking at the program, from what I remember…. Was there work done within the ministry at that time, then, that helped frame, as well, the ideas around putting this bill forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m wondering if the member could clarify which review he’s referring to. I’m not 100 percent sure which one he’s talking about.

M. Bernier: Through the reading I’ve done, it’s my understanding that the B.C. government contracted a review of the homeowner’s grant program that sought, around the audits, specifically audit grants paid. I’m not sure if that gives enough information to the minister for her staff, because if a review is done around the auditing process, like under this section for grants, I’m just asking, if that is the case, if that work was done. If so, was that part of the information to put this bill together? If I’m incorrect, the minister can tell me so.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. There was a small, short-term contract to analyze the data for the homeowner grant. If the member recalls, the other day we were talking about, you know, was there a percentage of grants where we were seeing, as part of an audit, whether or not it was hitting the mark. There was 3 percent — sort of the best estimate at the time that came out of that work. It prompted government to say we need to find a better way to deliver this grant program for homeowners that would better hit the mark. So it was based on that analysis.

Clause 32 approved.

On clause 33.

M. Bernier: So we’re still talking about a lot of the audits and repayments and that they’re built in within this bill. Under this section 33, though, one of my concerns, or questions, I guess I should say, is…. Well, first, will there be a new office established to handle, specifically, the audit process? Or is that going to all be done within the ministry as well?

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

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

Can the minister confirm if all applicants for the grant — they’re required to repay the grants — must also pay interest on that grant? I’ll leave it at that for now.

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

M. Bernier: Is there interest charged if the error was incorrect through administration here within government, now that it’s going to be brought in here?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: If government denied a grant in error, then we certainly have the ability to fix that as well.

M. Bernier: What’s the process for an individual homeowner around appeal, then, if there is a discrepancy between the government, through the grant process, and the homeowner? Mistakes might happen. Either a homeowner applies for the grant. The government challenges that. There’s an appeal process on what the eligibility is. Where does somebody appeal? How will that process work?

Hon. S. Robinson: The appeal process hasn’t changed. It’s the same. So they can always make the appeal, which is to the minister.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

M. Bernier: I can just try to flip to 34, because I’m sure I’ll come up with some questions there. So this is around the recovery of amounts owing. What is the rate? What’s the anticipation?

We talked about fraud earlier. The minister talked about 3 percent. Possibly 33,000, we were just saying. We know that’s just an estimate, through a small audit. I’m just curious, though, on the recovery of outstanding moneys or penalties. What kind of rate of disentitlement is there out there or non-compliance with this? What’s the work that will need to be done or the money that, through the ministry, will have to be sought after?

Hon. S. Robinson: So if a homeowner is disentitled…. And this is how it works right now with rural homeowners, so it’s not a new system per se. It’s just that it’s new in applying to those that live in municipalities. It’s been a system that exists currently.

If someone is disentitled, they receive a notice of disentitlement. They have 30 days to pay. If they don’t pay, then the tax amount gets added back onto the tax roll of the municipality. So the municipality is provided with notice, and it gets added on there.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Was this a huge issue, and has it happened quite regularly, then? Obviously, we talked about these audits that are being done. Is that what also led to government wanting to have more say, centralizing of this?

Hon. S. Robinson: The very question that the member asks is the very essence of why we’re centralizing. We’ve not been able to identify if people were ineligible, because it was 162-plus different systems. It was hard to identify where people were ineligible. This will help us to understand and help us to correct information, if we need, to make sure people understand their eligibility requirements. We’ll certainly be keeping track of how often and what the challenges are going forward, but we expect that centralizing will help make sure that entitlements are used appropriately.

M. Bernier: The minister said if there was a disentitlement, the homeowner is given notice and 30 days to pay it back. What happens if they don’t?

Hon. S. Robinson: The municipality is informed of this, that they haven’t paid it back, and it gets applied to the tax roll going forward.

M. Bernier: It goes into the tax roll. Now that means it goes back, again, like we were saying, to the municipality. But under this section, there’s a whole section now around liens and liens on properties. Is that new? Is that something that’s been added? Or was that in the previous act?

Hon. S. Robinson: The lien is a new provision. When notice of disentitlement is not recognized and we don’t receive payment in 30 days and it goes on the tax roll, if the house has been sold, for example, in the interim, we would need to use tools for collection. That’s consistent with other modernized statutes, and that’s what this does here.

M. Bernier: This one here came to me from a few different bodies, of course, because it is a new section in the act, and it’s quite a large piece that’s been added in around giving extra powers, it looks like, around liens and putting liens on property. How frequently does the minister anticipate that that might actually be needed?

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

[2:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, I assume that would be in a perfect world, but obviously, the government doesn’t feel that way. In order to add a lot of legalese and a lot of wording into the act to give them this extra power to be able to do that…. I assume the minister thinks that these extra powers are obviously needed and justified for different reasons.

Can the minister just explain then…? Maybe it’s an unfair question. If the ministry actually has to put a lien on a property, we go back to the whole appeal process. But under this, what I read is that there really is no appeal process. If you’ve gone through, you’ve been notified, and you don’t pay…. Tax rolls. Now there’s a lien on a property for whatever reason. It can create a huge issue around sale of a property or change of a property if there are liens, as the minister would probably acknowledge. What would the process be, then, for somebody to remove that lien once it has been administered by the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I’ve mentioned before, the notice of disentitlement signals to the homeowner that they are not, in fact, eligible for the grant and that now there are moneys owing, and they have 30 days. If they disagree, then they can certainly appeal to the minister and demonstrate that in fact, they are entitled. A decision, of course, would be rendered based on information and evidence that suggests that they are in fact entitled.

There is an appeal mechanism, and if that’s still not recognized, in terms of not recognizing the notice of disentitlement, and a lien is subsequently put on the property, the way to get out of the lien is to pay the amounts owing.

M. Bernier: Is that the same process for the speculation and vacancy tax? If somebody doesn’t agree with the ruling, they just write to the minister?

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

M. Bernier: I’m not sure what advice she was just given by staff, but when the right to appeal…. I’m not trying to be creating an issue on this. This is just more for clarity, because we have a lot of people right now under the speculation and vacancy tax who don’t agree with the definition or ruling that the ministry has applied on them. They seem to be sent in circles all the time, and that’s why things come to us in opposition of: “Where do we send this?” If the minister is saying it’s the same process, I appreciate that. This is more just so people know where…. Under the homeowner’s grant, if there’s disentitlement and a review or a speculation, does it just go to the minister and then she deals with it appropriately?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member is recognizing, in both these instances, there’s legislation that governs, that determines what the rules are and what the thresholds are. That is written in the legislation and adopted by this House.

[2:30 p.m.]

People do have a right to appeal if they believe that they don’t meet that threshold or that they’re somehow captured in something that isn’t in the legislation. There is that opportunity for that. It’s right there for both of these taxes, in the same manner, which is to appeal to the minister.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

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

Also in this section, it talks about collection. We’ve talked about the different processes in order to gain the grant funds that have maybe been applied for incorrectly and that are owed. In here, it also talks about going to collections.

Somewhere in there through that process — before it would be a lien, I assume — it goes to a collections process. What I’m curious about…. I didn’t see it in here, and the minister can point it out for me. If somebody is sent to collections, is there interest applied, or is the collections just to the outstanding amount that was incorrectly in the grant?

The Chair: Minister.

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

Just like I had said earlier, interest is applied.

M. Bernier: Aside from the interest, does the minister know of any other penalties that could or would be applied in a situation like this?

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

Clauses 34 and 35 approved.

On clause 36.

S. Furstenau: I hope the minister will be understanding. This is the section that says “General,” and I have some general questions. I only have a few.

Filing for the grant occurs in May after property tax assessments have been completed. The eligible threshold for the year was set, for example, on January 5, 2021 — this year — at $1.625 million. Home prices in British Columbia are rising rapidly. Vancouver has just seen a 2.6 percent increase in their price index over the span of a month.

