Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2023

(continued)

Hon. R. Kahlon: Bill 28, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023, passed second reading this morning. However, for greater clarity, I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading debate on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

As I advised the members at first reading, the purpose of this bill is to make it easier for people to get the money owed to them following a civil court decision or a tribunal decision.

To say that this bill is long overdue may be an understatement. The Court Order Enforcement Act, which this bill will mostly replace, traces its roots in court orders that were subsequently codified in British legislation from the 1800s.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

While the language of the Court Order Enforcement Act has been updated over time and some new concepts have been added to the act, the overall structure and methodology of enforcing a judgment has remained relatively unchanged. That changes with this bill, which was developed to reflect modern requirements and to utilize existing ways that debt obligations are recorded and researched.

The bill goes into deep detail to provide as much guidance as possible to those affected by it: judgment creditors, judgment debtors, third parties who may own property with or deal with a judgment debtor, and civil enforcement officers who will be contracted by government to enforce money judgments.

The bill is over 200 sections set out over 16 parts. I’ll briefly note the purpose of each part and points of particular interest arising from that part. I look forward to responding to questions members may have about particular sections at the committee stage.

Part 1 defines terms for the purposes of interpretation of this act, including terms that are used in this act that are found in the Personal Property Security Act and the Securities Transfer Act.

[1:35 p.m.]

Part 2 outlines general principles that underpin this act and which apply to the legislation, such as every type of personal property in which a judgment debtor may have an interest is subject to an enforcement charge, unless exempted by this act. This includes property of the judgment debtor that is affixed to land that they do not own, owned with others, owned by a partnership that the judgment debtor is a part of.

Part 3 creates the money judgment registry. The money judgment registry is part of the personal property registry. The bill sets out how judgments may be registered, amended and/or withdrawn. It also establishes that registering a money judgment in the money judgment registry results in the creation of a floating enforcement charge over all of the judgment debtor’s property until the judgment is satisfied. The creation of this enforcement charge has impacts that are addressed in part 4.

Part 4. The enforcement charge establishes that, in most cases, the judgment creditor will have a claim and priority to subsequent creditors, such as a credit union considering giving the judgment debtor a line of credit, and many potential purchasers of a judgment debtor’s property.

Part 4 ensures that money judgments, security interests and commercial liens are treated in the same way and that, by and large, priority is established by the date and time of the registration.

Part 4 also ensures that if a person wants to buy a serial numbered good — a car, boat, boat engine or plane — that they can simply search by serial number to ensure that they are fully informed whether there are any interests registered against that property.

Part 5 sets out the powers of civil enforcement officers, which as I mentioned in first reading, is the new title for court bailiffs.

However, court bailiffs have not merely been renamed. Their authority has been considerably expanded. A civil enforcement officer will have the ability to do any act or thing with respect to the property that may be done by the judgment debtor. This means that the civil enforcement officer has leeway to find the most efficient way to realize value from the debtor’s property.

In some cases, this may mean that the civil enforcement officer leases out or licenses the use of the judgment debtor’s property. Then, once the debt is satisfied, the judgment debtor will get that property back. This authority should benefit both the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor.

Part 6. This deals with enforcement instructions given by a judgment creditor to a civil enforcement officer. En­forcement instructions replace writs of seizure issued by the court.

Generally, an enforcement instruction will simply ask a civil enforcement officer to use any means to satisfy the judgment. However, an enforcement instruction can direct a civil enforcement officer to seize and sell specific property described in the instruction or to seize and sell any property, but specific property, described in the instruction.

Part 7 sets out how to obtain information about a judgment debtor’s assets from the judgment debtor. Obtaining information about the judgment debtor’s assets is key to being able to seize these assets to satisfy judgment. The bill takes a proportional approach to obtaining information about a judgment debtor’s assets beginning with the least intrusive method, which is the completion of a questionnaire.

The civil enforcement officer can then move, incrementally, from the questionnaire to an examination in front of a court reporter to the most intrusive method: an examination in front of a judge, which can lead to a court order allowing a civil enforcement officer to question anyone about the property of a judgment debtor.

If a judgment debtor fails to participate in any stage of the information gathering process — for example, they don’t answer the questionnaire or attend for examination — then a civil enforcement officer or a lawyer is entitled to directly question a limited group of third parties who have information about the judgment debtor’s assets. Those third parties will be specified by regulation.

My ministry worked with information and privacy experts to ensure authorities granted to civil enforcement officers and lawyers was appropriate. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has had an opportunity to review and expressed no concerns at this time.

My ministry will continue to work with the Privacy Commissioner when developing any regulations related to information and privacy.

Part 8 sets out general rules relating to the seizure of property. As stated, all property of the judgment debtor is subject to seizure. Part 8 sets out the default rules that will apply to seizure if there are not special rules applicable to the property under part 9.

A key principle set out in part 8 is that co-owned and partnership property may now be seized.

[1:40 p.m.]

The presumption is that the judgment debtor has a proportional interest in co-owned and partnership property relative to the number of other co-owners or partners.

Part 9. This part sets out special rules for the seizure and disposition of the following specific types of property: fixtures, personal property that’s attached to land, and crops, including aquatic plants; interests under leases, contracts of sale and security agreements; accounts, money someone owes or will owe to the judgment debtor, and other debts; securities, stocks and bonds, and futures contracts, agreements to buy or sell stocks and bonds in the future; licences, intellectual property, including copyright, patents, etc., and trade secrets.

Part 10 deals with the disposition of seized property, most commonly, by way of sale. Generally, this part requires a civil enforcement officer to dispose of seized property in the manner that they consider will maximize the proceeds that may be realized from the disposition of the property. If a civil enforcement officer seizes co-owned property, they will be entitled to sell that property in its entirety. The co-owner will have a preferential right to acquire the property, but if they do not do so, they will be entitled to their share of the proceeds from sale.

Part 11 sets out special rules for co-owned and partnership property. The bill makes an important change to existing law by allowing the seizure of co-owned property, which prevents a judgment debtor from ordering their affairs in such a way as to frustrate creditors. No longer can the judgment debtor live in multiple fancy homes and drive expensive cars they co-own with their spouses or that their spouses have sole legal title to.

We’re piercing these types of arrangements to ensure that duly made court orders are not thwarted. That said, the legislation does recognize that the seizure of co-owned and partnership property can have implications for innocent co-owners and partners whose only connection to the enforcement proceedings is a relationship to the judgment debtor.

For this reason, part 11 contains important protections for co-owners and partners, such as ensuring they receive a notice of seizure and giving them priority to acquire the judgment debtor’s interest in the property. Most importantly, property directly used by a partnership to earn income cannot be seized.

Part 12 confirms that receivers can continue to be used to collect judgments where appropriate. Because of all the additional powers provided to civil enforcement officers, it is likely that a person will only need to apply to court for the appointment of a receiver where they need a receiver manager to oversee a business run by the judgment debtor and collect the accounts arising from that business. The majority of rules around the application and appointment of a receiver will remain in the Supreme Court civil rules.

Part 13 is the most important part to ensure the protection of judgment debtors. Part 13 sets out the exemptions that a judgment debtor or their dependent is entitled to claim to ensure that they maintain a minimum standard of living. The proposed act maintains all existing exemptions, and on the recommendation of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and B.C. Law Institute, it expands the list of exempt property to include food, compensation for loss of future income or to pay for future medical expenses, pets and burial plots.

In addition, ministry staff recommended including the following additional types of property as exempt: RDSPs and RESPs, one bike or e-bike, one computer, one mobile phone. Bikes, computers and mobile phones will have a maximum amount that can be claimed as exempt. Like a motor vehicle currently, if the property is worth more than the maximum amount, it is considered a luxury item and can be seized. So a debtor can keep a mid-price commuter bike, but a $10,000 racing bike will be subject to seizure.

An important expansion of the protections provided under this bill is that a judgment debtor’s dependents are allowed to bring exemption claims where the judgment debtor fails to do so. Currently, household furnishings and vehicles are only exempt at the option of the debtor. This bill allows dependents who rely on the judgment debtor’s property to claim an exemption where the judgment debtor does not.

Part 14 establishes the rules for distributing money realized from the disposition of seized property. A number of people and organizations are specifically recognized as having greater priority than the judgment creditor — for example, the Canada Revenue Agency — meaning they must be paid first. Where there are multiple judgment creditors for a single debtor, they share the proceeds of sale on a pro rata basis, meaning in proportion to the amount they are owed.

[1:45 p.m.]

Pro rata sharing encourages a judgment creditor to enter into voluntary payment agreements with a judgment debtor. A judgment creditor can feel comfortable that they are protected by their registration in the money judgment registry and that if there is a subsequent judgment creditor who wishes to be more active, the first judgment creditor will share in the proceeds of the enforcement actions directed by the latter judgment creditor.

Part 15 addresses the process a person who is not the judgment debtor can use if they believe that there has been a mistake and the property that has been seized is their property, or if they have an unregistered interest in the property that is not recognized by the civil enforcement officer.

Part 16 provides an overarching framework that speaks to the roles, responsibilities and protections for parties that are under this act. Some key principles established in this part include the requirement for parties to act in a commercially reasonable manner.

This broad concept is drawn from the ULCC draft legislation and is used in Saskatchewan. It may have to be interpreted by the court, but one goal is to ensure that a civil enforcement officer does not unnecessarily sell property if the proceeds realized from sale will not result in payment to the judgment creditor — for instance, where there are civil enforcement officer fees and recoverable costs and priority claims that must be paid ahead of the judgment creditor.

There is, of course, much more detail in the bill that I will be happy to address at the committee stage. With that, I move second reading.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for her comments on this bill. Circumstances regrettably prevent me from attending the sitting today in person, but I hope I can offer some commentary today with respect to this piece of legislation that is helpful for the debate and discussion that will follow.

The Attorney has correctly described this as a weighty piece of legislation, 215 sections spread over almost 140 pages. There is a lot of detail, as we’ve heard, in the 15 or 16 parts to this bill, a lot of technical aspects to creditors’ remedies that employ language that, for many people — or most people, for that matter — will be difficult to follow.

So there will be, by necessity, a far more detailed conversation between members of the assembly — I expect myself and maybe others — and the Attorney as we go through in committee stage what some of these provisions in this new piece of legislation mean and what they are going to look like in practice.

As complicated as that all is, though, the problem that this is designed to address is a relatively straightforward one. That is, in our society, built around the principles of the rule of law, it is generally understood and accepted that one of the obligations we have is to ensure that we have a dispute resolution process in place for those situations where citizens find themselves in dispute with one another about the terms of a contract in circumstances where one person is obligated to pay another money and hasn’t done so.

There are a myriad of disputes, and the mechanisms available have evolved over time from just the courts to tribunals and alternative dispute mechanisms that are available for people to avail themselves of to have a third party render a decision on who owes what to whom.

[1:50 p.m.]

Having that mechanism available and having access to those dispute resolution options is meaningless if, at the end of the day, after having received the declaration from a panel, from a judge, one is entitled to a certain amount of money, one has secured a judgment and is entitled to have a certain amount of money paid to them by another person….

If there is not an effective means for that person to collect the money and to enforce that judgment against another person, another party, then the first part of the equation becomes rather meaningless and doubly frustrating because of the sometimes costly proceedings involved in securing the judgment in the first place.

Insofar as this piece of legislation is designed to address that problem — and it has been a problem — it attracts the support of the opposition and that support, in principle, for what is, we presume — I assume — based on the Attorney’s commentary, the government’s objective.

It has, as the Attorney says, been a long time in coming. The work began on this over a decade ago. The Uniform Law Conference, of course, has been involved. Other prov­inces have taken steps. I think Alberta and Saskatchewan have moved down this path and have already introduced legislation. While it’s not identical, it’s similar to what we, I think, are going to be dealing with here in this House.

The real question that we will want to explore with the Attorney is to what extent we are creating a construct here that doesn’t just look good theoretically but is actually going to work and reduce the complications associated with someone collecting on a hard-earned judgment that they have secured against another party, an individual or a company.

I have to say…. As I said, for unforeseen circumstances, I find myself here in Abbotsford at home, where I recall my father, a small businessman, confronted occasionally by this very problem — a customer or client that refused to pay a bill and for whom a court confirmed the debt owing and really no effective way for an individual — in my dad’s case, a small businessperson — to enforce that judgment, and it becomes very debilitating and very challenging.

Creating a registry, creating a mechanism by which multiple registrations of a judgment aren’t any longer required is theoretically…. It should be an improvement. Vesting in civil enforcement officers a greater authority to collect upon judgments that are registered with them should provide an additional tool to realize on those judgments.

The Attorney won’t be surprised to know that we’ll have some questions at committee stage about, practically, how that looks. How many civil enforcement officers does the government contemplate bringing on to assume the responsibilities that are created in this piece of legislation? What kind of training will they have? Where will they be recruited from? Those are some practical issues that we will want to explore with the Attorney.

[1:55 p.m.]

From the perspective of the judgment creditor who, having already been denied moneys that were owed to them, has incurred further costs in securing a judgment from a court or tribunal confirming that they are owed that money and is now looking to collect on that debt from people or individuals or corporations that are sometimes very clever and very adept at trying to avoid the obligations that they have incurred and now seek to avoid….

In each of the parts of this bill, there are any number of questions. I note, for example, the exigibility that is proposed in this legislation for jointly owned properties, which the Attorney alluded to in her comments just a few moments ago. Certainly, a new avenue for a judgment creditor to pursue.

As we heard from the Attorney, also, issues can arise from the point of view of an innocent co-owner whose only link to the debt may be the co-ownership of a piece of property or other asset with the judgment debtor and for whom a collection of that debt by the judgment creditor may have some profound consequences as well.

So no shortage of issues and scenarios that we’ll be able to explore and derive the Attorney’s thoughts. For the purposes of this discussion and this debate, however, I think it’s appropriate that, on behalf of the official opposition, I indicate our agreement in principle and support in principle for the direction the government and the Attorney are charting with respect to Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

We’ll look forward to pursuing those extensive numbers of questions, over the various parts of the bill, when we come to the committee stage in the days ahead.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s my honour to rise in the House today to talk about the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

We have been hearing from so many people who have already been through a very long-drawn-out and, sometimes, expensive but very labour-intensive process of wanting to secure something that’s owed to them.

Even after having gone through that process, we’ve been hearing that the money still doesn’t flow back to the person that it’s owed to. Even though our democratic court process has actually made a ruling and said that this person has been treated unfairly by this person — this person, therefore, needs to pay a certain amount that is adjudicated by that third party to the other person — they still don’t get justice.

Everybody should have equal access to justice. Justice should be fair and be seen to be fair and experienced fairly by everybody here in British Columbia. That’s the intention of the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

The proposals in this act will make it easier for people to get the money that is owed to them. It has already been determined that they are owed this certain amount of money through the courts or tribunals like the residential tenancy branch or the civil resolution tribunal.

There are lots of barriers in the way, at the moment, for how people would be able to actually pursue the money that they are owed. From my perspective, the more barriers that we have in a system, a government system, a public system that’s there to serve people…. The more barriers that are there, the more disadvantaged members of our community are less likely to be able to overcome those.

Yet again, people who are already disadvantaged are, then, even more unfairly treated by what should be a public service system. I don’t have any statistics on that, but I worry about that whenever I hear and see that there are barriers in a system that is meant to be universally accessible.

[2:00 p.m.]

You can imagine that even just initiating the process and going through the process, for some people, is a real burden, let alone then not actually having the funds supplied that the court has ordered should be repaid to you. So we are putting forward these amendments to the act in order to make sure that there is that improvement in access to justice and equity in the system as well.

One example of a barrier that exists that this act will change is that, at the moment, you have to make a court application for every method used to collect funds from someone who doesn’t voluntarily pay their debts. You can imagine how costly and time-consuming that is for anybody to think about: “Well, each time I’m owed some money, I have to take that to court.”

For example, if you were given an order where you were able to take money from somebody’s salary throughout the course of a year in order to have the debt that is genuinely owed to you, that has been ruled is owed to you, you would actually have to go to court 26 times in a year if that person is on a biweekly payroll. That is a significant burden that we will be able to remove with this act.

It will be possible for a third party to issue notice that each and every salary paid, each and every payroll paid through the course of that year will have a certain amount of money taken from it in order to pay down the debt that is owed.

You can imagine that these barriers, as I say, are likely to disadvantage some people more than others, and we have also been hearing that people just give up.

The court has determined that someone has been un­fairly treated. They are owed money. Yet, because there are all these barriers to actually getting the money after that ruling, some people just give up. So the people who owe the money have just gotten away with being exploitative and treating someone else unfairly. Making sure that we support people in building positive, constructive, healthy relationships and making sure that people are treated fairly in our province is really important.

This legislation will actually contribute to that. This legislation actually will replace a lot of the current Court Order Enforcement Act. Many of the routes of those court orders go back 200 years and so are very colonial, very steeped in other social norms compared to British Columbia here in 2023. It does make it easier for people who are owed money to actually pursue collection through a money judgment.

In addition — because some people might say, “Well, this sounds a bit unfair. It sounds like it’s the pendulum swinging further to the other side” — we are actually up­dating and modernizing these processes and recognizing that people who owe money are also entitled to continue a reasonable standard of living.

There are exemptions that are in this act to make sure that we’re not being over-punitive and to empower the courts and the civil processes to be supportive of both people involved in the process and also bearing in mind that the person owing the money might have a family that depends on them, might have a partner, might have some shared assets. There needs to be consideration given to all the people impacted by this whole process.

Currently, if someone doesn’t voluntarily pay the money that has been judged to be owed, the person pursuing collection has to make a court application, as I said, for each collection. But in the future, under this act, money judgments will be enforced with a single enforcement instruction. It will be registered in a searchable public registry.

Employers, as I said earlier on, if they are to garnish wages, will receive one single instruction, so they will know what to do for every single paycheque throughout the year.

Tribunal orders will be automatically entered into the judgment registry. Then people can directly instruct a civil enforcement officer. Previously they were known as bail­iffs. They can actually go out and seize and sell property in order to satisfy the debt.

[2:05 p.m.]

Someone else will take on the duty and responsibility of finding a way to get the money to the person who’s owed. That person can actually go and identify other types of property, for example, that the person owing the debt may have and can sell other items of property. It might be another property. It might be another house. It might be a generator attached to the house. It can also be crops.

There are going to be regulations related to co-owned properties as well. So the overall health — financial health, asset health — of the person owing the money will be assessed and evaluated, and then there will be the authority to not strip somebody of everything but to make sure they can maintain a reasonable standard of living and yet to find some of those assets and other items that that person has and sell them to create that money and transfer that money over to the person who is owed.

There is, as I say, a balance in this. There are safeguards put in place to make sure that those people owing money and anyone that’s dependent on them can maintain a basic standard of living.

If that person owing money owes multiple debts, then there will be a calculation and a pro rata of being able to sell something and then allocate those funds pro rata to all of those debts and make sure that people who are owed money, and it’s been reasonably determined and judged that they are owed a certain amount of money, will be able to start to receive the money that they are owed.

As an example of the reasonableness of this, there are exemptions to the types of property that could be seized and then sold and the funds passed on. That includes food — so we’re talking about necessities, things that people need to be able to take care of themselves and their family — medical aids, 70 per cent of wages or other income, court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, burial plots, RDSPs and RESPs and any equipment used as part of that person’s employment.

We don’t want to put people into poverty. We don’t want to make people lose their home, not be able to function, not be able to take care of their family, lose their employment. All of those basics of life and a reasonable standard of life are respected, and the debts can be paid through these means of seizure of property or funding through wages.

Other property exemptions. People will be able to keep their principal residence. We know that people need to have shelter. We know people need to have food. We know they need to have medical supplies and supports if they’re required. A principal residence will be included as an exemption — one car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone as well, so the necessities of daily life.

I think, as the Attorney General said earlier on, if you have one bike, if you have an electric bike and use that to get to work, if you then have a racing bike that’s worth $10,000, you don’t actually need both. You can survive with the one bike, continue working, pay off the debts, and then you’re still able to pursue your future. You’re still working. You still have a hope and a vision of how you want to clear your debts as well as be a productive citizen here in British Columbia.

The legislation is actually quite complex. We want to make sure that it works well, of course, and that the process is fair for all of the parties involved and that it’s fair for the person who owes the money, and it’s fair for the person who is owed the money and all the people who are dependent on them and who are part of their daily life as well.

We have done consultation, and we will continue to seek feedback. We’ll continue to have debate here in chambers as well.

The intention, as I say here, is of removing those barriers and also to make sure that there’s a direct registration in the registry rather than having to register with the court.

[2:10 p.m.]

Additional protections, as I said, have actually been introduced to make sure that if you’re owing money, you can maintain a basic standard of living whilst, fairly, the person who is owed the money starts to receive that money.

Exemption amounts can also be adjusted. So when we experience inflation, like we have done recently, the global impact of inflation…. Because the regulations will bring a lot of this into force, there will be a lot of ability to make adjustments, especially if we see that it’s not having the effect that we would want it to have as well.

The legislation is actually based on recommendations by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the British Columbia Law Institute.

We also did consult and work with the Canadian Bar Association, financial institutions and other lending institutions so that everybody who has been part of this whole system and process is aware of what the changes will be. Then each part of the sector will be able to work out their response to how they’re going to be able to make sure they implement the law and implement the regulations as well.

Of course, in accordance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Indigenous nations and rights and title holders have been consulted on this as well.

It will be brought into force by regulation in 2025, so there’s a lot of time between now and then for people to familiarize themselves with what the regulation means and with how to implement it and to think about the implications for themselves as well.

Now, on the public database, the money judgment registry, the information that will be shared there will be publicly available, and it will only contain the information that is absolutely necessary to inform third parties that someone has a judgment registered against them. So again, this goes through the process, a judgment is made, and then that will be placed on the registry.

It’ll be similar to the kind of information that’s on business-registered security agreements like car loans, secure lines of credit. That kind of information, and much of what’s going to be registered in this new database, can already be found in the court registry, which is also another publicly accessible registry via the court services online.

What this should do is actually make it easier and provide us with one central place, a one-stop shop, to be able to go and get this particular information. The judgment debtor’s name will be posted there. Any name that they used to hold any property under — that will be put into the registry as well.

For example, on some of my financial materials, some people like to put your middle name in, and some people don’t. So some of mine is my first name, my last name, and some of them have my middle letter in, for example. All of those would be included. Not that I owe anybody anything, but that’s an example of what would be included.

The judgment debtor’s date of birth and address will also be included because we would need to make sure that we can identify individuals and distinguish between very similar names, very common names as well. Then the amount of the judgment will also be included. You’d be able to see how much is owing to other people that that one particular person owes in total, and then there would also be a court file number.

The other thing this database will do is it will allow us to collate data and aggregate data as well. That will actually give us some information about whether this is having an impact, what the trends are over time. It will also be able to tell us how long, on average, it takes to collect a debt or how much of a debt is collected at different periods in time. That can actually inform policy and inform practice as well, so it will provide us with important and helpful information.

Another advantage of this is that, again, it simplifies things. It’s one place of information, there’s one enforceable instruction, and it’s publicly available, so that accountability is there as well.

[2:15 p.m.]

The registry will be beneficial for people looking to register security agreements like car loans or secured lines of credit as well. Instead of having to search for money judgments through property or court registries, then, there will be this one-stop shop, where people will be able to learn whether another person has entered into any security agreements or if any money judgments or commercial liens have been registered against them, and it will show the amount currently owing.

It really protects people if they’re considering going into an arrangement, an agreement, some kind of relationship with somebody else, as well, where you might just want to be doing an assessment. You might have some kind of perceived risk, or you might have some Spidey senses that you’re a little alarmed by.

This provides a route, a tool for British Columbians to be able to actually make better-informed choices about transactions they enter into, relationships that they may build, how they engage with other people, and what level of risk they’re willing to take as well.

The information that will be in the registry is already publicly available. So putting it in one place and making it easy to search isn’t an increase in infringement on people’s rights, or their privacy either.

It will also show the people who are paying off their debts. It will actually show, over time, if you are a person…. Where a judgment was made that you owed money to someone else, it’s a way for you to actually publicly demonstrate your commitment to meeting the debt that you owe, and your commitment, to other British Columbians, to make sure that the court judgments are applied and that you’re treating people fairly.

Because of all the checks and balances in there for you to be able to take care of your family, take care of yourself and maintain that basic lifestyle, it is reasonable that you continue to do that. If that means you can’t pay all of the debt down immediately, that is reasonable; that is fair.

Paying down your debt is something…. Yes, it’s owing. However, it’s not going to help us in British Columbia if the response is so punitive that somebody ends up homeless or their family ends up not being well cared for. It’s a balance there to make sure that the person owing the money is able to maintain a reasonable, basic standard of life and that the person who needs access to justice, and who is owed money, receives the money that they are owed.

This is really important, and I’ll give one example of where and why this is really important. We in British Columbia have a housing crisis at the moment. If more people, for example, had rooms and parts of their house to rent out, or other properties, then that would be great. The more stock we can bring into operation and increase capacity in the housing market, that would be great.

We’ve heard from some property owners that are concerned that if they rented out the property they have…. They may have heard stories, you just heard, that when someone is paying you rent, if they owe you rent and you take them to court, you still don’t get your money back. That’s limiting some people offering accommodations that could be a home for somebody. We know how difficult it is to find affordable accommodations here in British Columbia.

If this is a barrier, the barriers in the system of actually being able to have a loan repaid as ordered…. If that creates a barrier to people putting property into the marketplace, then that, again, is another contribution that this legislation will make to some of the issues facing British Columbians every single day.

It also applies to renters. We’ve heard from renters that they have really struggled to get, for example, a deposit back from someone that they had been renting their home from. That’s a real issue for British Columbians because of the global inflation and affordability.

[2:20 p.m.]

If you don’t get your deposit back, how can you then go to another opportunity for renting, with your deposit? Would you just abandon your deposit? You’ve had a judgment. The owner of the property owes you your deposit back. Yet it’s very difficult, in some cases, for people who aren’t repaying that debt. Then that puts that renter in a really difficult position, because they’ve lost that deposit, which they need, probably, when they go into another place to rent as well. It’s really putting so many barriers in the way.

This piece of legislation is really going to be supporting British Columbians in lots of different ways. In 2022, the residential tenancy branch awarded approximately 4,800 money judgments to landowners and renters, compared to 4,100 in 2021. Clearly this is an issue in the province, and we also need to make the system improved as well.

As I said, because the collection process is so burden­some, many people just give up on the debt that they’re owed, which means they’re not getting access to justice. It means that they’re struggling even further, because they’re owed money, and they’re not getting the money that they are owed as well.

In summary, what this legislation is going to do is going to make sure that people who are owed money — there has been a judgment following a civil court decision — will have a more streamlined and easier process. The intention is to be more successful in actually having the money provided to them in order to be able to pay off that debt that they are owed by somebody else.

Once the judgment has been awarded, that will be posted on the registry. Then the details of the person who owes the money will be on that registry, and that will be publicly available. So other British Columbians who might be thinking about getting into some kind of a transaction with that person will be able to go and see — do they owe any debts to anyone, and are they paying those debts down? — and be able to make an informed decision.

If you were a renter and looking at different places to rent, you would actually be able to go into this registry and see whether the owner of the property that you’re thinking of renting actually owes anybody any money. That might inform your decision about your choices about where to rent and who to rent from. It does at least empower people to be able to make decisions. It provides more access to justice for those people who are owed money and have a judgment that they are owed money and are not receiving that money from the person who owes it to them.

Looking forward to more debate on this legislation. Really, really happy to be here and speak in support of the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

K. Greene: It is my honour and privilege to stand in the chamber today on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nations.

It is an absolutely beautiful day outside of these walls, and I hope folks are able to go enjoy that.

Everyone should enjoy equitable and fair access to judgment. When people receive a judgment, a money amount owed to them, they should receive it. There is a reason that that judgment was made in either a court or a tribunal. The person who has that amount owed should be receiving it, and the person who is deemed to owe it should be paying it.

We are hearing so much about frustration in process, that the process of going through all of the paperwork is stopping people from accessing judgment. People give up. It is so important that people do receive the amounts that are owed to them.

We heard previously about renters who may need their damage deposit back that’s been held unfairly. But there are other situations, as well, where people do need to have the amounts owed to them, because it’s fair, and we’re looking for fairness.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’re looking to make sure that it’s easier for people to get money that is owed to them through different courts or tribunals — the residential tenancy branch, that we’ve heard about, as well as the civil resolution tribunal. It’s not just about receiving the amount owed; it’s also about alleviating a lot of the frustration that is out there — frustration on the side of the person who’s seeking justice and the person who has that amount owed.

I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to have an amount owed to you and watch the person that owes that money driving a luxury car and living the high life and, basically, being able to frustrate justice through just different parts of using the bureaucracy against them.

Right now you have to make a court application for every method that you would like to use to collect funds. This is obviously really time consuming. A lot of people don’t have time to chase people down for the amounts owed. It’s costly, not just in their personal amount of time but also getting legal advice and filing documents.

When I say, “for every method used to collect funds,” methods include garnishing wages, garnishing funds and bank accounts, the seizure and selling of personal goods, liens on personal property. Each one of these requires its own stream right now.

Under the proposed legislation, there is going to be a single enforcement instruction that’s going to be entered into a public registry. So it will really eliminate all of the duplicative processes that are embedded in the system right now, getting people more access to justice and fairness.

It’s really important that we also view this through the lens of modernization of government processes. Our government has worked a lot on making sure that we’re meeting the expectations of the 21st century, including streamlining processes — that’s really important — as well as creating a database so that people can look electronically. Generally, the expectation of people today is that you can access all kinds of records electronically and have that one place, that repository, so that you can make sure that you are getting access to the resolutions through either courts or tribunals.

It really comes down to being able to access a fair and just system. Fundamentally, if you can’t collect the money that is awarded through the courts or tribunals, it really feels that justice is elusive, and nobody in British Columbia should feel like that. People shouldn’t have to give up on collection. That money is rightfully owed to them. It has been determined through either a court process or a tribunal process that the fair amount is owed. So giving up on that amount is really giving up on receiving the amounts that are justly owed.

There will be updated exemptions in this legislation that…. People that owe money are going to make sure…. We’re going to make sure that they can maintain a standard of living. We don’t want to impoverish anyone through the award of any amounts owed. We want them to be able to continue to be productive, being able to make right on the amounts that they’re owing to other folks.

Again, that amount owed…. I talked just briefly about the different ways that you can collect. When you have to go through all of these bureaucratic processes…. For example, for the garnishment of wages: you would have to apply to the courts 26 garnishing orders every year, just for the wages alone. Obviously, the time and expense is a huge barrier for people accessing justice through our systems.

Under the proposed act, tribunal orders are now going to be automatically entered into a money judgment registry so that people can directly instruct a civil enforcement officer, who formerly known as bailiffs, to collect and satisfy the debt.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s part of that modernization of processes, part of the streamlining of processes and electronic systems that’s go­ing to ensure that we’re opening up the doors for justice here. There’s a lot of focus on receiving the amount, but there’s maybe some concern about the person who owes the funds.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The changes are going to make sure that while it’s easier to settle and collect on the outstanding debts, it will be equitable, and that safeguards are in place to ensure people who owe money and their dependents are going to have a decent standard of living. We don’t want to create any undue hardships. We want to ensure that people are paying the amounts owed and receiving the amounts owed in a way that is respectful and fair.

There are going to be some items that are exempt from seizure to people who owe the money. Again, that goes back to that standard of living for them and their dependents, ensuring fairness and that these folks can keep working. When we have a principal residence — again, we don’t want to create any tragic housing circumstances for anyone — a car, a bike, a computer and a mobile phone so that people can work, they can continue to pay down the debts and the amounts owed until they’ve been satisfied.

Also, it’s important to consider the situation where someone might want to sell their exempt property or an exempt item to purchase a new one. For example, maybe they realize that they don’t need to drive a Jag to work every day. Maybe they can drive a Toyota. They can sell their car and buy a lesser car and use some of the funds — the difference — to pay down the amount. But that time in between the sale of an exempt item and the purchase of a new exempt item, so, selling a car, buying a car….

Those amounts are protected so that you wouldn’t be in a situation where you sold your car and the amounts were collected and now you couldn’t have a car. You couldn’t get to work. You couldn’t get your kids to their appointments. So there is fairness built into the system, helping people to make sure that they can continue to meet their obligations.

The goal here in this legislation is to ensure that the rules related to any judgments are fair and that the process is fair both for the person who’s owing money and any third parties that might be impacted by collection, as well as fairness for any recipient of those funds.

The proposed legislation will enable money judgments to be enforced with a single enforcement instruction, and it will be registered in a searchable public database. This is of assistance to many different people — not just the person seeking a collection, but also the person who is owing the amount.

If you’re owing an amount, you probably don’t want to be constantly served papers and constantly have this intrusiveness into your life. You just want to calm that procedure down. We’re going to streamline it. We’re going to have the single database and simplify things for everybody. It really eliminates the need for people to apply to the court for each collection method and simplifies things on all sides.

There are possibly some questions about child support payments. Child support payments are carried out through the family maintenance enforcement program, which is staffed by people who are largely going to be using that process. This new process wouldn’t possibly be used if a very large amount owing accumulates over time.

If that happens, the FMEP will be able to register that very large unpaid amount directly in the judgment database and then provide enforcement instruction to a civil enforcement officer, previously known as bailiffs, to collect it. So in the event that there is a very large outstanding amount, they could use this new process, but otherwise, we’ll be using their existing processes.

[2:35 p.m.]

This registry is also going to be beneficial for people who are looking to register security agreements. Security agreements are things like car loans or secured lines of credit, so they can see if there’s any kind of impairment on the ability of the person involved to be able to repay any amounts owing or potentially being owed.

It could also be used for people looking to get into, maybe, a legal arrangement where they’re contemplating going into business together or any other kind of arrangement. You’d want to know if there was any kind of impairment on their ability to have a financial obligation with you, and this would definitely assist with that.