Home prices are expected to increase in the absence of government intervention, so could the minister maybe speak to how this grant will work to account for rapid shifts in market when the eligible threshold is determined months ahead of the filing date?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. Welcome to this riveting discussion that we’re having here. It’s the place to be this afternoon.

I want to remind the member and all the members of the House that assessed values are determined on July 1 of the previous year, and the threshold is based on that. So it’s always looking backward, and that’s the value. The threshold is set on that value, not on the market value in the moment, on the date. It’s a bit of a look behind, and that’s where it’s based out of.

[2:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: That’s very helpful.

My second question is about the implications for data collection at the provincial level, something that we’re always quite interested in, and how much this approach is going to improve tracking of home ownership and tax compliance and how it will connect to the speculation tax and auditing people’s declarations.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s question about data collection. This will certainly help us very much in collecting data for the homeowner grant. We don’t have that data, and that’s part of what this piece of legislation is about, making sure that we understand who is getting the grant and for what. As we canvassed earlier, the estimation of about 3 percent of the grants are being given to ineligible folks. So we want to make sure, just from a fairness perspective.

Right now, as it stands in legislation, it can be used for audits for purpose of the speculation and vacancy tax, and that provision already exists.

S. Furstenau: I’m actually heartened that the minister struggles with the same challenge that I have. Is it “daa-ta”; is it “day-ta”? It depends on the day; it depends on which sentence. I’m in the same boat. I haven’t landed.

Perhaps maybe the Chair could settle it for us.

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

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

Final question to the minister, and this is more of a philosophical political question. Is it fair to assume that in making this change, government is not contemplating any substantive revisions to the homeowner grant, despite some expert appointed panels — the MSP Task Force, the basic income panel — recommending restructuring the homeowners’ grant to make it income-based and more targeted? Are we to assume that this isn’t going to happen under this government?

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

Clauses 36 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the two members opposite for their really thoughtful questions. I think we got to have a very good discussion — I keep wanting to say riveting discussion — about “day-ta” and “daa-ta” and “datum.”

I want to thank them for the time that they’ve taken to read through the bill and be prepared to ask, I think, really good questions to help us, and all British Columbians, understand what we’re trying to accomplish here.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:40 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 9; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I see the member for Penticton, who I believe to be the critic on this bill for the opposition. I will recognize the member for Penticton on clause 1.

[2:45 p.m.]

D. Ashton: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for the opportunity to speak to this, and my peers in the House also. I would also, once again, congratulate the minister on her election and her appointment. I’d encourage her — as I know she has done before, through being a municipal electee — to ensure that she, the government and, actually, all of us in the House do the best for all the citizens of British Columbia and do our best to help those that are elected alongside of us, whether they’re at the regional district, the school boards or municipalities and townships. So thank you.

A first question on section 1. As mentioned first of all by the minister in her comments when she introduced the bill, the amendments in this bill “respond to issues identified following the 2018 general local elections,” and the amendments will “closely align the campaign financing rules for local elections with those established for provincial elections in the Election Act.”

Let me just ask the minister and her staff…. Again, I would like to welcome her staff. May I ask the minister and her staff: how are these issues identified, first of all, before we actually get to section 1 exactly?

Hon. J. Osborne: Mr. Chair, it’s a pleasure to be here and a pleasure to undertake my first time in committee. Thank you to the House for your patience today.

I’d like to introduce the staff that are on the line with me today. They are assistant deputy minister in the local government division, Tara Faganello; Kara Woodward, who is the executive director of the policy, research and legislation branch; and Patrick Glanc, who is the senior policy analyst in the policy, research and legislation branch. I thank the member opposite for the kind words in the introduction there, and let’s take this away.

The issues that these amendments address are issues that arise in a review of the 2018 local elections that took place and the Elections B.C. report, as well as from ministry staff who monitor the media and identify issues that come forward. These are the underpinning of the amendments that we are bringing forward today.

D. Ashton: Of the issues that were identified — I have the elections officials’ report in front of me — and of the recommendations for changes, which ones have not been acted upon, or not brought into alignment with the ministry with this bill? May I ask why they have not been brought forward?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question. There were 11 recommendations that came forward from the Elections B.C. report, and six of these are fully implemented in the amendments being brought forth today. One recommendation was partially implemented.

The recommendations that were not proceeded with, or not fully proceeded with, include around campaign account requirements, investigative tools beyond what are being proposed today, confidentiality of information ob­tained through the course of duties, general order-making powers of the Chief Electoral Officer and third-party-sponsor independence from candidates and electoral organizations. As I said, not all of the recommendations were followed through, for two general reasons.

The first is that the recommendation to align requirements in LECFA with the requirements in the Election Act was not always possible due to the unique nature of local elections and that it would require a significant shift in policy from how LECFA administers campaign financing for local elections.

Second, the amendments proposed to LECFA would create a fallout — all of them — and would create new authorities for the Chief Electoral Officer that don’t yet exist under the Election Act. Since LECFA typically mirrors the authorities that are established under the Election Act, it doesn’t implement them first. That is why.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister. I do note, regarding LECFA, that the Chief Electoral Officer has stated that the officer has such authority for provincial elections under the Election Act. It would give him a greater ability and more administrative fairness. Is he stating, may I ask, that he disagrees with what you have proposed, as of what you just stated? Or am I not able to catch up to exactly — and I apologize — what you have said, the reasons why you haven’t included his recommendation for LECFA?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. I’ll note that the recommendation for general order-making authority is not consistent with similar powers vested in the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under LECFA.

I will say that, at this point, the recommendation is there, and we are always going to keep open to considering and working with our partners in improving the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, improving the administration of local elections and, again, just ensuring the kind of transparency and accountability that we know British Columbians are looking for. I look forward to working with the member opposite, and with other partners, in this.

D. Ashton: To the minister, thank you for that comment. I do look forward to working together. As I said in my brief summation at the front, I think we have to represent all of the citizens of British Columbia, especially with the rules that are changing on a continual basis.

One of the other ones that he made note of specifically was cyberthreats and electoral integrity. Having just come through a provincial election, we’re all exposed to tweets and chat boxes and things on Facebook — some stretching the truth in more ways than one. Plus, where everything else happens today — I’m not that computer-literate — I know there are a lot of things that are flying around on the Internet these days.

Can I ask, Mr. Chair, why the minister and ministry did not look at, maybe, some more effective administration to address some of these issues that have taken place, not only provincially but also municipally and through school boards?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question. The report that the member opposite refers to is the May 2020 report that came forward. The recommendations were directed towards the Attorney General, my colleague sitting to the left of me here, and to changes that are required in the Election Act as well. Since LECFA follows the Election Act, we are still actively considering this. I will be working with my colleague on this in the months to come. I very much look forward to that.

Also, I just want to recognize that the member is making the inference, too, about how technology is changing rapidly in this world. Indeed, that is the case, and it is incumbent on us to consider that. One of the changes that we are bringing forward today, in the amendments, is around the role that digital communications play. One of the amendments we are bringing forward is allowing Elections B.C. to compel online platforms to produce records on advertising — a small but important step towards the acknowledgment of that changing technological world.

D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the minister for those comments. To herself and to the Attorney General, I do hope we keep an eye on it. As the use of technology and the use of a lot of these online functions increases, I can assure everybody that there will be more and more issues being brought forward, especially at election time.

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

[3:00 p.m.]

Election advertising during the campaign period is partly defined in 1(a)(i) as “a communication that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or an elector organization that is endorsing a candidate, including a communication that takes a position on an issue with which the candidate or elector organization is associated.”

The definition of election advertising during the pre-campaign period is partly defined in (1)(b)(i) as “a communication that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or an elector organization that is endorsing a candidate.”

My question is: why does the pre-campaign definition not include “including a communication that takes a position on an issue with which the candidate or electoral organization is associated”?