These changes are going to be affecting primarily civil cases. Civil cases would be things like breach of contract or an incident where, maybe, a person damaged another person’s property.

Again, these are going through the courts or through a tribunal. An example of that is the residential tenancy branch. The RTB had 4,800 money judgments awarded to both landlords and renters, so both sides of the rental agreement will be benefited from having this kind of system set up where they can easily access justice, where they can get the amounts that are fairly owed to them.

Perhaps consider that any future tenants or any future landlords might not want to have a judgment on their record as they would in the court and everything else. They want to be able to show that they are responsible and responsive landlords or tenants.

I think that this helps with fairness and equitable access to justice, and everybody benefits when the system works well. This streamlining and modernization of all these existing processes — because they’re all existing; they’re being streamlined and consolidated — is really a benefit for everybody.

There was substantial consultation that was undertaken in the process of creating the principles of this legislation. There is similar legislation in other provinces, including Alberta next door. We’ve also consulted with British Columbia Law Institute, Uniform Law Conference of Canada and select court bailiffs. I know the Canadian Bar Association, financial institutions and other lending institutions are going to continue to provide advice, and that treaty First Nations have been notified about the work being done here and have had consultation a number of times.

We will continue to be able to hear from people, both in the professional realm but also in our constituency offices. This is something that is very personal, I think, to a lot of people. When they’ve received a judgment and they have an amount that is rightly owed to them, they want to be able to access that. That’s part of justice.

Part of justice is receiving the thing that is owed to you that has been determined through the courts to be fair. Accessing this system will increase fairness and improve people’s lives.

There’s nothing, I’m sure, more frustrating than having an amount that’s owed to you and not being able to get it. That money represents something. That represents your deposit cheque. That represents, in the case of property damage, repairing something to the standard that it was before.

It’s very important work, and I’m very privileged to be able to be part of this.

I thank you, Speaker, for your time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Welcome to the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. [Applause.]

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Phillip: I just want to thank everyone for making me feel so welcome in this House.

I want to thank the Esquimalt and Songhees people for the opportunity to do this work.

I was in lands and estates for 25 years for Penticton, and I can tell you, I welcome this kind of legislation, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. We consider the courts as a proper adjudicator to determine what is owed and how much, but it would ring hollow if there was no means to enforce that judgment.

I also want to echo the previous speaker’s statements about it’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you have people that are owed. But I have a case in my area where the landlord took absolutely everything from the individual after he evicted him. He took his wheelchair and all his personal belongings. He pretty well was locked out of the apartment with just the shirt on his back.

What this judgment does is provide for that balance of fairness on both sides. You have to pay what you owe and not take more than what you’re owed.

I’m not going to speak for another 28 minutes. I just wanted to keep it brief and say that I just welcome this kind of legislation, and I’d really like to see it in action.

Huy ch q’u.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome to our new member from Langford.

R. Parmar: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I just want to begin by saying how truly an honour it is to be standing in the House here today as the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca. With your indulgence, I just want to spend a couple of minutes talking about that feeling and the importance of being able to represent one’s community.

I’m catching my breath, running up the stairs from the basement. So apologies for that.

I want to begin by acknowledging how honoured I am to be here on the territories of the Coast Salish peoples, the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, known today as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

It’s so important for me to be able to recognize the nations that I have the honour of working with: the Scia’new First Nation, which I have the honour of working with closely with my dear colleague the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin; the T’Sou-ke Nation, the T’Sou-ke people; the Pacheedaht Nation to the west; and the Nuu-chah-nulth. I thank them for sharing these beautiful lands with me.

As I think of my relationship with the Indigenous nations in my community, the word “trust” comes to mind. I share that with my new colleague the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

When I first met Chief Russ Chipps of the Scia’new First Nation, as chair of the Sooke school district board of education, he told me — and he was pretty straight up — the trust was broken. Trust was broken between education, our school districts, our ministries and our governments of all stripes and Indigenous peoples. What was so important for me, before I could even build a relationship with Chief Chipps or Chief Planes or Chief Jones, from the Pacheedaht, was building that trust.

I am so honoured to be able to stand here and was so honoured, as part of our swearing-in ceremony for the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, to be able to be drummed into this place, for the first time, by representatives from our community. I know I share in the pleasure that it was just one of those moving moments that I’ll never forget about.

Very briefly, I also want to touch on the fact that I’m the son of immigrants who came here to Canada with nothing. I would not be in this chair if it wasn’t for my mom and my dad and my grandma, who might be watching at home right now. This is competing with Punjabi soap dramas. She may have different priorities, but we did tell her what channel it was on.

I just want to acknowledge that, for them, politics was something you ran away from. Politics was something that you didn’t necessarily engage with. There was a lot of corruption associated with politics where they came from. But going through the campaign experience and certainly having an opportunity for me to come home, whether it was as a school trustee or as chair of the board of education and now as an MLA, the ability to bring in politics…. It’s about people. It’s about the people we serve.

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I want to thank my parents and my grandmother for instilling that message in me all those years ago, whether it was on the picket lines, standing up for what we believed in when my parents were health care workers, to the point where they were supporting me on the campaign. Again, it’s all about the people we represent.

I also would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the person whose seat I have now the opportunity to occupy. I understand he was in this seat for a short period of time in his last day in the Legislature. That’s the former MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca. I understand I can say his name now — John Horgan, who has been a friend and mentor to me for so many years.

Just a couple of things I want to highlight in regards to that. I think many of you on this side of the House probably already know this story, have heard it many times from John or myself, but just to make sure that it’s in the records of Hansard. I first met John Horgan when I was in grade 5. I was doing a project on the 2005 election.

I was relatively engaged in politics at that time, which is hard to believe someone in grade 5 at ten years old would be. I was fascinated about party politics, about the provincial election. I was absolutely mesmerized by the leadership shown by Carole James, who was the leader of the B.C. NDP at that time.

I was a bit of keener in elementary school, so for me, it was always about getting that extra mark, getting that extra grade. So I went to my teacher, Miss Alton — who is a big reason, again, why I’m standing here today — to say: “What can I do to get that A-plus? What can I do to get the 100 percent?”

She was like: “Why don’t you invite the MLA who wins in your constituency to be interviewed in front of the class? You could at least send the email. You can make the engagement, make the phone call. They may say no. They’re busy people. But why don’t you make that effort?”

So I did, and that happened to be John Horgan, who I was so honoured to meet. So appreciative that he took time out of his busy schedule as a relatively new MLA for Malahat–Juan de Fuca — that was the name of the riding at the time — to be able to engage with me.

We’ve been friends ever since. He’s a true mentor to me and someone I look so highly up to. Certainly, at that time, I looked up to him because he was very tall. That’s something I remember — him coming out of his mini little SUV, a big, strong Irishman, and me, a really terrified grade 5 student.

The other piece I’ll touch on is, as many of you in this House know, I’ve been in this building for a number of years now as a staffer. Before that, I also took a number of opportunities to come here and watch question period, whether it was on the floor or up in the balconies.

It was a really special moment when John had an op­portunity to introduce me in the House as a student activist. He used to go around amongst our colleagues here — many who are still here, like the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake, or others who have moved on to other things — and would point to me and say: “This is my replacement in 2099.”

It’s just unfortunate that John couldn’t make it to 2099, but I know that he’s enjoying retirement at home. He spends a lot of time fishing. His health is good. I know that he wanted me to share that with the people in our community and certainly the people here.

The constituency of Langford–Juan de Fuca is diverse, whether you have urban Langford, rural Highlands, semi-urban rural Sooke and then, of course, the Juan de Fuca electoral area. I have the honour of representing Langford, the Highlands, East Sooke, Sooke, Otter Point, Shirley, Jordan River and Port Renfrew in this place, and it’s truly an honour to do so.

I just want to end my remarks in regards to that piece by saying that my message to people in Langford–Juan de Fuca…. Whether it’s been out this past summer, engaging with them in community markets, at community events, opening my community office, I want them to know that I won’t take this opportunity for granted.

It is truly an honour to be able to stand in this House, one of 87 individuals to be able to represent the voices of our community. And I know that, as my predecessor will say, I’ll do my level best each and every day to stand up for the people of Langford–Juan de Fuca.

I know, as I look across to people that when I was in elementary school, I looked up to as adversaries in this legislative process…. There’s the MLA for Prince George–​Valemount, who probably doesn’t know this, but we met in a hallway probably 15 years ago when, I think, you were the Minister of Justice, if I’m not mistaken, or maybe Education Minister. It’s truly an honour to be here.

We’re going to have a lot of vigorous debates. There’s going to be a lot of back-and-forth. But I know we’ll be able to do it in a respectful tone, and we’ll be able to do it in a way we’re representing our values and our perspectives.

[2:50 p.m.]

That’s something that I’ve learned along the way, whether it was from my parents or from John — that values are what should drive politics. It should be about people, the fact that we all represent incredible communities.

That’s what’s really special about this place. All of us are coming with that mindset, representing the communities of the Cariboo, Prince George, Victoria, Esquimalt, Langford or Surrey. That’s what’s really special about this place. It’s the ability for us to be able to come and have that vigorous debate, have that engagement but also make sure we’re doing so in a respectful way. So that’s certainly a commitment I’m going to have and, certainly, I know my colleagues on the other side will hold me to that as we debate back and forth. Again, it’s truly an honour.

With that, I’m going to transition my comments to Bill 27. I never thought Bill 27 would be the first piece of legislation I would be speaking to in this House, but truly it is an honour to be able to do so.

When I think of Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, what really comes to mind is equity and making sure that everyone, as we’ve talked about previously in this House…. No matter their race, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their class status, where they come from, how much money is in their pocket, everyone deserves access to equitable and fair justice.

I think that’s something that we all share no matter what side of the House we come from. It’s certainly a core value, I know, from our Premier, someone who I’ve had the honour of having conversations with as the Premier and when he was the Attorney General and minister responsible for justice. It’s a really core value of our government and why I’m so proud to stand here as a New Democrat MLA.

I think what’s really important — as the Attorney spoke previously, as other speakers have spoken — is about the concerns that we’ve heard in the formation of this legislation. It’s making sure that people feel represented in our court structures and our justice system.

Certainly, as a young person, as the youngest MLA in this House, the youngest MLA right now…. Hopefully, there will be other younger people in the future. But making sure we have processes in place that protect people….

I know so often those who go through the justice and court systems question the court structures and the justice system, and it’s so important for us as MLAs and legislators at a provincial and federal level to make sure that we’re updating, we’re modernizing. That’s what I truly see in Bill 27 and this legislation. I know it’s so important that through this legislation, it truly does make it easier for people to get the money they’re owed.

I know from conversations that I’ve had formerly as a constituency assistant working in various offices for various MLAs but also in the short period of time I’ve had my community office open that this can be a pretty frustrating topic for so many people. That’s why it’s so important that we support courts and tribunals like the residential tenancy branch and the civil resolution tribunal, and that’s why I was so excited about a year ago to see the Minister of Housing and the Premier announce significant investments in the residential tenancy branch.

The government announced back in December of 2021, one of the last announcements before the new year, the fact that it was increasing the residential tenancy branch’s operating budget and staffing by 40 percent. That means 50 new full-time individual employees to cut waiting times and double the size of the compliance and enforcement unit. All of that connects to this piece of legislation. It was so important for me to be able to acknowledge that because in 2022, the residential tenancy branch awarded approximately 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters, compared to approximately 4,100 in 2021.

It’s not easy being a tenant. It is such a challenging time to be a tenant in British Columbia, as it is all across the country. The cost-of-living issue is impacting so many people. I heard that on the doorstep in Langford–Juan de Fuca during the campaign, and I heard it last week when I was back out on the doorstep or at the Luxton Fall Fair, a staple event in my community. It’s a tough time.

New immigrants — 250,000 people have made British Columbia their home in the last two years. That’s something that’s exciting. That’s something that we should be celebrating. But it also means that those individuals that make this place their home are going through a very stressful time. They’re going through a challenging time.

I had the opportunity to be at the University of Victoria just last week and to talk to individual students about the challenges they’re facing with being renters in the housing market. If they’re not able to access housing on campus, they have to compete with everyone else in a market, and certainly in a market like Victoria or Vancouver or wherever it is, it can be challenging. It can be very challenging.

[2:55 p.m.]

What’s so important is going back to the investments we’ve made into the residential tenancy branch. It’s about creating equity and fairness for everyone involved. It’s about creating equity and fairness for landlords and for tenants.

I have many, many frustrating conversations with landlords who feel like the system is not there for them, and many of them leave the process as well. I hope that when they see this type of legislation come forward…. Many of whom have received orders through the residential tenancy branch but are not able to collect on them.

Similarly, it was discussed previously by another person that I was talking to about how there are so many renters that don’t get their damage deposit back, don’t get their pet deposit back. That’s a lot of money. It doesn’t matter how big your rental unit is. Sometimes it can be half-a-month’s worth of rent and, in this market, that’s a lot of money.

That’s something that we need to be mindful of as we work through our housing legislation. That’s something that is addressed in the Money and Judgment Enforcement Act — making sure that we have investments in place.

As with our Homes for People strategy, as we’re making more investments in affordable housing, as we saw the Premier and the Minister of Housing and the Minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship announce — just a couple of weeks ago, before UBCM — the secondary suite incentive….

I know there are a lot of people in Langford–Juan de Fuca who are really interested in knowing more about it, who are interested in building rental suites in their homes as part of their own establishments. It’s so important that as we make those investments in our Homes for People strategy, it ties directly back into the work that is happening in this Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

I also want to touch on the important investment our government made. Again, it’s tied to this legislation through the work we did with the civil resolution tribunal. I don’t think a lot of British Columbians truly understand the civil resolution tribunal and the importance that it plays in our society.

What’s really important for me, to be able to touch on why I feel the civil resolution tribunal is so important, is access to justice, making sure our justice system provides easier and a really inclusive approach to our justice system, especially for individuals with limited resources or those that feel that our justice system has not been there for them.

There’s systemic racism in all aspects of our government. That’s something that we’re addressing through the work that the Attorney and the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism are doing. Again, it’s tied back into this legislation.

The efficiency and the cost effectiveness of the resolution tribunal, the user-friendly platform…. That’s something I hear often: the fact that you have these new, modern…. Again, for young people, it’s not as fun to go to the courthouse to be able to access these types of tools. It’s not an easy thing to do. Being able to have an online platform where you’re able to access these tools is so important.

I touched on it before, but making sure that it’s inclusive and equitable, having an alternative dispute resolution, a legally binding decision. Also, empowering citizens is so important, providing them with direct control over their dispute resolution process. I think that’s why, for me, the civil resolution tribunal is so important, and it’s why I’m so proud that it was this government that brought it in.

I know that for our government, one of the reasons we brought it in was reducing court backlog. Again, this was an issue prior to the pandemic. Finding aims to alleviate the backlog in our provincial court system has been a struggle that many governments have had, whether it’s our government or the previous B.C. Liberal, now B.C. United government. Ensuring there’s more timely access to justice by reducing the load on traditional courts, improving legal accessibility, addressing these minor disputes in a different setting is so important.

I just come back to the fact that these tribunals, through this legislation, will now be automatically entered into the registry database. That was not something happening before, prior to this legislation, and in fact, it is not happening right now because this legislation is not in force yet. Money judgments under this proposed legislation, as I had mentioned, will be enforced with a single enforcement instruction, which means less time, which means less red tape and an ability for people to get moving with what they need to do.

Again, on the residential tenancy side, what’s so important when you’re in a housing crisis…. That means fairness for tenants and fairness for landlords and everyone in­volved in the housing system.

I also want to touch on a couple of other pieces. I think it’s fair to say that many people give up on the col­lection of full amounts under our current status quo approach.

[3:00 p.m.]

Many people I certainly talk to in my community and throughout the province often talk about the fact that the money judgment process that we currently have can be expensive and inefficient, and that can be frustrating.

That puts a lot of challenges on our court systems and puts a lot of frustration on British Columbians who then don’t have the trust in the court system when they’re…. Again, you have the situation where a tenant is just trying to get their damage deposit back or you have a landlord that’s just trying to collect from a tenant.

I was really interested as I was looking at the previous legislation…. The Court Order Enforcement Act, which is very much what is currently in place and what the Money Judgment Enforcement Act replaces, dates back to British legislation in the 1800s. We’re in 2023, and it’s so important that we’re making the investments and making sure that through the work that we’re doing as MLAs, we’re modernizing this legislation.

I touched on the importance of these tribunals, but I also want to spend a little bit of time talking about the charges, and I know my colleague from Richmond previously had talked about how these changes, you know, could have, in the past, unfairly punished those who owe. That’s certainly a question that many may raise: will these changes unfairly punish those who owe?

I think it’s fair to say, collectively, our answer is no. These changes will certainly make it easier to settle, collect outstanding debts equitably. That’s the key word. I’ve been mentioning that throughout this speech, that it’s done equitably. There are safeguards in place that ensure that people who owe money and their dependents can maintain a basic standard of living.

Again, that is something that many people face during normal times or are facing now as the cost of living issue impacts so many people, that it’s so expensive to go to your grocery stores or to pay your rent. It’s so important that we protect those vulnerable people.

Why it’s so important as I talked about that is that we talk about the sorts of property that would be exempt from seizure. My colleagues on both sides have touched on it. That includes food. It includes medical aids, 70 percent of wages or other income, court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, burial plots, RDSPs, RESPs and any equipment used as part of employment.

It’s also so important to touch on the fact that it also is exempt from property exemptions, including principal residence, one car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone, making sure that at the end of the day, as I’ve touched on…. I think when people go back and listen to my first speech, they’re going to hear the word “equitable” a lot, and that’s okay. I like that word. It’s what brings me here today. It’s so important that we take those steps.

You know, one of the other things that many people may ask is what took so long to bring this legislation in place. Certainly, there have been other provinces that have been quick to be able to bring this legislation forward.

I think it’s fair to say, and my colleague across the way, the MLA for Abbotsford West, certainly touched on it in his remarks. I was listening because, again, it’s someone who sits across from a different party, but someone who I’ve watched debate in this House since I was in elemen­tary school.

Not to make you feel old, MLA for Abbotsford West. I’m a big fan. I’m a big fan.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, of course.

R. Parmar: As he touched on so eloquently, and others have as well, this legislation is quite complex and requires special rules to account for many different types of specific property. That’s why I think it’s so important to acknowledge the Attorney General for undertaking this work. Certainly, the previous Attorney General, the Premier, who I know put a lot of work and effort into this as well when he was in that role. And also all the staff who have been a part of that process.

This is not the type of stuff that’s going to make the front cover of the Vancouver Sun, or in my case, the Times Colonist, but is going to be important in the changes made to protect people, and again, modernize our structures. I think it was just really important for me to be able to acknowledge that.

What also…. I’ll just end with acknowledging that it’s so important that we follow the lead of other provinces. I’ve always had this core belief in anything I’ve done, whether I was a student activist or just a student at university or a school trustee or chair of my school board to now as an MLA, that there are amazing things happening in our communities. There are amazing things happening across the province of British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

Sometimes there are amazing things happening in other provinces like Alberta and like Saskatchewan that have legislation like this in place. I know that Alberta was the first to do so with legislation that has very much a similar general structure as we have in this legislation.

I know that there are different pieces, and I know that the MLA for Abbotsford West and the Attorney General and other members will have an opportunity to be able to dive into that through the Committee of the Whole process.

I’ve always had this core belief that it’s okay to take other ideas. It’s important to acknowledge them. So it’s important for me to be able to acknowledge the leadership that was shown in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, which have similar legislation. It’s so important to British Columbia that we don’t turn a blind eye to that, but we acknowledge that and we make sure, again, that we’re modernizing, that we’re innovating in terms of our legislation processes.

It truly is an honour. Years back, when people asked me what was going to be the first piece of legislation I had the honour of standing up in this House and talking about, some might think housing. Some might think health care or different piecing. But, for me, it’s going to be the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. That’s something I’m certainly going to remember for a long time.

As I say that, it’s an important piece of legislation. It’s legislation that, again, makes sure that there’s equity in our court structures — makes sure that you have a situation in which you have a tenant who, again, just wants to be able to go through the residential tenancy branch process, know that they’ve been able to be awarded their damage deposit back and know that they’re going to get that — know that they’re going to get that because they may need those funds to be able to put down a damage deposit on another rental unit.

You may have a landlord who may feel that: “You know what? I’m getting really frustrated by this. I’m getting really frustrated about how I feel like the system is not on my side.” When you go through, again, a similar process, whether it’s the residential tenancy branch or even the civil resolution tribunal, you may not be able to access those funds.

So you may decide: “You know what? Because of the frustration I’m facing, it’s not worth it for me. So I’m going to take my rental unit off. I’m going to remove the garden suite or remove the basement and just leave it empty.” When you’re in a housing crisis, we can’t do those sort of things. Again, that’s why it’s so important that we’re bringing forward legislation like this to be able to protect those and to create that equitable process.

I’ll just end by saying, once again, that it’s such an honour for me to be able to stand here as the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca. I’ve thought many a time, standing in the hallways, what it would be like to be standing at this seat. It’s particularly special for me to be in this seat.

You often wonder…. The Government House Leader and, I’m sure, my colleagues on the other side have had interesting discussions about seat politics and where peo­ple are in the House. I didn’t really think much of it. I thought that maybe, being newbies, the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I might be on the other side, which would have been fine. It would have been lovely to have been able to engage with the folks on the other side. But what was….

Interjection.

R. Parmar: Absolutely. Especially the MLA for Nelson-Creston, the other young MLA in the Legislature.

What was really special for me in particular was that the first thing I did when I sat down in this chair was to lift up this, which I know many do, and to see the Minister of Housing’s name in here, which was particularly special for me. Many of you know that he was my former boss when he was the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. It’s such an honour for another first name — I can’t say that — to be able to very much follow in his lead.

Thank you so much. I look forward to, over the next couple of hours, hearing more discussion from both sides of the House. Hopefully, my colleagues from the opposition will engage as well in debate on Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

J. Sims: It is delightful to have, as he’s mentioned many times today, the young MLA from Langford–Juan de Fuca. I will tell him that age is only a number. It’s all in your head. I can see many thumbs up in the room for that. But it is really a delight to have him join us in here as well as my colleague from Mount Pleasant.

I really enjoyed listening to his first speech in the Legislature. I think those of us who were in the room wouldn’t have possibly guessed that was his first speech. I don’t know if he was practising all night or if he is just a natural orator. I’m beginning to think he’s a natural orator.

We’ve worked together in many different ways over the last number of years, and I’m sure the people of Langford–Juan de Fuca are looking forward to his passionate advocacy here in this House.

[3:10 p.m.]

It is my pleasure to stand up and rise in this House and speak in support of Bill 27, intituled Money Judgment Enforcement Act. It sounds rather, kind of, formidable when you read that title. But really, I think this piece of legislation is long overdue, and I want to thank the current Attorney General and her predecessor for the work they’ve done on this.

As we all know, there are often judgments, whether it’s through the civil courts or whether it’s been the civil resolution tribunal or the residential tenancy branch. Those rulings get made, and then it can be months, years and years and years before a collection can be made.

Many, many times I’ve heard both from landlords and tenants how they’ve given up in the process because the process was rather cumbersome. You had to go through one system of collection and then try another and then another. This, in many ways, is like a one-stop shop to collect the money that you are owed.

I know, from the landlords and tenants I have talked to, that both sides will be pleased to see this. There are landlords who come to my office and say: “Look, I’m owed this much money. How do I collect it?” You know what? As my colleague said previously, very soon those people won’t want to be landlords and be engaged if they think they’re going to be out of money every month, every year.

In similar ways, we hear stories from tenants, as well, who have cleaned their place. They’re leaving now, but they can’t get their deposit back. That’s not fair, either, for many people struggling, especially nowadays when affordability is so, so difficult. Getting your rental deposit back is critical as you move on to your new place. You might need it for the deposit, though you’ve probably begged and borrowed and put a deposit down. Then you need it to survive until your next cheque comes in as well.

So this is a very, very important piece of legislation for the person who owes the money — the tenant or the landlord. But also, it gives a kind of clarity. The threat of going through court case after court case is taken away from everybody.

By this legislation, money judgments will be enforced through a single enforcement instruction after being entered in a public registry. You know, immediately you’re going to hear these cries: “What about a person’s privacy? That’s going to be a violation of people’s private information.”

Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the information that’s going to be in the public registry is a matter of public record anyway, because you’ve been through the court case. You’ve been through the tribunal. You’ve been through all the processes. So all of that is already public information. But it is important to have it there.

Some people may say: “But why would you want to have a birthdate or an address in there?” Well, if you live in my riding, we will have many people with the name of Ravi. I’m not talking about my colleague, but there could be many Ravi Parmars. I can tell you that I do have quite a few. There can be quite a few Harry Bains in Surrey as well. I could go on and on with other examples. So it’s really to hone in on the individual who owes the money and who the judgment is against and not put other people’s names at risk.

I know you quite enjoyed that, Mr. Speaker — the chuckle. I can tell you, being a teacher, that it can be very, very confusing at times when you look at your classroom register and there are three kids with exactly the same spelling. A boy, a girl, a boy — same name. Well, it happens. It happens. In the same way, it’s going to happen with this land registry. So that fine tuning does have to be given.

[3:15 p.m.]

The other thing is that once these orders are entered into the registry database, it makes it easier for the collection process, much, much easier, rather than going around trying to search that information.

Also, I think it’s going to be something that if you are looking for a future…. Either for the tenant or even for the landlord, that registry is going to inform them about who they rent to in the future, as well, or who they rent from, because this is both ways, and this is how it will work. So I’m really, really pleased to see this here.

Just recently I had a single mom walk into my office, and she was being asked to leave. She didn’t want to. Increased her rent, willingly, by $600, but really, two months later, there was still the pressure to leave. She found a new place, and she really needed her deposit back. She needed her deposit back so she could survive the following month before she got paid, and it was such a hard time for her. She was in tears, and she said to me: “I don’t have years and years to go through the court system.”

I’m not saying that this will make it instant. You still have to go through a process. You still have to have a ruling, but at least you’re not tied up in the courts trying to get the money after there is a ruling. So that is really, really important.

Ever since this government has been in power, since 2017, I have been really impressed to be part of a group that looks at bringing about legislative change in a very balanced way. It doesn’t go to the extreme so we’re only dealing with the top 3 per cent or 2 per cent. It’s sort of….

This legislation is an example where we’re looking at it from the perspective of both the landlord and the tenant, as well as…. When it comes down to the civil resolution tribunal rulings — also taking a look to make sure that that system is streamlined for collection as well.

Mr. Speaker, you might be thinking: “Well, what if somebody can’t afford it? What is going to be excluded from this?” Let me assure you that nobody, through this process, is going to be left so that they cannot put food at the table or have a roof over their head.

When I looked at the exemptions that were there, they were quite extensive, and I think that is really good. Your first bicycle is protected. The house you live in, or your residence, is protected. Your first vehicle is protected. All of that is really, really important.

Also, in the collection, it can’t be 100 per cent of your income. A certain percentage of your income — and if I remember rightly, I remember 70 per cent — is there. It’s protected for you to be able to live and to pay your bills and to do all of those kinds of things.

Now, I know there will be some people saying: “Why are you giving people those protections? This means those who can’t afford it will never pay back.” But this legislation adds assets that were not included in the previous legislation as to what can be garnished, so to speak, what can be taken away. So there are, once again, checks and balances. The area has been expanded, so to speak.

We also, I think…. I’m an absolute believer in this. Starting with our school system and beyond, we do need to be doing far more work on financial literacy, because when I talk to some of my constituents, I’m often amazed at how much debt gets accrued, and they don’t even realize until they’re kind of drowning in it. By that time, it has created so much mental stress on the family, on the individual and on the family unit.

[3:20 p.m.]

I think part of this also, I’m hoping, will be part of that financial literacy training that schools need to be providing. I know we always ask schools to do more, and I’m not asking for a course in this.

I’m not saying that there should be a special curriculum for this. But do you know what? As an English teacher, when you’re teaching English, there are ways to include this. When you’re a math teacher, there’s a way to include this. Really, it’s how we incorporate the life skills, which all of us need, into the curriculum, without putting an extra burden on people.

This registry will also be beneficial for people looking to register security agreements, such as car loans or secured lines of credit. It does open up the door for many, many things, but the most important thing about this is that it takes away the onus from the person who is owed the money to take on the court system.

Not only that, but because once you take up the court system, you actually are then taking away court space for other services that are needed in a timely manner. So this will actually save our justice system, our court system, lots of time and resources. That time and resources can be spent differently and more effectively, I believe.

Some people would say: “Well, is this going to have any effect on money launderers and organized crime?” Once again, let me assure people, there is legislation in that area, but this is specifically for civil cases only, such as breach of contract or where one person caused injury to another person or damaged their property. By the way, this does not include motor vehicle accidents. So this does not include ICBC claims — these are things out of it — but these are civil cases.

During this legislation, while it was being drafted, all the regular consultations were done and adhered to. There are several items that will be exempted from seizure. That makes sense to me, because we want to make sure that people can maintain a basic standard of living. These include food; medical aids; 70 per cent of wages or other incomes, as I said earlier; court awards to pay future medical expenses.

Pets — we wouldn’t want to take away somebody’s pet and sell that. That would be just an absolute no-no. So very, very specifically, pets are excluded.

Burial plots. Some people…. I may be one of them; I’ll talk about myself. I did not realize the short supply of burial plots until I became an MLA. People come into your office and speak about that. They are at a premium. Those burial plots would be protected.

RDSPs and RESPs would be protected, and any equipment used as part of employment, because that would be very, very important.

Your principal residence. Now, you can’t have three or four principal residences. This actually means the house you live in.

One car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone. This always shows me how far we’ve come, when — on items that we are protecting, for the household, from these activities — we’ve now added one computer and one mobile phone. I’m sure that if my grandmother were around, she would be having a good giggle at that as well.

We all know that phones today are far more than just a communication channel to pick up and phone somebody in an emergency. For many of us, much of our life rests in the phone, and we do business, we pay our bills, we do our banking, we do our research, we arrange to pick up our children — all kinds of things that we do with our phones — and they are very, very important. Those would also be protected.

[3:25 p.m.]

Proceeds from the sale of exempt property will also be exempt. For example, if you sell your house and then you’re going to buy another one, it doesn’t mean people can go in and take that from you.

However, it does allow us to sell exempt property and then acquire a new item without worrying that the money would be seized from their bank. So it doesn’t tie people to staying in the same house, right? Or you can’t change your car because if you sell your car and then buy a new one straight away, then you lose your investment in your vehicle.

All of that has been contemplated, and maybe that is why — because even I was wondering why — it is going to take till 2025 to implement this. It’s when you see the intricacies of this and the many, many aspects of it — and all of this will have to be worked out in the regulations and everything that staff do so brilliantly — that is why it will take till that time. I’m sure if it’s done earlier, it will be implemented earlier, but at least the timeline currently says it’ll be 2025.

Once again, I do want to conclude with saying I believe this is good legislation. This will be welcomed. I definitely know it will be welcomed by landlords. It will also be welcomed by tenants but also, when it goes to the civil resolution tribunal, by people who are owed significant amounts of money. It will help them too. To centralize the system, as I said, one-stop shop.

There is a question that might get asked. Does this in­clude child support? Technically not. However, if there’s a huge backlog of child support, then it may, depending on how the resolution is arrived at.

Once again, I really enjoyed speaking about this very exciting and scintillating piece of legislation, and legislation that is very, very important for British Columbians.

M. Lee: I just want to take this opportunity because we don’t often in this chamber have the opportunity to welcome two new members to the House and hear their maiden speeches, as they say.

Again, to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who I had the opportunity to hear on many different occasions, including for the Survivors’ Flag commemoration last Monday, and to the new member for Langford–Juan de Fuca: welcome to this chamber.

I certainly appreciate your words and your contributions. I know you’ll add a lot to the dialogue we have here.

I would also say, of course…. The member for Langford–Juan de Fuca mentioned our former Premier John Horgan. John and our current Premier used to have this habit of welcoming new members to the House, in debate or in question period, by saying the following words: “I know the member is new to this House, but this is how it is.”

I was certainly on the receiving end of those comments a number of occasions by both John Horgan and the current Premier, when I was his justice critic, when he was Attorney General.

Let me just say in that vein — as I was discussing this with the member for Prince George–Valemount here, who also had complimentary comments to the maiden speech for the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca — that, of course, the civil resolution tribunal was a creation of the former government under that member’s stewardship when she was the Attorney General of this province. This was back in 2015.

More importantly, from my perspective, so the member understands, the civil resolution tribunal was never intended to have broad scope in the way that this current government has done.

[3:30 p.m.]

Just to encapsulate the discussion I’ve had with the Premier. In the context of those British Columbians that suffer from motor vehicle accident injuries, the Premier had committed to British Columbians who are suffering from brain injury and concussion injuries that there would be no expansion of the “minor injury” definition to include those people who are subjected to those kinds of injuries. Yet despite that, the Premier broke his promise.

My point is this. In terms of the civil resolution tri­bunal…. Just so the new member for Langford–Juan de Fuca understands, there are challenges with the CRT in terms of not only people who have English not as their first language but also those who suffer from brain injury and concussions navigating through the CRT jurisdiction to deal with their brain injuries and concussion and any claims they might have — in this case, with ICBC.

To the member for Surrey-Panorama, I would think that the reason why this new legislation does not apply to Motor Vehicle Act judgments is because there are none. Under the current government system of no-fault, there isn’t an ability for an individual in British Columbia to sue through the courts, including in their complex injuries, and that is a challenge.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Let me say this. We know that with the complexity of this bill…. We know that it’s an important….