Hon. J. Osborne: This question relates to issues advertising, I believe. In this case, we remain consistent. The amendments do not address this because they remain consistent with the Election Act. We don’t regulate this with consideration to freedom-of-expression issues.

D. Ashton: That’s all on section 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Ashton: On section 2, can the minister elaborate on what is meant by “on a commercial basis”?

Hon. J. Osborne: In this case, we refer to advertising undertaken on a commercial basis, meaning that a person is paid to undertake activities such as canvassing or mailing — non-volunteer, a person that is paid.

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

Hon. J. Osborne: Texting is a venue or a method of transmission, so if a person is paid to do this, then yes, it is captured.

D. Ashton: The reason I asked that was that it says in the act, section 7(2)(d) is explaining that election advertising does not include “the transmission of an expression by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on the internet, by telephone or by text messaging, of his or her personal views.”

[3:05 p.m.]

Again I come back. There seem to be so many opportunities these days online that I would just ask again that government does keep an eye on this. This is changing on a continual basis.

I have nothing further on sections 2 or 3.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

D. Ashton: Similar to my clarification in section 2, does election advertising for assent voting on a commercial basis also include text messaging, under section 4?

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

D. Ashton: That’s all on section 4. We could jump to section 16.

Clauses 4 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

D. Ashton: For the purposes of requiring at least 50 electors of a jurisdiction as part of the registration process, can an elector be a member of one or more electoral organizations?

Hon. J. Osborne: The rule regarding 50 members of an electoral organization already exists under the Local Government Act, and yes, you may be a member of more than one electoral organization.

D. Ashton: How can an electoral organization be deregistered if it promotes candidates or values that are contrary to those accepted by British Columbians?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The act doesn’t have provisions to deregister an electoral organization based on an issue or on its platform. This would be a freedom of expression consideration.

D. Ashton: Then who has the authority, or is there authority, to deregister an electoral organization?

Hon. J. Osborne: Elections B.C. has the authority to deregister an electoral organization based on the requirements of the act.

D. Ashton: Chair, I’m fine until section 22.

Clauses 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

D. Ashton: I think, Minister, it comes underneath this section, but the amount applicable that is allowed for a donation…. Could you just tell me what that is at this point in time, please?

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

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

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes.

[3:15 p.m.]

D. Ashton: If memory serves me correctly, though, I thought — with the cost of inflation, from the last election — it was $1,254, or something like that. That’s what I was just curious about — if both the totals would be the same for the maximum contribution.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, it is $1,200 and an inflationary adjustment. We can get back to the member with the exact figure.

D. Ashton: That is fine for section 22 at this time. But a question on 23.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

D. Ashton: It’s regarding advertising through an individual or organization basis. I think it will fit underneath this. Sometimes individuals take out advertising as an individual supporting a campaign candidate or not supporting a campaign candidate. Does that fit underneath here, and who controls that at this point in time with the changes that are taking place underneath this election act?

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

D. Ashton: My question was for individuals. It’s hap­pened in the past where an individual takes upon the liberty themselves to put an advertisement out either supporting or not supporting a candidate. Does that fit underneath this section? Who is the authority over doing that? I’m assuming it’s Elections B.C., but I’m not positive. Just for my knowledge.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: We’re still looking into the answer on the question there. But I will read into the record that the sponsorship contribution or campaign contribution limit for 2021 is $1,239.18.

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

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

D. Ashton: As this section adds up an annual financial reporting requirement of electoral organizations, why hasn’t a similar requirement been made of independent candidates, as it would aid voters to know what donations have been made or have not been made to a particular candidate before election day?

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to why electoral organizations…. The requirement for annual reporting doesn’t apply to large independent campaigns. I’ll start off, maybe, by saying how these amendments all together are creating greater transparency and accountability of the financial activities of elector organizations in between elections.

[3:25 p.m.]

The amendments do focus on the transparency of elector organizations, and they aren’t going to apply to independent campaigns. But in these cases, the existing rules still apply. So for all candidates, the rules around source contributions, around contribution limits, still apply, as does the requirement to disclose expenses and contributions after the election is over.

The rules that we’re proposing are different from what they were previously. It is an amendment. There are a number of changes, which if the member opposite would like me to go into, I certainly can.

Perhaps I will close by saying one of the reasons why independent campaigns are not being considered at this time is because there are over 1,600 different independent elections that take place during a local election. The amount of administration and requirements for that would be challenging. That’s one of the reasons why they aren’t considered at this time.

D. Ashton: A question, a follow-up. Why didn’t the minister and her staff include a provision for real-time donation disclosures for both elector organizations and independent candidates?

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, I think this is really recognizing a capacity challenge, with over 1,600 different elections taking place, with over 3,000 candidates at one time in a general local election. Recognizing those capacity challenges means it’s not considered in these amendments at this time.

D. Ashton: To the minister, I can understand that. Especially with the numbers and the capacity that maybe Elections B.C. has. Just a point is that there are a lot of changes taking place here. Real-time information, these days, is of the essence in a lot of situations. So just a point — and maybe for future consideration.

As part of the proposed new section being added to the act, which is section 45.1(2)(b), it indicates an annual financial report include “information respecting identification of significant contributors.” May I ask what the dollar value is for “significant contributors” in this instance?

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The definition of a “significant contributor” is contained in the definitions of the act. In relation to campaign contributions, I paraphrase here. I’m not directly quoting the definition. But it is essentially an eligible individual who makes a campaign contribution of $100 or more or multiple contributions to a candidate and/or an electoral organization that total $100 or more.

The Chair: Member for Penticton, I’ll just assume you want to speak after the minister is done. Would that be correct?

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

Minister, now with the reporting being required over the period of time between elections, that would include those amounts also? Or that would include…. If a person regularly made a contribution, it would be reportable as a significant contributor if it’s $100 or more over the period of time between the elections on a yearly basis. That’s a question. Sorry.

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

D. Ashton: Section 45 is my next questions.

Clauses 24 to 44 inclusive approved.

On clause 45.

D. Ashton: Why have the monetary penalties been updated to allow for the discretion of the B.C. electoral officer?

Hon. J. Osborne: These amendments contain a suite of administrative monetary penalties that are all aligned and to be used at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer. We did consult with Elections B.C. on this, and they are supportive of it. I would note that what it does is allow the Chief Electoral Officer to look on a case-by-case basis at the specific considerations at hand and ensure that high penalties are applied when it is appropriate to do so.

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

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

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

[3:35 p.m.]

D. Ashton: So now that is to the court. It is the B.C. Provincial Court, I’m assuming. Is there not any appeal process to the Chief Electoral Officer, who has assessed the penalty?

Hon. J. Osborne: This is an existing process in the act. A person who applies for a remedy does so to the B.C. Supreme Court.

Clauses 45 to 50 inclusive approved.

On clause 51.

D. Ashton: The section adds penalties for third-party sponsorship, including up to a $5,000 penalty for an individual, or up to a $10,000 penalty for an organization, for failing to comply with independence requirements, failing to register as a third-party sponsor or failing to include sponsorship information. Are these $5,000 and $10,000 penalty limits high enough, especially for our larger cities like Vancouver, which are traditionally known to involve individuals or organizations that have, as I guess I’ll frame it, deep pockets?

Hon. J. Osborne: Those penalty amounts are consistent with the offence penalty amounts already in LECFA. We would monitor this through the next election to ensure that it is an effective deterrent.

D. Ashton: The minister and I basically come from smaller areas where I haven’t seen, successfully, slates that have ever really been put forward and organizations that are behind the scenes.

When I say “organizations,” it can be those with interests in who retains a seat on council or school board or regional district, or organizations that are out there promoting politics in British Columbia or promoting opportunities for elected officials and/or individuals who would like to become an elected official. One that comes to mind is the Columbia Institute. It’s well known for putting their views forward to individuals who would like to attain a higher office or attain an elected office.

[3:40 p.m.]

Are institutions and entities like that organization I just mentioned and, I’ll say, unions and people that have an expressed interest in putting somebody forward…? How are they going to be monitored in the process of an election to ensure that all rules are followed?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thanks for the question. Elections B.C. retains the responsibility to monitor organizations throughout the campaign period and throughout the campaign, throughout elections. If an organization is behaving as a third-party sponsor and they should be registering as a third-party sponsor, Elections B.C. will monitor that.

I’ll take the opportunity, too, to point out that the amendments we’re bringing forward today do introduce new administrative monetary penalties and new investigative tools for Elections B.C. This adds to that oversight and monitoring framework that ensures that people and organizations are playing by the rules.

D. Ashton: Is there a complaint process through Elections B.C. that you or your staff know of if an issue was to come up and a complaint was put forward so that new form of investigation that you just mentioned could take place?

Hon. J. Osborne: Anybody can contact Elections B.C., and on their website, there is a process outlined for how to do so.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. I’m fine with section 51, Mr. Chair, and on 52, I have questions.

Clause 51 approved.

On clause 52.

D. Ashton: Similar to my previous question to the minister regarding penalty limits for third-party sponsors, is the $5,000 penalty for an elector organization entering into a financing arrangement before it is registered? Or has the registration suspended been high enough?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Like my previous answer, I think this is another case where these amounts are already in LECFA. We will monitor the next elections to ensure that they are an effective deterrent and set at the appropriate level.

D. Ashton: Monitoring it. Not only is the government monitoring it, but Elections B.C. will monitor it. With the new rules in place, the opportunity to address those issues will also be in place, correct?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Absolutely. A good opportunity to point out, again, just how important it is to monitor the local elections, to work with our partners like Elections B.C., to hear directly from local governments, to have our staff monitoring the media to make amendments and bring forward improvements on a regular basis.

The whole point of this is to improve the transparency and accountability of elections and ensure that people remain at the heart of good decision-making, so thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Clauses 52 to 56 inclusive approved.

On clause 57.

D. Ashton: As part of the proposed new sections being added to the act…. The new subsection 76.3(2)(a) indicates: “(a) if known by the advertiser, the name of the individual or organization that sponsored the election advertising communication.” In what instance would an advertiser not know the name of an individual or organization that sponsored election advertising communications? Just a question, please.

Hon. J. Osborne: The way that this is written is to ensure that we capture whether it is a known or unknown advertiser. That is for completeness.

D. Ashton: Minister, why not make it mandatory that advertisers must collect the name of an individual or organization that is sponsoring election advertising communication before the advertisers agree to place the advertisement?

[3:50 p.m.]

I just think about individual sections that I have talked about before where this has come up, where you have entities out there that may or may not be supportive of a candidate or are supportive of a candidate on an individual basis.

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

D. Ashton: Absolutely, sure. It was: why not make it mandatory that advertisers must collect the name of an individual or an organization that is sponsoring the ad­vertising communications before the advertiser puts the advertisement in place? Again, it’s a registration process that I’m thinking of.

Hon. J. Osborne: In this case, this was brought over from the Election Act to make LECFA consistent with it. It really is directed at the platforms that host advertising, be it radio or television or Facebook, say. To go further and add those requirements might be seen as an overreach into telling them how to conduct their business and was not considered.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. But I know that electronically, like on Facebook and on Twitter, the registration process can be arduous and take a while for approval. So I’m just curious. I guess maybe I’m throwing a line to the Elections B.C. organization to say: “Maybe if you made this a mandatory rule….” I know, as an elected official, that we have to ensure that we have all our ducks in a row before we put our advertising in place. Quite often that involves pre-payment of advertisement dollars to be put up front and/or fixed rates.

I’m just thinking out loud that this may be more of a benefit to the new rule changes that are taking place to help Elections B.C. ensure there’s not a little bit of skullduggery. So I’ll leave that.

Clauses 57 to 65 inclusive approved.

On clause 66.

[3:55 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Maybe to jump back — and I know it’s passed. It’s just that in the addition to 76.4(3), it indicated: “A court may make an order under this section without notice to any person.” Just for staff’s and for the minister’s notice, what purpose would this serve of no notice being served? I apologize. We scooted by it. I missed my own question on it. Just something for the future to maybe think about what is transpiring in that section again.

Under 66…. So 66 allows for sponsorship contribution limits to be made by regulation on it. Is there an annual look at contributions through Elections B.C., other than the cost of living? Is there an opportunity to review all requirements? Since we’re changing and going to a four-year basis where everything has to be accounted, will there be an opportunity to come forward if things are not working the way that government thought?

Hon. J. Osborne: These limits were chosen to be consistent with Elections B.C., and we will continue to monitor them, as we will monitor a number of things, in the coming next set of general elections. I’ll point out, too, that Elections B.C. does establish the inflationary component, and if they have feedback on the base amount itself, they will provide that to us.

Clauses 66 to 70 inclusive approved.

On clause 71.

D. Ashton: The elimination of the 30-day local residency. May I ask for an explanation of why this is transpiring?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The issue of the 30-day residency requirement was something that we heard from local governments after the last general local elections, especially from those communities that have more transient populations, people moving in and out. What we heard about was the disenfranchisement, essentially, of those individuals who had moved from one community to another in the 30 days preceding an election.

In the spirit of ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to participate in democracy, this was an amendment that we decided to bring forward to remove that disenfranchisement.

D. Ashton: Thank you for that. I would concur that we want to ensure that democracy takes place. But listen. We are probably talking about a handful of people throughout the province, excluding students going back to university and/or college.

I just think, personally, that when you’re in a new community and you don’t know the individuals that are running or you don’t know your school board officials or you don’t know your regional district officials or you don’t know your council officials, it gives you an opportunity to be a little bit proactive and start asking the questions.

I don’t condemn it or condone it. I’m just curious about why this would come in. Believe me. To establish a residency, to ensure that an individual or an individual’s family is present and to really understand about the dynamics of the new community that they’ve moved into….

I will leave it at this point in time.

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

Clauses 71 to 76 inclusive approved.

On clause 77.

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

Clause 77 approved.

On clause 78.

D. Ashton: So 78 to 92 allow for canvassing in co-op, strata and rental properties. As many of us know, where we’ve been out door-knocking, you do come to a strata complex and have the unequal opportunity, especially in some of the more urban areas, of gaining access to tall buildings and strata opportunities there, and rental properties.

May I ask…? It allows it. But has the province or Elections B.C. thought about how access can be gained to individual sites like that? If a posting is put in place where “no soliciting” is specifically stated, what takes precedence, the no soliciting or the Election Act allowing an individual to campaign in those areas?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. It has increasingly become important for people to be able to access strata properties, apartment buildings, those kinds of buildings, in order to conduct their campaigning activities. So these amendments will allow canvassing in strata properties.

The way this will work is that canvassers will need to meet certain conditions. For example, while canvassing voters or distributing candidate information, the candidate or their authorized representative would be required to carry government-issued identification and either proof of candidacy or information indicating that they are authorized by the candidate to canvass. Additionally, there are limited hours under which this activity could occur: from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m.

These changes were recently made for provincial elections after review of the 2017 provincial election. So this aligns LECFA with the provincial requirements.

D. Ashton: So this supersedes a co-op and/or a strata if there is a posting of no solicitation. That would still allow an individual or an entity, along with campaign individuals, to go forward and knock on the doors and gain access to a large tower apartment block or a strata block or a condo block in a major city — or any city, I would say.

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, the intention here is to prohibit strata or similar buildings from being able to prevent unreasonable access…. So in the case of a “no solicitation” sign, this applies to candidates or their authorized representatives for the purposes of campaigning or distributing information.

D. Ashton: To the minister, well, I think that maybe in the next election, I’m going to ask for somebody from Elections B.C. to come with me when I knock on that strata door and see what the response will be. But I understand.