In terms of enforcement of proceedings of a civil nature, it is important that we continue to ensure that our justice system is functioning in a very efficient manner, because we know there’s been a significant backlog through the courts, not only through the lack of appointment of judges by this government, but also in terms of sheriffs and support for sheriffs in our court system. There were, certainly, challenges under our current Premier’s stewardship when he was the Attorney General of our province, and we’re seeing the consequences of that now.

Having said that, with this bill in front of us…. We’re seeing, on the first day of session, when we have another 120-page bill, Bill 31, that was introduced today on the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, that this is how this government, and this House Leader, chooses to use its time — by debating its own bill.

We know that, certainly, as I know that the member for Abbotsford West has already spoken on behalf of the official opposition, we are keen to work through Bill 27 in terms of the various ins and outs of the various sections of this bill as we go through into committee stage. Certainly, that will be an important use of this House’s time.

I certainly urge this government to continue to manage this House’s activities in a meaningful, efficient manner, because here we are on the first day of session, and we’re just hearing from government members debating their own bill, talking about the important fundamentals of this bill. I would expect that we all recognize that, so we should get on with the business of the House, and I hope that we’ll have the opportunity to ensure that we don’t have this happen again, because we saw this in the last session and the previous session.

I look forward to this Government House Leader and the government itself to be managing the business of the House in a more efficient and effective manner.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m just listening carefully to the previous speaker, who was suggesting that somehow this bill, Bill 27, wasn’t particularly meaningful. It’s incredibly meaningful, especially to those people who are looking to get money that’s owed to them following a civil court decision, whether it’s somebody who has gone through the civil resolution tribunal or residential tenancy branch, looking to get their money that is owed to them. That’s about justice.

I think any time we are working in this chamber to achieve justice, it is meaningful, so I will choose to disagree with the previous member about what’s meaningful work. I always find that having debate in this chamber is incredibly meaningful work.

Bill 27 is about a money judgment enforcement act that is designed to streamline the process for people who are owed moneys to get them through the courts or the tribunals, such as the residential tenancy branch or the civil resolution tribunal. When we think about how hard it is to navigate some of these systems — it can be really intimidating.

[3:35 p.m.]

It can be very overwhelming, especially for those who have the least ability, the least resource and have the most challenge to navigate the system. So making it simpler, I think, is really about what’s good for people. That’s really what this is about. It’s about making it better for the people that we serve.

We know many folks, like renters or landlords…. I’ve certainly heard from many of them that there’ll be an order for a damage deposit to be returned or an order for payment for rent owed, and then in order to chase down the money, which is really what has traditionally been happening, because you have to chase down the money…. That chase is difficult. It’s time-consuming. It can be expensive to collect on the debt.

What we know and what we’ve heard, because we listen to people, is people say: “I just can’t be bothered. It’s too hard. It’s too much. It’s too overwhelming.” Really, at the end of the day, that’s not right, and it’s not just. I think it is meaningful to lessen the burden on people who are awarded money and help ensure that they get the timely delivery of money owed.

The way it works right now is people who are awarded a money judgment have to actually go to court and make an application for each method used to collect funds if the person ordered to pay doesn’t voluntarily comply. Now, in a perfect world, people would voluntarily comply, right?

You go to court. The court says: “You know what? You have to give them their damage deposit back,” or “You have to pay this rent. It is owed.” And the right thing to do, the just thing to do, is to say: “Okay. Here you go.” But that doesn’t always happen, and then whoever is owed the money has to make an application to court, which can be quite onerous.

Now, of course, there are different methods to collect the funds. It can be garnishing wages, garnishing funds in bank accounts, seizing or selling personal items. But again, having to go through the court for each one of these…. It’s different, depending on what the method of collection is. Whether it’s garnishing wages, whether it’s selling personal goods, there are different applications that need to be made.

Again, most people don’t have familiarity with these processes. They just want what the courts say is owed to them. So having to go through that whole process is really overwhelming, and it’s really not fair, and it’s really not just.

We know from the data — just as an example, because I think it’s really helpful to understand what we’re talking about — that the residential tenancy branch awarded about 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters just last year. The year before that was 4,100.

The feedback that we’ve heard from those who are trying to recover their money…. They just talked about how onerous it is and how complex and complicated the system is. Simplifying that process is what Bill 27 does, and that’s the bill that’s here in front of us. It helps to simplify it.

What this legislation proposes is to help enforce the judgment with a single enforcement instruction after a person registers in a searchable public registry. It just makes it simpler. It’s a one-stop shop that eliminates the need to apply to the court multiple times over and over and over again, which is really frustrating.

That’s certainly what we heard from people who were caught in this system. The registry will serve as a one-stop shop for information about previous money judgments, including current amount owing and commercial liens.

Again, I think it’s important to recognize this is really about making it easier for people to get the money that is owed to them. It’s really about our focus on listening to people’s experiences and then saying: “Okay. If this is what people are experiencing — this frustration, this irritation — and that it is expensive and burdensome, how can we take that and find a way to streamline the process so that it isn’t so hard, it isn’t so frustrating, it isn’t so irritating, and so people can get justice?” I do believe that as MLAs, we all want that for our constituents.

I would imagine…. I’ve certainly seen it, and I’ve heard other colleagues talk about having constituents who’ve come to our community offices to say: “This part of the system isn’t working well for me. I have received this judgment. This money is owed to me. But collecting it is a whole other burdensome challenge for me. I don’t know that I have the time or the energy to actually make that happen.” To me, that’s just not just.

[3:40 p.m.]

We know that currently, if someone doesn’t voluntarily pay their judgment, the person pursuing collection has to make the court application for each collection method. To collect the money owed through the garnishment of wages, you actually have to apply for and serve around 26 garnishing orders every year. That’s every two weeks.

People don’t have the time for that or the energy for that. It adds to their burden. So by streamlining and creating a process that makes it efficient, we’re helping British Columbians.

Under this proposed legislation that’s before the House, the money judgments can be enforced with a single en­forcement instruction. What it means is that, as well, tribunal orders will be automatically entered in the money judgment registry, and then people can directly instruct a civil enforcement officer to go out and seize and sell property to satisfy the debt owing to them.

It’s really about simplifying what has become a very complex system. In preparing my remarks, I believe I read somewhere that the Court Order Enforcement Act, which is the current act that directs all of these actions…. Their roots in court orders were codified in British legislation from the 1800s.

We’re talking a very, very long time ago, and I think even Mr. Ralph Sultan wouldn’t even know about how that came to be, though he could probably tell me and pontificate about why it was such in the 1800s and why it made sense.

I see that I got a lovely smile from the Chair, because that’s what he would have done. He would have pontificated about in the 1800s, why we had to do it this way.

This is really about bringing this legislation into this century and finding ways to make it easier for people, because that’s really what’s important here.

We do know that the other part that’s here in this legislation is really about certain types of properties that were not contemplated in old legislation that will now be able to be seized. Again, when you’re dealing with old legislation and bringing it into modern times, modern era, you need to take a look at all of it.

Additional protections are also introduced to ensure that people owing money and their dependents can maintain a basic standard of living. This isn’t about destroying those who owe money, but it’s really about making them accountable and making sure that they are acting on what the courts have determined to be just.

The legislation…. I think it’s important to recognize there was a lot of consultation about getting this legislation into the House. I think that’s also really important. There were recommendations from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada as well as the B.C. Law Institute. I know court bailiffs were consulted to understand the impact, because they have an operations role to play in this legislation.

I know that the ministry staff are going to continue to work with the Canadian Bar Association as well as financial institutions, because they have a role. Other lending institutions, I know, are committed to advising government as we replace the Court Order Enforcement Act with legislation that’s based on the BCLI report.

Again, there is…. Because the legislation is going to be brought forward through regulation — in, I believe, it’s a year and a half or two years from now — there’s opportunity to make sure that the transition works smoothly.

With that, I think it’s really important, again, to recognize that this is meaningful legislation, and it’s meaningful because it’s about affecting the lives of British Columbians. Everything that we do in this House is about impacting on the lives of British Columbians, making sure that things work better.

Just because we’ve been doing something for a long time doesn’t mean that we should just let it continue to run the way it’s always run. If we can do it better, if we can do it easier, if we can listen to what people are saying about where the system doesn’t work for them, if we can make it easier for people to get the money that is owed to them following a civil court decision, then those are the things that we ought to be doing.

[3:45 p.m.]

I want to thank the minister and her team, the Ministry of Attorney General, for their work in making sure that they’re consulting with the right folks, that they’re digging into the legislation and making it work better for British Columbians, because that’s what is most important to our government. I hope everybody in the House believes that as well.

B. Anderson: First of all, I would just like to welcome my two new colleagues in the Legislature — yay! It is an honour and a privilege to serve with both of you, and I think your communities are very fortunate to have you as their representatives.

It was wonderful to actually be able to hear you say your first words here in the chamber. I remember my first time getting to speak in this place. It truly is a remarkable moment when you’re able to…. There are very few people…. I remember our former Premier would talk about how few people actually in history get to occupy these seats. The work we do on behalf of our communities can be really challenging. It can be very emotional, but it is also extremely rewarding.

I just want to say that I think you’re both going to do a fantastic job, and you have an incredible number of colleagues here to support you. When things get challenging, and you have questions, I know that all of us here have your back.

When I was first elected, they paired up experienced MLAs with new MLAs. I remember that was a really great thing for me, as I didn’t know a lot of my colleagues. We were also in the middle of COVID, so I didn’t have the opportunity to come to Victoria with a full House and sit with all of my colleagues. You’re trying to develop those relationships, you know, over Zoom or over text message or with phone calls.

The colleague I had — I remember the first question I asked her was after we were sworn in, which we did virtually…. I did it from my parents’ house, from my childhood home, which also was a very strange but remarkable experience.

I had my computer in front of me — this computer here. I was set up in their living room, and I literally had both of my parents right here peering over the computer at me just with so much pride and with joy. Although I didn’t get to do it in a typical way, it was really special as well.

Then we were having sort of our first….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are debating the bill.

B. Anderson: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. May I just finish this story quickly?

Deputy Speaker: Very quickly.

B. Anderson: Okay, very, very quickly. I appreciate that. I appreciate your guidance on that, and I will get to this bill, which I’m very, very excited to speak in support of.

My first question — we were all getting together as government caucus — was: “What am I supposed to wear?” I didn’t know if people were going to show up in ball gowns or pyjamas. To be able to ask someone a silly question like that, it’s really valuable. So don’t think that any question is too silly.

Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you for your guidance and your patience with me.

I do want to speak in favour of this. We know how challenging housing and finding housing can be for people. I know I have been a renter. I’ve also been a landlord. It can be challenging on both fronts.

I have friends that are both renters and both landlords, and it can be hard. When there’s damage done to a property — your property, your investment — and you’re not able to recuperate those costs, that makes people not want to be landlords.

We know we need landlords in every community, in every region across the province. Whether you’re in downtown Metro Vancouver or you’re in Argenta, for example, we need people to be able to step up and offer that housing and make sure that it’s available for their community members, because it impacts our workforce. We know that this is not just….

It can be our teachers. It can be our nurses. It can be the people that work at the grocery store or the health food store or the librarians. Or tradespeople, as we’re trying to build this housing. We know that it is critically important that we have landlords and we provide protection for those landlords but also for tenants.

[3:50 p.m.]

I have a friend that ended up losing her housing. Her landlords had made their financial decision, and they had gone about it in the appropriate way. But I know how hard it was for her, as a professional in her mid-thirties, trying to pack up all of her stuff and wondering where she was going to live.

She was fortunate. She was able to get her damage deposit and all of that back, which she did. She needed that for her next rental, to be able to put down that damage deposit on that next space. So it is really important that if people are owed money, there is a simple way and a fair and equitable way to be able to get that money back. That is what this legislation is doing.

We know, and we’ve heard from members from both sides, that there was a ton of consultation that went into this. We’re really trying to streamline the process and make it easier for everyone, whether you are a tenant or you’re a landlord. I just really appreciate all of the work and the leadership that went into this, because we’re going to make this better for everyone. This is just one part of a strategy to make it better to be both a landlord and a tenant across the province in British Columbia.

When we were speaking…. We know there were questions about housing and affordability in question period today. Those are things we take, as government, very, very seriously. All of us have friends or loved ones or family members. As MLAs, we are representatives for people that are looking for housing or that have the potential to be landlords. We want to be able to support them in that decision-making. So I’m very confident this legislation is just one piece that will help us move forward in terms of equitable access to housing across British Columbia.

With that, I want to say thank you so much to everyone that put the effort into this, and thanks, also, to the people that provided us with the feedback. Unless we hear from folks, and we know what the challenges are, we can’t address them.

I also wanted to say thank you to the MLA who’s on the other side who asked a question in question period today about a member from my community in Nelson that was looking for housing. I did approach the member, and I asked if she was able to provide me with a full name, because only this person’s first name was used. When she did, I immediately recognized that name. It’s a small community. I used to work with this person.

Our office is already reaching out. We’re seeing what we’re able to do to try to find housing solutions for her. You know, I would call her a friend. When I see her down on Baker Street, we always have a great little talk. I give her a hug or she gives me a hug. You know, we want to work. We want to do that for all of our community members.

We know there are tremendous housing challenges. Nelson, for example, has had a zero percent vacancy rate for over a decade in areas that used to not have such a housing crisis. We’re seeing it across my region, and we also know that it is impacting every single community in our province. Part of the reason is because B.C. is an exceptionally incredible place to live.

I think all of us are MLAs because we love our communities, we love where we come from, and we want to support people. But that also means that…. I’ve talked to many folks. When I was a server at a restaurant, I would ask people: “Are you visiting?” They’d say: “No, no, no. We live here.” I was like: “Oh, did you move within the last two years?” They’d look at me like: “How did you know?” I was like: “It’s because I recognize faces.”

As I move about my community, I might not know someone’s name or know what job they do. But I’ll see them in the grocery store. Some people, I’ve recognized for my entire life, growing up in Nelson. My parents are still there. My brother is a part of the community. We know a lot of people. We recognize them, and we want to be able to support them in getting the housing that they need.

Again, this legislation…. I am just really grateful for all of the work that went into this.

With that, I just want to say thank you, and I will take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

F. Donnelly: Thank you, Speaker. I hope you had a good summer. I want to wish not just you a good summer, but everyone here, including all of the legislative staff. It’s been a while since we last sat, so I want to make sure that we acknowledge all of the staff and hope they had a good recharge and are ready for our fall session.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples and thank them for allowing us to conduct business on their territory.

I think it’s especially important to acknowledge this territorial acknowledgment following the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We heard from a minister earlier today and other members of this House who spoke about the important work that’s being done in reconciliation, not just in British Columbia but across the country.

Before I dive into Bill 27, I’d like to acknowledge all the families who were impacted by the wildfires this summer. What a horrible feeling to lose your property, lose your memories, lose the contents of your life, in some cases. I just want to say that our hearts go out to those families. We’re sorry for your loss that you suffered. I think we should acknowledge that, coming back. This is my first opportunity to speak in this House, and I certainly want to acknowledge that and, as well, acknowledge the farms, the businesses, the communities, the First Nations that have suffered from drought.

We’ve been very impacted by drought throughout the province. Accessing water is critically important. So I definitely want to acknowledge that hardship and thank British Columbians for their work and for working with our government to get through this together.

There are, obviously, multiple impacts that are affecting our province, from wildfires to drought. Here we are, probably, looking into the coming fall session or a season of too much water. I want to acknowledge that before I jump into the bill.

One last thing. I hope you indulge me in acknowledg­ing…. I want to join my colleagues who have welcomed our two new members, in this House, to this chamber: the member for Mount Pleasant and the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca. I say to both of you, welcome. It was great to hear your comments earlier today and great to hear your voices. You’re representing your communities, and it’s great to have you in this place. I look forward to working with you on the issues that you share and that I know we share here as members. So, welcome.

I do wish to speak to Bill 27. The proposed Money Judgment Enforcement Act will make it easier for people to get the money owed to them through the courts or tribunals like the residential tenancy branch or the civil resolution tribunal. Currently you have to make a court application for every method used to collect funds from someone who doesn’t voluntarily pay their debts, which can be very costly and time-consuming.

Under the proposed legislation, money judgments will be enforced with a single enforcement instruction after being entered in the public registry. Tribunal orders will be automatically entered in the registry database — I’m going to speak to the database a little bit later on — to make the collection process faster. The public registry will make it easier for people to search if someone owes money to other people as the result of a court decision and to show the current amount owing.

Why are these changes needed? Well, everyone deserves equitable and fair access to justice. But we’ve heard from partners that when money is awarded through the courts or tribunals such as the civil resolution tribunal or the residential tenancy branch, it can be very difficult to collect on money owed.

[4:00 p.m.]

Many people give up on the collection before the full amount awarded is received because the money judgment process can be expensive or just inefficient. This legislation will make it easier for people who are owed money to pursue collection through a money judgment.

How will these changes make it easier for people who are owed money as determined through the tribunal? Currently, if someone doesn’t voluntarily pay their judgment, the person pursuing collection has to make a court application for each collection method — writs of seizure, garnishing orders, etc.