Mr. Chair, I have no further questions, other than a quick comment at the end, after adoption.

The Chair: If you have a quick comment, you might want to make it now before I go through the rest of the clauses, member for Penticton.

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

I would like to thank the minister and, especially, thank her staff, who I’ve had the pleasure of working with over my tenure as an elected official in Victoria. To me…. I just hope that these new rules and regulations take into account those outside of the Lower Mainland that may or may not run on slates.

There are an awful lot of communities in British Columbia where everybody knows everybody. I just hope the rules and regulations don’t become too overbearing. Other than provincial politics…. My campaigns were run off the kitchen table.

[4:10 p.m.]

I really think it’s important that we continue to remember that there are large municipalities in British Columbia where slates are prevalent and large organizations are prevalent. There is a vast area in British Columbia where individuals run for elected office, and they don’t have anybody other than themselves or maybe their family. I really think that needs to be taken into consideration, not only by the government but also by Elections B.C.

The minister, on several occasions, has mentioned de­mocracy, and democracy is incredibly important. Democracy, in my opinion, encompasses everybody, whether you run with a slate and you have a huge organization behind you or whether you have your kids stuffing envelopes to get into the mail.

Once again, I would really, really like to thank the minister. I look forward to working with her, for all the citizens of British Columbia, on this file that she has. I would really like to thank her staff that have done an admirable job of bringing this forward.

I look forward to ensuring that the next election that the new rules are in place with is run fairly and is run without too many obstacles through regulation so that “democracy” can take place all through British Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, again, to the minister.

Clauses 78 to 102 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 9, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

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

The committee met at 4:25 p.m.

On clause 2.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because this is a three-clause bill, and we’ve dealt with clause 1 and clause 3 is on commencement, the bulk of it — well, everything else — is based in clause 2. We’ve been having an easy way to sort of deal with the questions as they come up because they kind of bounce around within that section.

Anyway, in our discussions yesterday, we were talking about tabling reports that had been public and having access. I indicated that, yes, of course, the reports would be public and, yes, they’ll be tabled by ICBC. But I also said that I expect, as minister, to be tabling those reports in the House.

I want to make it clear that that is something that will take place, and therefore, I have shared with my colleague across the way an amendment that will make absolutely clear that that is what is to happen. So I would move the amendment that I have provided to do just that.

[CLAUSE 2, in the proposed sections 59 to 61, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Report to corporation

59  (1) The fairness officer must submit, on a prescribed basis, a report to the minister and the corporation that includes the following information:

(a) the number of fairness complaints received;

(b) the number of fairness complaints heard by the fairness officer;

(c) any other prescribed information.

(2) As soon as practicable on the receipt of the report submitted under subsection (1), the minister must either, as applicable,

(a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if it is in session, or

(b) file the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.

Publication of information

60  The fairness officer must publish, on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the fairness officer,

(a) the rules made under section 58, and

(b) as soon as practicable after the minister has complied with section 59 (2), the report submitted to the corporation under referred to in section 59(1).

Corporation report

61  (1) The corporation must, no later than August 31 in each year, submit to the minister an annual report.

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

(a) a summary of the corporation’s responses in the previous fiscal year to the fairness officer’s recommendations, if any, and

(b) any other prescribed matter.

(2.1) As soon as practicable on the receipt of the report submitted under subsection (1), the minister must either, as applicable,

(a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if it is in session, or

(b) file the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.

(3) The corporation must publish the annual report, as soon as practicable after submitting the report to the minister has complied with subsection (2.1), on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the corporation.]

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

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The proposed amendments to sections 59, 60 and 61 in part 3 relate to the reporting duties of the fairness officer and the corporation and submission of specified reports to the minister and the Legislative Assembly.

Section 59 will provide that the fairness officer must submit a report to the board of ICBC regarding the number of complaints that were filed, the number of complaints heard by the fairness officer and any other prescribed information. The proposed amendment requires that the fairness officer must also submit that report to the minister and that the minister must lay that report before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or file the report with the Clerk if the Legislative Assembly is not in session.

Section 60 requires the fairness officer to publish the rules made under section 58 and the report submitted under section 59 on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the fairness officer. The proposed amendment continues to require the fairness officer to publish the rules under section 58 and to publish the re­port under section 59, but the report under section 59 is only published after the requirement to table the report with the Legislature has been met.

[4:30 p.m.]

Section 61 requires the corporation to submit an annual report to the minister no later than August 31 in each year which includes a summary of ICBC’s re­sponses to any recommendations of the fairness officer in the previous fiscal year and any other prescribed matters. The annual report must be published on a publicly accessible website. The proposed amendment adds a requirement for the minister to lay ICBC’s report before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or file a report with the Clerk if the Legislative Assembly is not in session. It also requires the report to be published on a publicly accessible website only after the minister has tabled the report with the Legislature.

This proposed amendment provides for even further accountability and transparency by putting the fairness of the officer’s report and ICBC’s responses in front of the House. I think it makes it clear — yesterday, when I committed to the House that that would take place — that, in fact, this will happen.

M. Morris: I very much appreciate the minister listening to our comments yesterday and providing the amendment here today. We’re in favour of that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Amendment approved.

On clause 2 as amended.

M. Morris: As I spoke about in our discussion in second reading, the whole purpose of the fairness officer, and the impetus behind the government presenting this bill, was transparency and fairness within ICBC.

I guess I’m a little bit confused by the transparency part. I’m just wondering. In section 55(3), under clause 2, if government’s intention is to truly have an independent fairness officer, why have the board set out the terms and conditions and remuneration for the fairness officer?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fairness officer is going to be working within ICBC. They’re going to be working, obviously, closely with the board to ensure that ICBC’s processes are fair.

They will be responsible for providing the resources necessary for the officer to fulfil their mandate. It is appropriate, given the rest of ICBC, that the board is involved in setting the terms and conditions and, in particular, remuneration.

That being said, they are both…. Because this is a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment, they are also subject to my approval. They will set the terms, but then I also am the one that has to approve them. It’s not just dependent on ICBC. It also has to meet with the approval of myself as minister.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response in terms of the interaction…. The terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment and remuneration are subject to the approval of the minister.

Does the government consider, then, that the fairness officer is independent from ICBC?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question would be yes. There is a significantly greater degree of independence of the new position than the old position.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response.

It is a relative test of independence that the government is proposing that we consider here in this House, meaning the fairness officer is more independent than the current office that’s in place. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your question, hon. Member, would be yes. Just in terms of how that takes place, the fairness officer will have a greater degree of independence from ICBC. In part (1), it’s appointed by government. Terms and conditions, including remuneration, are subject to the approval of myself as minister. The fairness officer’s mandate will be in legislation.

In terms of the budget, a process will be laid out in the regulations where, if there’s a disagreement between the officer and the board on what is necessary for the officer to fulfil their mandate, the officer can submit a special report to the minister regarding the budget. This will provide the minister with the opportunity to bring a resolution to any dispute on the budget that the officer requires and if there’s a potential dispute with the board.

The goal is not to create an additional independent office similar to the Ombudsperson, who still has the ability to look at issues as well. That’s why I make the point that it is more independent in answer to your question.

M. Lee: There are a couple of ways to come at the response of the government here. In this particular provision of clause 2, then, why have the board set the terms and conditions and the remuneration of the fairness officer? If the objective of the government is to achieve greater independence for the fairness officer, why have this provision set out this way and in this manner?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll just reiterate, I guess, the points I made a moment ago.

[4:40 p.m.]

That is that the officer works within ICBC. They will work within that structure. They work closely with the board, which has remuneration policies in place with ICBC. At the same time, it is an LGIC, a Lieutenant-Governor in Council, appointment, so I will, as minister, have to approve any remuneration package that is put in place.

At the same time, in terms of the independence, as I said a moment ago, if the fairness officer believes that the budget is not adequate — or there’s an issue with the budget that’s required for them to be able to do their job — there will be a mechanism where I, as minister, have the ability to resolve any issues on that basis. I think that by legislating this in terms of the mandate, we have made it clear that this is an officer who has a mandate and has significantly greater independence than the previous position.

M. Lee: Just because…. The minister, in his response — perhaps for the second or third time, certainly for the second time — referred to this relative measure: that this fairness officer has greater independence than in the current set-up. This, again, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie had questioned quite a bit in his second reading speech, in terms of the current arrangement.

We know, of course, that in the context of the no-fault regime, there’s a greater onus on this fairness officer, at least in the way the government has positioned this office. It was supposed to give peace of mind, in the words of the Attorney General, regarding individual circumstances of injured British Columbians. That is not a procedural, systemic issue. That’s a specific issue relating to a specific individual dealing with ICBC.

Certainly in terms of peace of mind, if that was the test or the positioning that the government wants to put on this new regime, on the fairness officer and in the way that this officer is positioned within this regime, you’d think that the officer would be independent — not just more independent than the current office is, but independent. When the officer is subject to the board setting the terms and conditions, the remuneration and the budget, that adds an additional layer of influence by the board.

We know that in many instances, in terms of…. You know, when I was the acting corporate secretary of B.C. Hydro, for close to a year in my legal practice, I know the interaction between a Crown corporation, the deputy minister, the minister’s office, the minister, the board and the CEO of a Crown corporation. We know the function and the level of reporting and accountability.

Unless the minister is prepared to have a direct hand on the board of ICBC for the decisions and the interactions that they would have with the fairness officer and unless I’m hearing from the minister or anyone who serves in his capacity in the future that they’re going to have that hands-on oversight of the board of ICBC to ensure that the independence of the fairness office and the officer, him-or herself — I’m not seeing that in this bill. I don’t see that.

I appreciate that the minister did listen to our concerns relating to ensuring that the report is publicly available and that he made that adjustment to the bill. But I dare say that there are other adjustments that are necessary for this bill to at least clarify the independence of the fairness officer.

[4:45 p.m.]

Let me ask this to the minister. The minister did refer to the Ombudsperson and not wanting to replicate the function of the Ombudsperson here. If we consider that comment, if there was no fairness officer in place at all, is that possible? Does the minister see any challenge with just merely having the Ombudsperson take care of any fairness complaints within ICBC?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is trying to say, and I’ll make this clear. We have said that this fairness officer is independent. Their mandate is legislated. They will be dealing with the processes and the procedures of ICBC and how they do things. They will be reporting. They will be making recommendations. That report will be public.

I indicated that that report would be tabled in this House. We have been abundantly clear on that. I will also now be abundantly clear on this. This individual’s role is ICBC, its procedures, its practices, its policies, 365 days a year. Not an issue of a complaint that somebody has, and then they say: “Oh, I’ve got to go to the Ombudsperson’s office and then join that queue.”

This is specific to give peace of mind, as we said at se­cond reading, to people, to know that there is an individual that is dedicated, completely and totally, to what takes place at ICBC. That is the right way to go. It is the way that government is moving. That is the appropriate way to go. That’s why this legislation is here before you. I would trust and hope that you would support it.

M. Lee: I most certainly appreciate the last response from the minister in terms of the confirmation about the difference between the Ombudsperson as an officer of this Legislative Assembly, duly appointed with the Ombudsperson’s own separate act, versus a fairness officer that is within ICBC, still having their terms and conditions of employment or appointment and remuneration and budget determined or set by the board, subject to the ap­proval of the minister.

As the minister just said, it’s 365 days of the year. I understand that. That is the way, again, the government positioned when the Attorney General stood here in this House, and in front of the media, and announced the fundamental change to the insurance system of our province. The fairness office was a key component. As I discussed in my second reading speech, the civil resolution tribunal was another key component. But as we learned from the chief justice of our province last week, it was ruled unconstitutional. That’s the reason why we’re spending this amount of time on the fairness officer.

It’s because we see already that under this fundamental change, this insurance regime that this government has put on to this province, the ways in which injured British Columbians can seek redress to get their rights addressed through the courts has been taken away. It was replaced with the CRT. Again, that’s been ruled unconstitutional in terms of its jurisdiction. It was limited in terms of the evidence rules, in terms of how many experts one could deploy. That was, again, ruled unconstitutional in the Attorney General’s first attempt to do that.

[4:50 p.m.]

There are further challenges here. Now we have the fairness officer, and this is presented as an independent fairness officer. This is how this minister continues to communicate that.

I would say that as much as the Attorney General and this minister would suggest that the fairness officer will provide — this is to directly quote the Attorney General — “peace of mind that they will be treated fairly after they’ve been injured in a crash….” After they’ve been injured in a crash. We will get to that point in a moment in the latter sections of this particular clause, but the peace of mind is supposed to be coming from the fairness officer. And this fairness officer, who is providing that peace of mind, should be independent of ICBC. But that officer is not. Unless the minister is going to do the kind of oversight that a board would typically do, it’s the board that the fairness officer is effectively reporting to. This is a function of ICBC and their board. This is not a separate function like the Ombudsperson is.

We just heard from the minister why that is. Because this government wants to have a fairness officer that is functioning 365 days a year. Well, let that person function. Why is this person subject to the undue influence of the ICBC board? I’m using those words deliberately, because the way the government is defining “independence” is not independence. It may be relative; it’s more independence than the current function of the fairness office. But that was the old system. That was the system that they got rid of because they have a promise of a utopia where everybody will be taken care of. Everyone will be subject to ICBC rule.

The 108 pages that they put out last Friday of a definition of what you will get if you’re injured. If you lose a limb, lose a finger, lose an eye. Who is taking care of injured British Columbians? Well, the fairness officer. But that fairness officer is not independent. So I fail to see how this government can stand here and present this fairness officer in truly the way that will provide peace of mind to British Columbians.

I’ll just ask the minister to have one more opportunity to talk about, again…. Does the minister see his role in respect of the fairness office as providing greater oversight to the ICBC board?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear what the member is saying, and I fundamentally have to disagree with his assertion that the board will have undue influence. In fact, I disagree with that quite strongly, because the fairness officer will be mandated to hear complaints. Mandated.

They will, on their own initiative, be able to identify areas of process, for example, that may lead to an unfair decision in the future or in the way someone has been treated now. They will be empowered to make recommendations to the board. Empowered. They don’t have to ask permission of the board to go and do their work. They are empowered.

That report is tabled here in this chamber. It is made public. So it is not even a question of: does the minister have oversight? With that report being tabled, and even if it was not tabled in this House…. I said yesterday in my remarks that I committed to doing that. I made it clear through the amendment that it would be tabled, that the questions around those recommendations will obviously be asked, both publicly outside and in here, in terms of what the fairness commissioner is doing, how they are doing it, and the response to their recommendations and their findings.

[4:55 p.m.]

That, in my view, is pretty transparent. It’s pretty accountable in terms of accountability. It’s a legislative…. It’s not a board appointment. It is a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment. There is a significance. It is independent. They will be able to do their job. Their mandate is legislated.

I have every confidence that the person who is appointed to do this job will do this job in the way that the legislation intends and the way that the public would expect.

M. Lee: I believe my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie will have an amendment that we’d like to propose to this section, particularly as we’ve had this discussion and debate. I just wanted to make two comments in terms of the minister’s response.

I think we’ve already had the exchange of views here. But just, certainly, acknowledge — as we did in dealing with the amendment, as we came back onto this bill in this committee stage — that the minister heard the suggestion that we ought to introduce greater transparency to the reporting mechanisms. That was what we dealt with in terms of the amendments that the minister brought forward in this committee stage. So acknowledge that.