To collect money owed through the garnishing of wages, you have to apply for and serve around 26 garnishing orders every year, so very onerous. Under the new act, however, money judgments can be enforced with a single enforcement instruction — so far simpler, far more efficient — and after registering in a searchable public registry. Employers will receive a single notice to garnish a percentage of wages that will remain valid indefinitely.

Currently tribunal judgments must be registered with the court to be enforced, then people need to apply for court orders to pursue the collection methods. Under the proposed act, tribunal orders will be automatically entered in the money judgment registry, and then people can directly instruct a civil enforcement officer, formerly a bailiff, to go out and seize and sell property to satisfy the debt owing to them.

What sorts of properties does this legislation allow peo­ple to collect on? The proposed legislation identifies more types of properties that can be eligible for seizure, including fixtures, for example — a portable generator or other equipment attached to the ground or building, crops or co-owned properties, as examples.

People may ask, or you may ask: will these changes unfairly punish those who owe? The answer is no. These changes will make it easier to settle and collect on outstanding debts equitably. That is the purpose of this legislation: to make it fair and equitable, to make it go quickly, to reduce inefficiencies, to increase efficiencies. Safeguards have been put in place to ensure that people who owe money and their dependents can maintain a basic standard of living.

These amendments have been contemplated for a while. So why are we doing this now? The legislation is quite complex and requires special rules to account for many different types of specific property. The goal is to ensure that rules related to seizure and disposition work well and that the process is fair for the person owing money and the third parties who may be impacted by the collection process.

It has been necessary for ministry staff to consult with interested parties — I’ll get to who we’ve consulted later — and work with the legal counsel with specialized knowledge to produce the bill that has been presented. This bill comes as a product of careful consideration.

Why is this bill being introduced without commencement provision, transition provisions or any consequential amendments to other legislation? Well, the bill does not contain these things because the goal is to introduce it publicly for comment and contribution from the public and stakeholders before the remaining legislative steps are taken and made into law. Parties previously consulted on the legislation, as well as the public, are invited to provide comments directly to the ministry, helping to ensure the updated process for collecting debt is both easier and more equitable.

What are the key proposed changes in this new legislation? The proposed legislation enables money judgments to be enforced with a single enforcement instruction after registering in a searchable public database. This eliminates the need for people to apply to the court for each collection method.

[4:05 p.m.]

The tribunal orders such as the residential tenancy branch or the civil rights tribunal decision will be able to be directly registered in the registry and then enforced, instead of having to first be registered with the court. Certain types of property not contemplated in the old legislation will now be able to be seized, such as — I mentioned this earlier — crops and co-owned property.

Additional protections have been introduced to en­sure that people owing money and their dependents can maintain a basic standard of living, including expanding the list of items exempt from seizure and moving certain details of the exemption to regulations, to ensure exemption amounts can more easily be adjusted over time to reflect inflation.

I mentioned I would speak about a consultant who has been consulted about the drafting of this legislation. This legislation is based on the recommendations by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, the ULCC, and the British Columbia Law Institute, the BCLI. Select court bailiffs were consulted about the impact the legislation would have on their operations and were provided the opportunity to share recommendations for improving enforcement.

In addition, ministry staff will continue to work with the Canadian Bar Association, financial institutions and other lending institutions and advise that government is replacing the Court Order Enforcement Act with the legislation based on the BCLI report and invite comments. So there’s still an opportunity for the public to comment, to provide their comments.

Treaty First Nations have been notified about work being done on the enforcement of money judgments and were provided with a consultation document in 2020, and another opportunity in 2023. However, this legislation was not drafted with the assistance of First Nations, so there’s still an opportunity for that to happen, going forward. As we’ve heard, this bill is expected to be brought into force and regulation in 2025.

I mentioned earlier about the public database, and I want to provide some details about the public database and what information it will share.

The money judgment registry will share no more information than necessary to inform third parties that a person has a judgment registered against them. That’s very specific. The amount of information will be similar to what is registered and searchable when businesses register security agreements. Example: car loans or secured lines of credit and things like that.

Much of what will be registered in this new database can already be found in the court registry, which is another registry accessible to the public via court services online. Some examples of specific information that will be recorded: the judgment debtor’s name and other names that that person or debtor may hold property under, the judgment debtor’s date of birth and address to distinguish between other people with the same name.

We heard about how there could be many people with the same name in different areas of British Columbia, so it’s obviously important to get the person correct, the right person, and that person would certainly appreciate that. You’ll also find the amount of the judgment and the court file number. Again, very specific, but it’s accessible, it’s available, and it’s online.

The database will also allow the collection of aggregate data about how long, on average, it takes to collect a debt or how much of the debt is collected after a specific period. The baseline data will allow staff to measure the impacts of future amendments to the legislation and determine whether these changes were successful in making it faster to service debt. So it’s forward-looking, looking at improvements built right into the process.

[4:10 p.m.]

Why is this database important? A key part of the proposed legislation includes allowing money judgments to be enforced with a single enforcement instruction after registering in a searchable public registry.

One advantage is this eliminates the need for people to apply to the court multiple times to pursue collection, which can be time-consuming and expensive. It certainly can be a deterrent to have to apply time and time again on the same issue that you’re collecting for.

This registry will be particularly beneficial for people looking to register security arrangements, such as car loans or secured lines of credit. Instead of having to search for money judgments through property or court registries, the registry will serve as a one-stop shop to learn if a person has entered into any security agreements or if money judgments or commercial liens have been registered against them and will show the amount currently owing.

Very specific, very helpful, easier to access. Again, staff will use this information to improve the system going forward, so over time, it will become even more efficient.

Someone may ask: “Will this public database infringe on a person’s right to privacy?” The answer is no. These people have already gone through a public court process, and most of the information that will be in the judgment database is already in the court file that is publicly accessible from the court registry.

Again, improving the process to make it more efficient. And the database will make it easier to see people’s history with money judgments and show the remaining amount owing.

Do these amendments support the Declaration Act Action Plan? I want to comment on that because I mentioned earlier about First Nations and their involvement. We’ve been mindful of our commitment to ensuring legislation aligns with the Declaration Act, as we are now obligated. I think, more than an obligation since 2019, it’s the right thing to do. In British Columbia, we are one of the advanced jurisdictions who are moving forward with co-governing and looking at co-governance with our Indigenous partners, with Indigenous governments and nations.

So yes, I think this is aligned with the Declaration Act. We’ve notified Nisg̱a’a, the Maa-nulth Treaty group, Tla’a­min, Tsawwassen and Yale First Nations, as well as nations currently negotiating treaties with the province and Can­ada, that we have been developing this legislation. We’ll continue to engage with Indigenous peoples throughout all phases of the implementation and value any perspectives that they wish to bring to this process.

In conclusion, I’d just like to finish by mentioning what other provinces are doing with respect to the enforcement of money judgments. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador all have similar legislation.

Alberta was first. While its legislation is the same in the general structure, having a money judgment registry, having enforcement instructions and enforcement officers who can seize and dispose of any type of property, it does differ in the amount of detail it provides with respect to the seizure of certain types of property. Alberta also still requires a creditor, the person owed, to make a court application and get a writ before they are allowed to register their judgment.

Enactment of this legislation should make things more consistent for organizations operating throughout western Canada. So we’re falling in line with other provinces, our neighbours.

I should mention Newfoundland and Labrador based their legislation on Alberta, so there will be similar differences from the B.C. approach. Saskatchewan’s legislation only allows a notice of seizure of wages to remain in force for two years. In B.C., once wages are seized, they remain seized until debt is fulfilled or the civil enforcement officer informs the employer otherwise.

[4:15 p.m.]

I think I’ve outlined why I support this bill, why I think it’s important that we move forward with this legislation. The Money Judgment Enforcement Act, as I mentioned, I think, will make it easier for people to get the money they’re owed through the courts or tribunals. This is going to be fair and equitable, and it’ll improve the system. It’s a system that will continue to improve with the data that we’ll gain.

With that, I will take my seat.

D. Routley: Thank you for the privilege of speaking today to the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. It is my pleasure to rise in support of the bill.

It’s an interesting piece of legislation. It doesn’t jump out at people when you first read the title, but when you understand the implications of it, it’s clearly important to people who find themselves ensnarled in decisions either petitioning the courts or being petitioned by the courts or ordered by the courts.

I think it’s important to refer to the remarks of the Attorney General, who said that when the courts or tribunals rule in your favour, you should be able to get what is owed to you. But we know many people, including renters and landlords, are then faced with the difficult, time-consuming and often expensive task of collecting on the debt. This new legislation will lessen the burden on people who are awarded money and help ensure the timely delivery of money owed.

I think that’s a very good encapsulation of what the legislation is meant to do, but there are many details that we need to consider.

Currently, when people are awarded a judgment by the court, they must make a different application for each method of collection that they intend to deploy. If a person who has had a judgment go against them refuses to pay, the methods to collect the funds have included garnishing wages, garnishing funds in bank accounts, seizing and then selling personal goods and putting liens on personal property.

The difficulty in those processes is that…. Just to take garnishment of wages as an example, the garnishment of wages requires a new court application every two weeks. This can, obviously, be time-consuming but also expensive for the person pursuing collection.

Under the new act, employers will receive a single notice to garnish a percentage of wages that will remain valid indefinitely. This is, obviously, important to the people who might be collecting on a debt. But it’s also important to our judicial system and to the courts that there be a streamlining.

We hear frequently about the challenges of our court system in overload and the ability to deliver justice without delay. This will have a real impact on that. It will also, I would suggest, save considerable public funds in not having to process applications for garnishment every two weeks as well as different applications for different methods of collection. That’s an important aspect to us, as policymakers, as we consider the impact of this legislation on the system itself.

In 2022, the residential tenancy branch, as an example, awarded 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters. This compared to approximately 4,100 in 2021. In that one year, we saw a 13 percent increase. Judging from year over year increases, it’s likely that this will only grow and the demands on the system will only grow. So any effort to streamline the process is, obviously, a benefit to all of us.

[4:20 p.m.]

Certain types of property not contemplated in the old legislation will be able to be seized, such as crops and co-owned property. So it would be more difficult for people, perhaps, to hide assets and easier for people to identify and collect in pursuit of a debt.

I think it’s clear everyone believes in equitable access to justice, fair access. This Money Judgment Enforcement Act will make it easier for people to collect money, easier for them to move through the courts and more effective for the system itself. Currently the requirement to make a court application for every method used to collect funds, when you consider the various ways that that can be done, is onerous, time-consuming and costly.

Under this proposed legislation, money judgments would be enforced with a single enforcement instruction, and those orders would be automatically entered in a registry database, created under this legislation, to make that collection process faster. The public registry will make it easier for people to search, if someone owes money to other people as a result of court decisions, and show the current amount owing.

Clearly, as I said, everyone deserves equitable and fair access to justice. That includes renters, but it also includes landlords. We have heard, through partners, that when money is awarded, it can be very difficult to collect — indeed, to the point where people give up on collection before they collect the full amount, or before they even begin. They see the process as very expensive and inefficient. This should encourage people to have faith that their efforts will be productive but also not repetitive.

This legislation replaces much of the current Court Order Enforcement Act, which traces its route to court orders that were codified in British legislation from the 1800s. Clearly, there’s a need to update these processes. There are updated exemptions so that people who do find themselves the subject of a collection will be able to maintain the basic living necessities.

Currently, if someone doesn’t voluntarily pay their judgment, the person pursuing that collection, as I said, has to make a court application for any writs of seizure, garnishment orders or any other order for sale of property. To collect money through garnishment of wages would require someone to make 26 applications in a one-year period, which is clearly not reasonable, particularly for landlords who own a single property or a few properties, or for renters who don’t have the ability or means to attend court every two weeks to pursue a new order for garnishment.

To collect money owed through garnishment, this would allow a single enforcement instruction. After registering that in the searchable public registry — in fact, that would be registered automatically — the employer of a person would receive a notice to garnish a percentage of wages — which, as I said, would exclude the amount required for basic living expenses — and that garnishment order would stay in place indefinitely or until the debt is fully collected.

[4:25 p.m.]

The need to pursue court orders, to pursue different collection methods, is also a confusing challenge for people who aren’t used to these processes. The automatic entry of the order into the money judgment registry will allow people to directly instruct a civil enforcement officer, formerly known as a bailiff, to go out and seize and sell property to satisfy the debt owing to them.

The proposed legislation identifies more types of property that are eligible for seizure — as I said, crops or co-owned property, but that could also include fixtures such as generators or other equipment attached to the grounds or building that might be subject of the dispute. But it would not include equipment or possessions used in employment or pursuit of business.

These changes will make it easier to settle and collect outstanding debts. We have ensured in this legislation that safeguards are in place to protect those who are owed money and their dependents. When it comes to property that would be exempt from seizure under the act, that would include, obviously, enough money, enough of their wages to ensure a basic standard of living.

That would also include food, medical aids, 70 percent of their wages or other income, court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets — I’m glad that that’s not something that can be seized. I’m sure my dog Lindy would be relieved to hear that — RDSPs, RESPs and any equipment, as I said, used as a part of employment.

Other exemptions could include the principal residence of a person, one car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone so people are still able to carry out their basic requirements in their lives without interruption. But people pursuing a debt would be able to collect in order to satisfy that debt outside of those exempted types of property and funds. Proceeds from the sale of exempt property would also be exempt, and that would allow the debtor to sell an item of exempt property.

If it’s, for example, something they use as a contractor in business, they could sell a piece of equipment that was no longer suitable to their needs and use that money to buy equipment that is suitable to their needs, which would also then be exempt. And they could do that without worrying that the money that they receive from selling an exempt piece of property might be collected under the act. In this case, it would not be.

The bill does not contain a commencement provision, transition provisions, or any subsequential amendments to other legislation. That is because the goal is to introduce it publicly so that we can receive comment and contribution from the public and stakeholders before remaining legislative steps are taken to make it a law.

The public database, the registry of debtors and debts, would include some personal information. The types of information that would be recorded in that registry would be the judgment debtor’s name and other names that they may hold property under, the judgment debtor’s date of birth and address to distinguish between other people with the same or a very similar name, the amount of the judgment and the court file number.

It will also allow the collection of aggregate data about how long on average it takes to collect a debt or how much of a debt is being collected after a specific period. That will be helpful in judging the effectiveness of this legislation and any further amendments or provisions that the government may need to take in order to achieve the goal of making it easier for people to collect on a debt that’s owed to them.

This database is a key part of the proposed legislation in that it will help people searching the registry determine whether or not they are the only person owed or if a person owes in multiple situations.

[4:30 p.m.]

This also eliminates the need for people to apply to court multiple times to pursue collection, which, as I said, can be cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive. It will be particularly beneficial for people looking to register security agreements such as car loans or secured lines of credit.

This database or registry will not infringe on people’s right to privacy. These people affected will have already gone through a court process, and most of the information that will be on the judgment database is already in a court file accessible from the court registry. But the database will make it easier to see people’s history with money judgments and show the remaining amounts they owe.

In a system that is challenged in so many ways in delivering justice — the administrative justice system of the province, the court system — it’s incumbent on us as public policy-makers to make policy that allows more efficient navigation of the system but also more efficient and less costly outcomes for the public.

It’s in the public interest to make these things work faster and more effectively because of individual interest in collecting debts owed to people but also, as I said, in making the system work more efficiently, more economically and more productively.

There are many people, I think, who have, in the past, simply given up on pursuing what was rightfully owed to them because of the cumbersomeness of the present system. This should allow people to feel as though their efforts are going to be worthwhile, effective and productive.

Madam Speaker, I think with that, I will take my seat. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

R. Russell: Good to have all of us back in this place, so thank you.

I will start by a little bit of gratitude. A few pieces. One, as mentioned earlier, this is a 215-section long bill. I will come back to the complexities of that in a moment. But that doesn’t happen without a great deal of work on behalf of a lot of people behind the scenes, so my hand’s up, certainly, to all the work that goes into getting this bill in front of us today, all 215 sections of it.

Similarly, we have a couple new faces in the chamber. I appreciate and look forward to the work ahead and the opportunity to have some new perspectives and new opinions in amongst us. So thank you to and welcome to the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Langford–​Juan de Fuca. It will be an exciting time ahead.

Also, of course, thanks to the Attorney General for bringing forward this bill.

As my colleague said earlier, I like the idea of opening with the comments, a quote, from the Attorney General, which are: “When the courts or tribunals rule in your favour, you should be able to get what is owed to you. But we know many people, including renters and landlords, who are then faced with the difficult, time-consuming and often expensive task of collecting on the debt. This new legislation will lessen the burden on people who are awarded money and help ensure the timely delivery of such money owed.”

That captures, I think, pretty well the sentiment that we have heard here and why I rise to speak in favour of this bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

I also, in terms of that context for what this is, what these 215 sections include, would say, as the explanatory note states: “This Bill provides for the enforcement of court orders that require judgment debtors to pay sums of money to judgment creditors. It does so by providing for the following: the administration and operation of a money judgment registry.” As we’ve heard discussed here, this is one part of what this bill enables for us.

“Procedures for the registration of money judgments and the creation of enforcement charges.” Again, as we have heard, the notion that this bill would enable us to have a more transparent and simplified system for registering those judgments and then following up on the enforcement charges to delivering that.