The minister made reference to, certainly, an area of concern that I know the Leader of the Third Party and ourselves here will have some question about further. But I just wanted to stop on it because, again, I’m not talking about greater transparency. We dealt with that, so thanks very much. I’m talking about independence.

Why am I talking about independence? Because the minister, in his response, just said something that is a point of contention, which is: yes, the fairness officer can look at recommendations for what happens in the future. But he also suggested…. He used these words, which I ask him to reflect on in future responses to us. He said: “As to how people would be treated now.” I just stop on the words “treated now.”

Well, we will get into this. But, again, the reason why it’s important that the fairness officer has true independence is because, as we see in subsection 57(1): “The fairness officer may not comment on or make recommendations respecting (a) an amount payable by the corporation, or (b) the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a person is responsible for an accident.”

When we talk about how an individual is treated by ICBC now, when they have a complaint with ICBC now, when they want peace of mind in terms of what a fairness officer can provide to them now, they’re talking about: how much am I getting in benefits and compensation? And who is responsible? The fault determination.

When the member from Richmond south spoke in his second reading speech, he talked about an unfortunate accident that he was involved in where he was found at fault. He said: “Really happy to see this fairness officer come into place, because I wish they had that back when I was dealing with my injury.” I think he needs to, with respect, read the bill, because, specifically, fault cannot be commented on or even recommended on by the fairness officer.

There is no peace of mind for the member from Richmond south, nor any other British Columbian. That’s why what we’re left with is the future. We’ll talk about what that future looks like in an ICBC no-fault way. But that’s the reason why we are spending the time talking about the independence of the fairness office.

So having made that comment in response, I just invite the member for Prince George–Mackenzie to move the amendment that we wish to propose. Unless there’s other comment here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I respond to the member’s comments. I’ve made it clear. The fairness officer is mandated. That’s independence.

[5:00 p.m.]

I understand where the opposition is coming from. I understand where the member is coming from. They don’t like the transition. They don’t like the move that will take place on May 1. I understand that, but let’s be clear. This is about a fairness officer that will be independent, that is mandated with a job to do and functions to do. They don’t have to ask the board for permission. I think it’s important to stress that point. As of May 1, and when the new fairness officer is appointed, they will be doing just that by legislation, by mandate, by reporting to this Legislature.

The member says transparency. They all go together. They’re not separate. Each one complements the other. So the idea that somehow we’re not wanting him to be independent, not wanting him to do his job — because that’s the impression — or that they are not going to be able to do their job is simply wrong. It’s something that I do not accept.

We have had discussion on this. I look forward to seeing what the amendment is that is being put forward, but I just have to reiterate that. They have a mandate, and they will be doing and fulfilling that mandate.

S. Furstenau: I’m finding the discussion and the debate very interesting. In my second reading speech, I talked about other Crown corporations that have some measure of oversight, which is perhaps what might be what we’re describing this fairness officer’s role as, an oversight role. We have ministries with independent offices that operate — for example, the Representative for Children and Youth operating as an independent officer but looking at the operations of Ministry for Children and Families.

I think that the concern that is being expressed around the independence but also the effectiveness of this role stems, in some part, from the fact that we see other roles, other oversight bodies, that maybe aren’t as effective as we’d like them to be, then also stepping back to the fact that we now need these oversight roles or these fairness officers for Crown corporations that are supposed to be serving the public and that are failing to do that in some way, shape or form. Therefore, we’re putting in this next layer. We’re layering up, instead of possibly dismantling.

The issue around the fairness officer that I think we have some concerns around is that, for example, the fairness officer cannot comment or make recommendations respecting an amount payable or the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a person is responsible. I think this is where the point was being made. The member from Richmond south…. Most people would think: “Oh, there’s a fairness officer. I don’t like what happened. I can go to that person, and they can help out.” But that’s not really what this is. When we look at the act, that’s not going to be the role of this person.

I guess I’ll just put the question to the minister on this, which is: can he explain to the public exactly…? I’ve heard the minister talk about the mandate and the role and the independence, but what can the public exactly expect from this person if they find themselves in an accident? ICBC makes a determination on a settlement for this person. They’re not satisfied with what has happened. What exactly would the fairness officer be able to do in that circumstance?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. The fairness officer…. Let’s say yourself, for example. You are not happy with the benefits that you felt that you should be receiving. You would be able to go to the fairness officer and make your complaint.

While it’s absolutely correct that the fairness officer does not comment on the benefits that you are paid, they have every authority and ability to investigate the procedures and the processes that were used to determine your benefits that you received and to make a recommendation to ICBC about what they found in terms of those processes and procedures, with a recommendation on changes that would need to happen. So ICBC would potentially, depending on what the fairness commissioner said, reengage.

S. Furstenau: But just to be clear, the fairness officer would look at the procedures and the process but would not be able to comment or make any recommendation on the outcome, as in the payment or benefit that has been conferred to the person?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct, and that has been clear from the beginning in the legislation and in the second reading of the bill.

M. Morris: I’ll wait just for a second before I introduce the amendments, as we’re on the topic of fairness now. That was one of the issues that I wanted to speak about.

I guess I ask the question: what is fairness? How is fairness defined? Because it’s a very…. It could tend to be a very subjective term.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I want to make one of the key issues around the fairness commissioner, and whoever occupies that position, clear. They are, obviously, going to have to have considerable skills, in essence, in natural justice, an understanding of how process and procedures are supposed to be followed and take place and an understanding of how that happens.

Fairness is ensuring…. ICBC has a mandate to deliver service. It has a mandate to deliver and ensure that an individual is getting and receiving the care that they need to recover. That’s why there is not a cap on the benefits that you can receive.

The fairness commissioner will be making sure that those procedures and those policies are, in fact, followed and, in doing so, ensure fairness — and, in doing so, by an individual who has that skill set and understanding of how these things have to happen. A critical component is that sense of natural justice.

M. Morris: What is the standard of review for the fairness officer? The fairness officer would be looking at…. Most review boards or authorities would be using a standard of reasonableness or correctness. So I’m just curious as to how the fairness officer would be looking at his files, the complaints that he has to review.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, as I said a few moments ago, it comes back to the skill set of the individual so that they understand that process of natural justice and fairness, so that the processes and the procedures of ICBC are in place and are being followed properly, so that people have the ability to be heard and to be listened to. It puts in place that they have been treated fairly not just by ICBC. But its processes and procedures that are in place are designed to ensure that people are treated fairly.

[5:15 p.m.]

The fairness commissioner will have the ability to en­sure that that is, in fact, what is taking place. If they feel it is not taking place, then they can make recommendations. Those recommendations have to be responded to. Those recommendations and those responses come back and are made public, both at ICBC and in this chamber.

M. Morris: The fairness officer is tasked with investigating and making decisions on whatever the results of his or her investigations are. What I don’t see outlined in this particular bill is the…. Where is the procedural fairness that is built into the act? Also, what does the fairness officer base his decisions on? Is it reasonableness, or is it correctness in the process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This position is about ensuring fairness and that people have been treated properly.

The fairness commissioner is not a judicial position. They’re not a judge. What they are is there to ensure that if individuals have a complaint or concern, that that complaint is investigated, that people are treated fairly. They ensure that the proper procedures and processes were followed in the determination of whatever the complaint, as my colleague the Leader of the Third Party said, about what benefits they were to receive or how they were treated in the determination of those benefits and will make recommendations.

I think that is crucial. The fact that this position is being legislated and mandated in the way that it is says to ICBC that this is a critical component in terms of what happens on May 1 and how people can expect to be treated in terms of receiving the care that they need for as long as they need it. There is a mechanism, if they have a concern, that will ensure that they have been treated fairly.

It comes back to, as I said at the start of this discussion, this exchange on these particular questions…. The individual occupying this position, clearly as their skill set, will have very strong skills in this area in terms of how fairness and natural justice are dealt with. That is a key component.