“Powers and duties of civil enforcement officers.” So those people that are enabling the enforcement of this potential piece of legislation.

“The entitlement of appropriate parties to receive information about the assets of judgment debtors.” Again, I will touch on this a little bit in terms of the complexities within this bill. It is partially to deal with that, in terms of how do we allocate and prioritize those appropriate parties in terms of the enforcement officers collecting.

“The seizure and disposition of property, the rules relating to receivers, exemptions for certain income and property, the distribution of funds and the procedures for third person claims.” I think that also captures well what the intention and objective of this bill is.

This is all wrapped into the notion of being able, with something like the residential tenancy branch or the civil resolution tribunal — as we know, some of what are meant to be the lowest-barrier opportunities for access into our justice system — to streamline those so that they work better for people.

Some time ago in a bit of a past life of mine, I spent some time working on better understanding how different societies and communities around the world and through history made decisions which were beneficial or not beneficial to their own well-being in the long term. How were they making decisions that resulted in sustainable choices or, in some cases, unsustainable choices? Obviously, those aren’t made with an intention to do things which end up harming themselves.

The interesting relevance, I think, here is that with what we have in terms of our regulatory and policy environment in British Columbia, we end up with situations where rules were put in place for a good reason end up being enormously cumbersome to be able to enforce and implement and receive some compliance for. The bill and its 215 sections before us here is, in large part, I would say, an effort to help us streamline that, to help us avoid that kind of challenge, to help us remove some of the cumbersome feed­backs that end up leading to poor decision-making.

We see a system that had good intent but needs some opportunities for expediting and enabling people that are not being served well within this system to be able to access it.

As we’ve heard before, when we go down the path of garnishing wages, the notion of having to issue 26 indivi­dual garnishment orders is a very cumbersome and, frankly, expensive system in order to deliver what we’re attempting to deliver at the end of the day, which is a fairly straightforward attempt to return to a creditor money that is owed to them by a debtor.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I just ask for the side conversations to step outside, please?

The member has the floor.

R. Russell: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In 2022, for example, the RTB awarded approximately 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters.

[4:40 p.m.]

All of those then become a burden in our court system and a challenge for those people that are owed those funds, whether they are tenants, whether they are landlords, or whether it is a civil dispute in another fashion for them to be able to secure those resources. So this bill in front of us is intended to help streamline that process and, again, provide the supports to the people where and when they need it in a more efficient manner than what we had.

I don’t think I finished that story about past work around sustainability of societies, but it really comes down, in large part, from what my research was looking at, around the notion of: how tight are those feedbacks be­tween the actions that people are taking and the response of the system upon them in terms of the feedbacks of that? This is an effort, in my mind, to help streamline and make the system a little more effective and a little more of an opaque challenge for people to navigate.

We have heard a number of people speak already to why these changes are needed. So I will pass over that.

The notion that in order to secure funds that are owed to you, whoever you may be, whether it’s an individual or an entity, it requires a court application for each collection method…. It obviously makes it an enormously burdensome system on individuals, on organizations and, frankly, is placing the challenge upon those that are owed the funds as opposed to the people that owe those resources.

I mentioned earlier the notion of complexity involved with why this bill has 215 sections and why that becomes a challenge. I thought I would read a couple of sections that I think specifically, in my mind, identify some of the nuances of how big of a challenge that can be.

As we’ve already heard, this bill would enable certain types of assets to be able to be seized that historically have not been eligible — for example, fixed assets or crops. Given my own background, I’m particularly intrigued by the seizure of crops and what that looks like.

I read out, for the record, clause 37 on “Priority of enforcement charge on fixtures in crops.”

“(4) Subject to subsection (5), an enforcement charge on growing crops has priority with respect to the crops over an interest in the crops that is based on an interest in the land to which the crops are attached.

“(5) An enforcement charge referred to in subsection (3) or (4) is subordinate to the interest of a person who, without fraud, does any of the following before a notice of an enforcement charge is filed under section 33….”

We’ll skip over that.

“(a) acquires for value an interest in the land after the goods become fixtures or while the crops are growing crops, as the case may be, including an assignee for the value of the interest of a person with an interest in the land after the goods become fixtures or while the crops are growing crops; (b) makes an advance under a registered mortgage on the land after the goods become fixtures or the crops become growing crops, as the case may be, but only with respect to the advance; (c) obtains an order for sale or foreclosure under a mortgage that the person has registered on the land after the goods become fixtures or the crops become growing crops; or (d) obtains a vesting order with respect to the land after the goods become fixtures or the crops become growing crops.”

I read that and one more as an indication of some of the challenges of delivering legislation like this that effectively prioritizes the potentially diverse suite of creditors that are owed from a debtor.

The second section I will read is section 74, “How fixtures and crops may be seized.”

[4:45 p.m.]

“Subject to section 76, a civil enforcement officer may seize a fixture or growing crop by giving a notice of seizure to the following persons: (a) the judgment debtor; (b) every person who appears in the records of the land title office as having, at the time of the seizure, an interest in the land to which the fixture is attached or on which the crop is growing; or (c) in the case where a fixture is being seized, every person who appears in the records of the land title office as having, at the time of the seizure, an interest in the fixture.”

I read that section because it identifies, I think, some of the nuances and the challenges of how we make sure that we’re informing the appropriate people when this path is being taken for a seizure.

Then section 75, “How aquatic plants may be seized.” Again, I read this as an indication of some of the complexities of what needs to be considered in the drafting of a piece of potential legislation such as this.

“(1) In this section, ‘aquatic plants’ has the same meaning as in the Fish and Seafood Act.

“(2) A civil enforcement officer may seize aquatic plants that have not been harvested by giving a notice of seizure to the following persons: (a) every judgment debtor who has an interest in the plants; (b) every person who has been granted a prescribed license in respect of the plants; (c) every person who has an interest in the bed of the body of water where the plants are growing.

“(3) If a civil enforcement officer seizes aquatic plants that have not been harvested, sections 77 to 82 [release from seizure if security not provided] apply to (a) the harvesting of aquatic plants, (b) any expenses related to that harvesting, and (c) the disposition of those aquatic plants by the officer.”

There was more I was going to read around when you’re in the process, how does this actually happen? How does a civil enforcement officer go about the process of actually seizing a crop, because the crop is in the ground? I will abstain from reading that section although I find it entertaining. All this to be said, my comments here, I think, have been….

Much of what I wanted to say has already been said. I will not repeat all of that from my colleagues. I appreciate the intention of this piece of legislation, which is to take information that primarily is already available in court documents, publicly available, and to be able to consolidate that, to be able to share that more efficiently, to be able to make sure people have the simplest path through our judicial system to get the rulings that they warrant and then to be able to receive the funds that they are owed based on those rulings.

With that, I think, Madam Speaker, I will have my seat. Thank you for the time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Recognizing the Minister of State for Trade.

Hon. J. Brar: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and welcome, of course, back to Victoria.

I’m very pleased to stand up in this House today to support the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

Before I make my formal comments, I would like to acknowledge the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-​speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I would also like to welcome our two colleagues here today, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. They join us today for the first time, and I would like to, of course, wish them well moving forward.

There’s a long way ahead, so I wish you the best. I’m sure that you’re going to stand up for the people who have elected you to come to this House and fight for the issues moving forward.

I also want to say, very briefly, thanks to the people of Surrey-Fleetwood for their trust in me. I will continue fighting for their issues in this House and outside this House.

Coming back to the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, everyone deserves equitable and fair access to justice.

[4:50 p.m.]

This is a very good bill. Usually when we introduce a bill, no matter who is in power, the bill addresses mainly one party, and/or there’s less for the other party. This bill is equally good for both parties, both for the landlord and for the tenant. It’s equally good for both parties. It’s about recovering money no matter who owes the money and who actually is going to get the money. This is good for both parties.

I have heard from many, many constituents. They come to my office about this issue. Whether it’s the tenant or the landlord, one party somehow is not going to pay the money back. They say to you that they have done everything possible. The government wanted them to go through the justice system. They say they’ve done everything they can possibly do. They will tell you all the steps they have taken and then ask you: “What should I do next?”

Frankly speaking, each person that came to you…. I had nothing more to offer to them. There was nothing else to offer to them under the previous legislation.

This is going to change things for people big-time and provide, of course, hope to people and real tools to people to actually recover their money. That’s why this is a good bill for both parties. The proposed Money Judgment Enforcement Act will make it easier for people to get the money owed to them through the courts or tribunals like the residential tenancy branch or the civil resolution tribunal.

Currently you have to make a court application for every method used to collect funds from someone who doesn’t voluntarily pay their debts. It can be very costly. It can be very time-consuming. Of course, it can be very complex and frustrating for the family, particularly in this country. People are busy with their lives. They don’t have time to spend and to go to court every day for the hard-earned money that somebody actually owes to them.

Under the proposed legislation, money judgments will be enforced with a single enforcement instruction — that’s a big change — after being entered in a public registry. A tribunal order will be automatically entered in the registry database to make the collection process faster. That will be a good thing for people.

Right now, if we look at the numbers…. In 2022, the RTB, the residential tenancy branch, awarded approxi­mately 48 money judgments to landlords and renters, both parties, compared to approximately 4,100 in 2021.

Now, feedback from those trying to recover money through the court system indicates very clearly that many people don’t pay these judgments because they know it. They know it. There are loopholes in the system, and they cannot, finally, recover it. People know that, and some people act accordingly. Not all but some people do that.

Because of the complicated collection process, many people give up on collection before the full amount awarded is received. That’s what happened, in the situation, under the previous legislation.

How are the changes going to make it easier? I have spoken very briefly, but let me say this again. Currently if someone doesn’t voluntarily pay their judgment, the person pursuing collection has to make a court application for each collection method. For each collection method, they have to make a separate application — for example, a garnishee order for salary.

[4:55 p.m.]

To collect money through the garnishment of wages, you have to apply for and serve around 26 garnishee orders every year. I don’t think anybody in this country has the time to go back and serve 26 orders to recover his or her money.

The difference is, under the new act which we are debating in this House, money judgment can be enforced with a single enforcement instruction — that’s the difference — after registering in a searchable public registry. Employers will receive a single notice to garnish a percentage of wages, and that will remain valid indefinitely there, so they don’t need to go back again and give another notice to the employer.

The question is: what sort of property will be exempt from this? There are exemptions. This is a very thoughtful piece of legislation, because the key, at the end of the day, is justice. There are several items that will be exempt to ensure people who owe money can maintain a basic standard of living. This is a very fair bill that way.

This includes medical aids. So 70 percent of wages maximum, and then for all other income, the court awards to pay future medical expenses as well. Pets will be exempt, and any equipment used as a part of employment.

Other property exemptions include the principal residence, one car, one bike, one computer and one mobile phone. Those are exemptions to make sure that this bill is very balanced, and it’s very fair for the people from all sides.

Also, the question of: when will this legislation be brought into force? I know there are people who will be watching. This bill is expected to be brought into force by legislation in 2025. So there will be time for transition for people and to make sure we have the system in place to implement the bill step by step so that there is a capacity to do that.

What other provinces have done it, and what can we learn from them? As other members have spoken in this House already, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador have very similar legislation to what we are debating here in this House today. We, of course, have learned from them.

Alberta was the first one. While its legislation is the same in the general structure — having a money judgment registry, having enforcement instructions and an enforcement officer who can seize and dispose of any type of property — Alberta still requires a creditor, the person owed, to make a court application and get a writ before they are allowed to register their judgment.

Similarly, Newfoundland and Labrador based their legislation on Alberta, so there will be similar differences from the B.C. approach.

Saskatchewan’s legislation only allows a notice of seizure of wages to remain in force for two years. In B.C., once wages are seized, they remain seized until the debt is fulfilled or the civil enforcement officer informs the employer otherwise.

It’s a very good bill. As I said earlier, it’s a good bill for both parties, and that’s why I’m very happy to support this bill in this House.

With that, I will take my place in this House. Thank you very much, once again, for the opportunity.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: I’m pleased to rise today to speak on this important piece of legislation that will make it easier for people to get money owed to them following a civil court decision.

In many cases, the current system requires judgments made in civil tribunals like the residential tenancy branch to be pursued in court when monetary judgments are made. This is time-consuming, expensive and, quite honestly, frustrating. I can imagine the strain put upon people who have already been through, at times, a lengthy process at a civil tribunal.

After spending months taking time off work and then going through a legal process, having a decision awarded your way should feel like the tribulations are over. But right now, that’s not the case. I know the case of one renter who took his landlord to the RTB, was awarded monetary judgment, and it took him over a year to collect on the judgment made by the residential tenancy branch.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

When his landlord withheld his damage deposit un­justly, he followed the process and trusted in the residential tenancy branch. He prepared his documentation, took time off work to consult with the RTB and attended his hearing on time and presented the facts. The RTB ruled in his favour and issued a judgment to the landlord. He was pleased and expected that the considerable sum owed would be paid back promptly. But this wasn’t the case.

If you can believe it, the residential tenancy branch process itself was the quickest part of the whole thing. From filing to RTB hearing was four months. Once a judgment was issued, the landlord went completely dark.

So after ten more months had passed he began the process of pursuing his options in small claims court. This required more days off to arrange for a filing, hiring a process server to find his landlord, which took more time. All the while, he and his roommates were out thousands of dollars.

Eventually, he won and was able to recoup the costs, but what I want to highlight here is the considerable effort and time that it took him to do this. Most people don’t have the time or the ability to do this kind of advocacy on their own, so they would rack up more expenses, more time off work and wages lost.

The kicker is here, in our current system, this renter got lucky. The judge in small claims court ordered the full amount to be paid in full within one month. Had the judge ordered wages to be taken, it would have been an even more slow and labour-intensive process.

All of this to say, this change makes sense. Government is introducing a streamlined system that will en­able money judgments to be enforced with a single enforcement instruction. It will eliminate the need to apply to the court multiple times to pursue collection. This will save British Columbians time, money, and it will save the court system from having to deal with more cases that will be streamlined.

I’m proud to support this legislation so that our court system in B.C. will do a better job of working for people.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s my honour to stand and support Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, an act which is what I think people would characterize as lawyers’ law. It is not the stuff of great policy debate, but rather the machinery of how judgments are enforced and enforceable under our system of law.

It makes refinements to longstanding rules we’ve had in this province and indeed in all common law provinces of Canada to address what happens to creditors and what are the rights of debtors, etc. This is to reformulate that, and in the words of the Attorney, when she addressed this initially introducing the bill, it customizes those rules. I like that phrase.

[5:05 p.m.]

The B.C. Law Institute customized the changes that had been agreed to by something called the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. Now that’s an agency that works quietly across provinces and with the federal government to streamline common law, civil law policies and procedures.

I like the expression that the B.C. Law Institute took that work, that general work, and customized it in order to make sure that it meets the needs of British Columbians. It’s a great example of how provinces collaborate, often in the shadows without many people noticing that there’s such a thing as a Uniform Law Conference. But they’ve simplified our statutory law. This is a very good example, of how that’s been done.

There are a number of changes, and my colleagues have referenced them, that have been made to improve the situation in British Columbia, both for creditors and for debtors. I’ll try to elaborate on that during my remarks.

Currently, as my colleague has said, people who get a money judgment from the courts have to make a court application for each method they want to use to collect the funds. Garnishment is one way, seizing wages and so forth, seizing property. Any number of these remedies are now being consolidated into one order to make it much more effective and simple for people to exercise the rights that they have.

After all, it involves what are termed judgment creditors, people who have received a court order entitling them to take action to acquire the money to which they’re entitled, not just because they sue but because they have succeeded and have a judgment to enforce. So the objective of this bill, in simple terms, is to consolidate and make it easier to get away from some of the time-consuming and often expensive work that has been undertaken in the past, that had to be undertaken to collect on the debt. I think that’s really important to say.

My colleague referenced one example, the residential tenancy branch, which involves so many British Columbians and so many monetary judgments, both to landlords and to renters, that are often very, very difficult to enforce, to recover from the court system. As a consequence, peo­ple aren’t paying on their judgments. That, of course, leads to an erosion of the rule of law. This Legislature, of course, should be alive to that reality.

Therefore, this isn’t entitled to make…. To make those collection processes less complicated so people can receive — be they landlords or tenants, in this example — the money that they’re entitled to, and they have confidence that the system works…. Nothing is more exasperating than to be told that you are owed money — because you’ve done all the right things, taken all the appropriate steps — but are thwarted in your ability to achieve justice. This bill, I hope, will go some measure to make that less of a problem in the future.

There is to be a single enforcement instruction after a person registers a money judgment in a searchable public registry. There’ll be no need to go back to court over and over and over again, depending on the remedy that you’re seeking. Rather, you’ll have that tribunal order automatically entered into the registry and enforced instead of having to be first registered with the court. The objective, to put it in the vernacular, is that this registry will serve as a one-stop shop for information about previous money judgments: how much is owing, what commercial liens are available, and so forth.

In addition, another change that’s made in this bill is that certain types of property that weren’t contemplated in the previous legislation will now be able to be seized. An example of that are crops and property that is in co-ownership.