M. Morris: We have a fairness officer who is appointed through an order-in-council but who doesn’t have any decision-making powers or decision-making ability under this particular bill. He’ll listen to somebody’s concern, and he’ll make a recommendation to somebody, but he makes no decision that can be reviewed. Basically, he’s a….

I’m not sure exactly what he is or what that position might be. If they don’t make decisions pertaining to the complaints that they receive, what else does they do?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again I’ll repeat that the ability to make recommendations is significant. It is important, because those recommendations cannot be ignored. They have to be responded to. They are made public. As I said a number of times now, they also come back to this chamber.

The fairness commissioner, and I’ll repeat it again, has a significant mandate to fulfil that is legislated, that gives them independence and that they will be able to: fulfil that role in a way that will ensure that people are heard, that they are treated fairly, and that the processes, policies and procedures that were used in making determinations were in fact done in a correct and fair manner.

M. Morris: Does the fairness commissioner make de­cisions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I say, there seems to be some issue with the opposition on the fairness officer — what power they have. I’ll just repeat again. I think it’s pretty significant power, which is to make a recommendation, to make an assessment of what took place — what policies, what processes, how they were followed. Were they followed in the appropriate way? Then, from that work, they will make a recommendation.

A recommendation is pretty powerful, particularly when that recommendation is made public, particularly when the board has to respond to that recommendation. That’s pretty significant. I think that it will be a very effective way of ensuring that ICBC, on May 1, works the way that it is intended to and that people expect it to.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. Morris: Seems to be a significantly elaborate process to appoint somebody who appears to be merely a customer service representative dealing with the customer complaints that may come in. There doesn’t appear to be any decision-making authority granted to this particular position. Therefore….

He may make recommendations. It’s a pretty elaborate process to have somebody make recommendations to somebody as to what they should be doing or what they shouldn’t be doing. I find the lack of decision-making authority that lies within this position to be problematic.

I guess part of it is the fact that there’s no real procedural process involved in this. If somebody makes a complaint, and the fairness officer comes back and says, “Yeah. No, it looked fair to me,” where does that individual go next to have his or her concerns addressed, redressed? What is the process here? Go to the fairness officer. He arrives at his recommendation, and if the customer that is making that complaint is not happy, where does he or she go?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. First, I think it’s unfortunate that my colleague refers to the position as though it’s some sort of glorified customer service clerk. That is simply incorrect, and it’s simply not the case.

The individual occupying this position will have to have a considerable skill set, in terms of fairness, administrative fairness, natural justice, an understanding of the procedure and process that are used in making a determination of a benefit, for example. They will be making recommendations that are public, that will be scrutinized, that will have to be responded to.

This is a considerable senior position. As I have said, I have every expectation that the person in that position will do that job to the absolute best of their ability. I just want to make that clear. This idea of, in essence, a diminishment of the role, I reject.

[5:30 p.m.]

If an individual is not happy, for example, they would be able to…. If they felt the process was not fair, that they were not happy with the recommendation of the fairness officer, they would also be able to access the Ombudsperson, and they would be able to use that avenue as well. That would not be denied them in the least.

But as I said earlier, my full expectation, and why this fairness officer position is here, is that this is an individual and their staff who will be dealing with ICBC 365 days a year. It’s not another compartment that they have to deal with. It is their total focus, and it is their total obligation and duty that they will have.

M. Morris: So my understanding is correct. The fairness officer makes a recommendation that somebody is not happy with, and that individual can take that to the Ombudsperson’s office for review.

Now, are they reviewing the recommendation from the fairness officer, or are they ultimately reviewing the decision that was made and that led to the fairness complaint in the first place? What would be reviewed in this particular case? I’m concerned about the procedural fairness here as well, but I’m also concerned about the standard of review that somebody, at the end of the day, has to level upon whatever that complaint is.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I will do for the member is get clarification on the specific aspect of the Ombudsperson Act as to how it would relate, if that would assist the member in his question.

[5:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just recognizing the time that we’re at right now, with a few more minutes left in this proceeding on this day, I would ask that the minister consider the question that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie asked two questions ago. I think it would be helpful, in the further committee process on this bill, to get a clearer understanding of this.

When an individual has a complaint or a concern as to how they have been treated with ICBC, what is that complaint process? That is effectively what my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie asked — a straightforward question. My understanding, which I’d like the minister to confirm or at least provide us with some further explanation of — that can certainly happen now or when we reconvene — is that that individual of course talks to the adjuster, or the individual…. I don’t know what the new terminology might be under the new regime. Or that adjuster’s manager. Presumably, the fairness office is another point of call.

I’d like the minister also to respond to the nature of the decision of last week, in terms of the chief justice’s decision ruling that the CRT does not have jurisdiction. What is the impact on the no-fault regime? I expect that the CRT, as we looked at the bill last summer as part of this as well….

In terms of the nature of what the fairness officer needs to consider, there is a provision that the minister has been speaking around, which is subsection 56(2)(a), which is: “…the fairness officer (a) may make recommendations to the corporation to resolve fairness complaints.”

In the absence of decision-making power, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has demonstrated in a number of questions and responses from the minister, in the absence of the ability of the fairness officer to comment on or make any recommendations respecting the amount payable by the corporation or the extent that the person is responsible for the accident, how will the fairness officer resolve fairness complaints? What is the nature of the fairness complaints that the fairness officer is able to make recommendations on in order to resolve? That’s my question.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that there were a number of questions in the member’s question. In terms of the procedure — the member asked about the procedure — that’s in section 58. It authorizes the fairness officer to make rules regarding the practices and procedures to be followed in submitting or withdrawing a complaint and the practice and procedures to be followed by the parties involved in an investigation.

It will be the fairness officer that has the ability and the authority to set, and subsequently change if warranted, the procedures related to filing or withdrawing of a fairness complaint and, as I just said, what is expected of the complainant, what is expected of the fairness officer and what is expected by ICBC during the investigation process. It will be the fairness officer that sets what those procedures are. It will not be, for example, ICBC that sets those.

M. Lee: Well, I think that the minister, perhaps, was addressing another question from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I think that’s helpful. I think we can certainly review that further, in terms of the practices and procedures to be followed by the fairness officer.

I did ask two other questions. I can restate the questions and see how much time we have left at this juncture. Again, I’m asking what is the complaint process that an individual will be following if they have a complaint about ICBC and they have a dispute? Perhaps I should use that word because I think that triggered a different response here. Let’s just focus on the word “dispute.” There’s a disagreement with ICBC in terms of how they’re being treated. The fairness officer is only one venue for review, I expect. That’s my understanding, when we looked at the no-fault regime.

I’m asking the minister to confirm what the other alternatives are to which an individual who has a dispute, a disagreement, with ICBC will look to get relief. I’ve named a number of them: the supervisor for the adjuster, the CRT, the courts, under very high thresholds that the Attorney General and I had discussion about. I’m asking the minister to describe that so that we can properly situate this role of the fairness officer.

My second question relates to subclause 56(2)(a), where it says that the fairness officer “may make recommendations to the corporation to resolve fairness complaints.”

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m asking, in light of subclauses 57(1)(a) and (b), given the limitations that “the fairness officer may not comment on or make recommendations” on the amount payable or the extent that an individual is found responsible for an accident, what kind of fairness complaints is the fairness officer authorized to resolve if it doesn’t include anything to do with the amount that is payable by ICBC or the fault determination?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your second question, that’s laid out in section 54. It’s laid out on a question that I in fact dealt with yesterday with my critic.

The individual, the fairness officer, is able to deal with the issues that are laid out in section 54. They involve the administration of insurance plans under 7(b); the repairing of insured property under section 7(c); the provision of medical and hospital services to an insured person; the carrying out of powers and duties related to the Motor Vehicle Act, Commercial Transport Act and the Off-Road Vehicle Act; the receiving, holding, managing and collecting of fines, penalties and sales taxes, for example. Those are a number of the areas that the fairness commissioner is able to deal with.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.