I think it’s important to also note the fairness objective of this legislation. I’ve referred to it applying both to fairness for the landlord and the tenant in the example of the residential tenancy branch. But additional protections have been introduced to ensure that people owing money and their dependents can maintain a certain basic standard of living. I will come back to that point in a moment.

We don’t have poor houses any longer, since Dickens’ time. We have people who are entitled to retain a certain amount of assets when they’re sued so they have the ability to maintain a certain standard of living. Those exemptions continue in this bill and have been altered as well.

[5:10 p.m.]

We’ve expanded the list of items in this bill that would be exempt from seizure, and certain details of the exemptions have been moved to the regulations, which is an important thing.

We live in a time of inflation, I think we’re all sad to acknowledge, so by putting in a statute that an exemption of $4,000 is the amount. Yet five years from now, ten years from now, that $4,000 doesn’t have the buying power it did in the past…. As a consequence, by putting it in the regulations, which don’t require coming back to the Legislature each and every time to make a change, we can ensure that we keep up with the times and that the equity that we’re trying to achieve continues in the future.

That’s the beauty of having regulations which can be changed: the legislation contemplates the ability of those orders to be made under the authority of the act, without having to change the act itself. I think that’s a very positive step; I think it’s one that’s long overdue.

I mentioned that the legislation contemplates certain exemptions from seizure and the kinds of things that the legislation talks about categories of personal property of debtors within certain specified amounts to be set by regulation. For example, necessary clothing, medical and dental aids that are required by the debtor or their dependents cannot be seized, will not be able to be seized. A certain amount of household furnishings and appliances — it used to be $4,000. Well, by regulation, we can set that amount to change based on the circumstances.

This legislation, no doubt, is intended to last for many, many years and replaces the statute that has been in place, the Court Order Enforcement Act, for many, many years as well. We hope this legislation moves with the times.

Another category of exemption would be a car: $5,000 for one motor vehicle if the debtor is not a maintenance debtor. A maintenance debtor is somebody who owes order under a maintenance order in the family law context. Those numbers will change, as I said. If you are a maintenance debtor, $2,000 is what the law has been for one motor vehicle.

Again, exemptions from seizure contemplated in the interest of ensuring that people have a basic standard of living, even if they are subject to a court order for money judgment.

Tools and other personal property that the debtor uses in their occupation is another category that must be maintained if we’re going to ensure that people can make a living. Imagine if you could simply have a carpenter who was a judgment debtor, and one could seize his or her tools. That would make it impossible for that person to make a living and, therefore, to be able to pay the judgment that they are facing.

I’m happy to say there are many, many other categories of exemptions that are contemplated, but just to give a sense of the equity that this statute is trying to ensure is maintained, I give those by way of illustration.

The objective of simplification, I think, will help with the efficiency of the process. It is simply a waste of everyone’s time and money — transaction costs; if the economists were here, they would use that expression — in order to acquire an asset to which you’re entitled. You have a judgment. You want to collect on it. But you have to hire somebody to go to this registry and that registry many, many times. That’s not in anyone’s interest, and the inefficiency and the transaction costs are being moderated to a significant degree as a result of the bill that’s before this House today.

As I said, the Uniform Law Conference has produced recommendations for legislation, and other jurisdictions have seen fit already to enact similar laws. Alberta and Saskatchewan have done this, and we are expecting that to be a positive step because we’ll have uniformity consistent for organizations who do business in western Canada. This is something that businesses have sought and which makes perfect sense. There really is no principled reason why the exemption limits would be different in our province as compared to, say, Alberta.

The objective of the bill is to bring it into force, by regulation, not this year but in a year or two. The reason for that is to continue the elaborate process of consultation that has led to this bill, recognizing that there is much, much more that needs to be done, going forward.

[5:15 p.m.]

I’ve talked about the policy objectives for a bill of this sort: equity and fair access to justice. I’ve mentioned the residential tenancy branch as one example where this becomes very important, where money orders or monetary judgments are made, but it also applies to a whole panoply of administrative tribunals in our province — to the civil resolution tribunal and to many others — again making a simplified process for all of those tribunals and courts when money is awarded.

I think it’s important to know that people who are owed money know that they’ll have significant new remedies as a consequence of this bill. Right now if someone doesn’t voluntarily pay the monetary judgment that they are ordered to pay, the person pursuing the collection has to make a court application for each collection method.

I mentioned garnishing orders as one, where a person’s wages can be garnisheed as a consequence. But if you wish to seize personal property like a car or some other tangible asset, you need to get a writ of seizure. It goes on and on. It’s somewhat surprising that in the 21st century, we still require all of these remedies that go back, in some cases, to the Middle Ages. This is trying to ensure that we have a single enforcement instruction that can be found, after you register it, in a searchable public registry.

Yes, computers will be utilized to ensure that we can find this. I know we’ve come a long way, but it’ll be much, much easier, using the technology that exists, to know exactly where people stand in that way.

Employers will get a single notice to garnishee a percentage of the wages, which would remain in place indefinitely until the judgment is over. You might have an order that would allow a certain percentage of the money judgment to be taken out from each month’s salary until the debt is discharged, without having to go back over and over again, as is currently the case. I think there’s an opportunity there, again, for efficiency and to reduce the transaction costs I spoke of.

Under the act, tribunal orders will automatically be entered into this registry so people can directly instruct a bailiff — now called something else, a civil enforcement officer; “bailiff” going back to the Middle Ages. You’ll see another positive recognition that we’re in the 21st century, Mr. Speaker. They can directly instruct this civil enforcement officer to go out and seize and sell the property to satisfy the debt owing to them. It has been simplified, but there are still rights that are provided.

The bill itself is 215 sections in length. It’s obviously a very intricate bill. If you couple that with what I said about the regulation-making under it, I think you’ll understand why taking a couple of years to ensure that all of the details are in place is in the interests of all of us. But the direction is clearly positive and will be welcomed by, I think, both debtor and creditor communities alike.

I mentioned that there’ll be certain kinds of property that will now be eligible for seizure, categories that were not eligible in the past for seizure. An example I’ve been given is a portable generator or other equipment attached to the ground or a building; no reason why that would not be eligible for seizure.

Co-owned property. Imagine if you could simply own property with someone else and, therefore, completely make it impossible for the person who has got a judgment in their hand to go and execute on that. Well, we provide elaborate rules to ensure that the co-property can still be disaggregated and that people can achieve an aspect or part of that, anyway, to satisfy the judgment that has been issued against them.

Safeguards, however, have been put in place to ensure that people who owe money and their dependents can maintain that standard of living. I mentioned some of the things, by way of exemptions, that are existing in the act.

[5:20 p.m.]

There are others — food, medical aids, 70 percent of wages or other income, court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, RDSPs, RESPs and equipment used as part of employment. I’ve given some examples of that.

The principal residence is a property that’s exempted, and a car, one bicycle, one computer and one mobile phone. Now, again, these are things that weren’t contemplated in the earlier legislation, computers being an obviously important element to earn one’s life. It’s easier to use the example of a carpenter.

In the 21st century, again, there are other assets that need to be exempt if people are going to be able to earn a living and have a standard of living commensurate with living in British Columbia in this day and age.

I’ve covered most of the key elements of this. I should say what this does not do. There are certain things, like child support payments…. Collection is carried out for child support payments through the family maintenance enforcement program, as you know. Their staff will likely only need to use this process if there’s a very large amount that is owing that accumulates over time. So theoretically, yes. But on a day-to-day basis, no.

If there were to be such a large amount accumulated that remains outstanding, then that family maintenance enforcement program will have the ability to register the unpaid debt directly in the judgment database I referred to and then provide an enforcement instruction to a civil enforcement officer to collect it. That’s how that scheme connects up with this more general scheme that applies to money judgments.

I think, with that, I’m going to take my place. I commend this legislation to the House. I think it makes very positive changes to our civil justice system. I think, to go back to where I started, it has an enormous opportunity to mitigate the expense and inconvenience of collecting on judgments that people get through our courts of law and our tribunals, such as the residential tenancy branch and others.

I think it will make people more respectful of a civil justice system when it’s easier for them to collect on money judgments to which they are entitled through a court order or through some other tribunal making the requisite order. With that, I’ll take my place.

R. Leonard: It is my great privilege to stand today in support of Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

This is the first opportunity that I have in this House to congratulate the new members of this Legislature, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca. All of those names will change in 2024. But in the meantime, I’m very happy to see their faces in the House and look forward to the contributions that they will bring to make us better legislators and to serve the people of British Columbia.

This bill, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, is not an amendment. It is yet another weighty piece of legislation that replaces the Court Order Enforcement Act, as has just previously been stated. This has been in place since the 1800s.

When I read that, I thought how back in those days, they had things like debtors’ prisons. The term for someone who was not paying their debts was a scofflaw. These scofflaws had very severe consequences.

Something has changed over those decades and centuries that we’ve come to a place where we have to find different ways for those few in our society who don’t take their debt seriously and other people suffer.

[5:25 p.m.]

It may be a few people, but for the people who are affected by it, it is all-consuming. It is. It fills their lives, as they have to go through processes — like what has been stated — 26 times on average in a year to be able to go to the courts to make sure that they can get the debts that are owed to them paid. They can go not just once, but with the garnishing of wages, you have to go every two weeks right now. Talk about an onerous task to try and collect on the debts that are owed to you.

I can imagine, because I don’t have people that owe money to me, if somebody owed me money, and I would be weighing how much it costs for me to take time off work to chase after this debt. I would look at the stress and the strain and, like so many people, would say: “It’s not worth it. I just can’t be bothered.”

So that person who owes the money says: “Well, this is easy. I don’t have to pay my debts.” It doesn’t happen just to that first person, but it’s going to happen to the next person that they see an opportunity. And so it grows.

I’m really proud of the work of the Attorney General to take this on and to make a difference. I was on the rental housing task force with Mr. Speaker a few years ago, and we heard from a wide range of people, tenants and landlords. I would say that the vast majority of complaints that we heard were on either end of the spectrum — not people who get along, not landlords and tenants who live in harmony and have their needs met and everybody pays the rent on time.

There are those hard, hard relationships that exist, and that’s what we heard about. We needed to see progress so that we could continue to have people interested in being landlords, so that we would have places for people to live in that were affordable, that were available and that help us to thrive as communities. This piece of legislation helps move that forward.

It’s an exciting time to have a 215-section piece of legislation that seems very dry. I can’t remember what the former speaker called it, but a lot of legislation tends to be dry. But this piece of legislation? I can see it. It comes to life in my mind as I consider people’s reaction to opportunities that it presents.

Right now you have to take on the task to be able to have wages garnished, to garnish bank accounts, to seize and sell personal goods or to put liens on personal property. Each one of those has to be taken separately.

This bill will see that consolidated for one time only and until the debt is paid, not that has to be renewed every two weeks or whatever the different complex rules there are right now.

For instance, when you get a registered debt, you only have to make one notice for garnishing a percentage of wages, and that will remain valid indefinitely until the debt is paid.

In 2022, the residential tenancy branch, since I mentioned those debts first, awarded approximately 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters compared to approximately 4,100 in 2021. That speaks to that growing problem that we’re having. And as I say, it grows because people are not having any consequences to not having paid their debts.

[5:30 p.m.]

It’s a single enforcement instruction that comes after a person registers in a searchable, public registry. That’s the remedy that we need — to have a registry that you do it once and it takes away that overburden for the whole collection process. It’s a one-stop shop for information about previous money judgments, including the current amount owing as well as commercial liens. I think that’s important, too, for people who are out there looking to establish new relationships, whether it’s landlords and tenants or if it’s around car loans.

This is an opportunity where you have the chance to see if the person that you’re looking at is actually going to be a good…. What’s the word? It’s going to be a good person to do business with, anyway. You can count on them that they will be paying that which they owe.

I’m talking about those who are not paying their debts because they cannot pay their debt. Some people have struggled to pay their debts, and this legislation contemplates an equitable process so that people can still continue to have to pay their debts, but do so in a fair way that keeps their basic standard of living so that you can still put food on the table for your children. You can still have a roof over your head. You can still drive a car. You can still do your business in your own home, for instance, and the kids can still do their homework on their computers.

It’s hard to get that kind of a balance, and this legislation has been a long time in the making. It has come with a very robust consultation process. Who has been consulted? Well, one that popped out for me was bailiffs.

Select court bailiffs were consulted about the impact of the legislation and what it would have on their operations. They were provided with the opportunity to share recommendations for improving enforcement. Nothing better than the boots on the ground to be able to provide that kind of feedback. As the previous speaker was mentioning, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the B.C. Law Institute not only were consulted, they recommended it.

In addition, the staff continue to work with the Canadian Bar Association, financial institutions and other lending institutions to advise the government, because we were replacing the Court Order Enforcement Act. We’re not trying to put a patchwork of band-aids on a system that has been failing us.

I understand that a lot of the very finer details are being put into regulation. That’s to recognize that certain aspects of the goods that can be seized and the impact of the legislation should be able to be reflected by the current situa­tion around, for instance, inflation. It anticipates a strong regulatory aspect to it, post this legislation. It isn’t something that’s just static that will stay in place for a long period of time. It anticipates the changes that are happening in our rapidly changing world.

As was also noted, this is a complex piece of legislation, with these…. How many is it? There are a lot of sections in this. In its complexity, it’s dealing with some interesting things. It anticipates things those of us who aren’t involved in debt collection might not consider. We just wouldn’t consider it.

[5:35 p.m.]

Things like priority. Sometimes it’s not just one debt. There’s a lot of debt and a lot of people owed money. This contemplates how all of that would be prioritized. It contemplates co-owned property and partnerships. It is something that, as I say, if you’re not in the position of having to collect on debts, you might not contemplate that. If you happen to be in one of those relationships around property ownership, you want us to get it right. There has been a lot of work to make sure that this is going to get it right. We want this legislation to work for everyone.

Within this complex piece of legislation, it is implicitly simplistic to have a single database registry that brings it all together and is publicly searchable. That is the essence of what makes this thing work. We’ve heard from just so many people that need to be able…. That need for information to be able to make good decisions is being addressed with a single registry.

I think the part that’s hardest for me to wrap my head around is…. It’s not hard to wrap my head around, but one of the things that I always look at is people’s right to privacy. How does this registry work in a way that is not being too intrusive, that allows people their privacy while being able to respond to the needs that we have to address people’s ability to collect on debts? This legislation doesn’t collect any more information than is already available in different places in court registries.

So this is, in essence, a no-change piece when it comes to privacy. Sometimes people think that we’re just finding ways to intrude in people’s lives, and that’s simply not the case here. In doing so, we are also opening up the opportunity for people to access justice by not just being court-ordered enforcement. It’s orders that are made by the residential tenancy branch. It’s the opportunity to have orders enforced from civil tribunals.

These are things that we have taken steps over the last few years to try and open up justice for people, to make justice more accessible. This takes it that one step further in a very comprehensive way.

A comment was made earlier about collecting child support payments, and this is another piece that brings it all under one house. It’s, again, that opportunity for a single, unpaid debt to be put into that single database to provide enforcement instructions to a civil enforcement officer to collect it.

There are a lot of different ways that people can owe money, and this piece of legislation does contemplate it. I’m excited to see it move forward. I’m excited that we have taken on this particular piece. I know it’s happened in other jurisdictions. There’s similar legislation in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

[5:40 p.m.]

I know our piece of legislation is doing a little bit more than Alberta. It differs in the amount of detail it’s providing with respect to the seizure of certain types of property. Another thing with Alberta is it still requires a person owed, a creditor, to make a court application and get a writ before they’re allowed to register their judgment. So this is really facilitating a lot easier access to justice.

I think that we’ve taken a bold step, and we’ve taken a fair step. I look forward to seeing this legislation pass, and I thank you for the opportunity to make comment on it.

H. Yao: It is my pleasure to join my colleagues to speak about the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.

Of course, I also want to echo my colleague before I start. I do want to congratulate both the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Langford–​Juan de Fuca, welcoming them to our B.C. Legislature as our newest MLAs.

It was fascinating, when I was first reading the press release…. I’m actually very excited about how government is putting this kind of act together, especially when we’re talking about…. When courts and tribunals rule in your favour, you should be able to get what is owed to you. When I’ve been reading the history, the reality is that it can be very time-consuming based on the current system. It can be very expensive.

When I read those two lines specifically, I had to reimagine myself…. Where is the equity component behind this? In Richmond South Centre, which I’m very honoured and privileged to represent, we have a high population that struggles a bit with the language barriers. If a person who has been ruled in favour to actually have their money owed to them, to be able to claim the money….

Every time they go visit a provincial court, they have to bring a translator. Every time they visit a provincial court, they need to bother their friends or family to ask for help and support, to guide them through a structure or system that they may not be familiar with. Every time they go to court to claim what’s owed to them, they might have anxiety and fear and be afraid they might be doing something wrong.

When a judgment isn’t fulfilled, it is a judgment being denied. It is, therefore, just unfair to allow individuals, who might potentially be discouraged, to claim what is owed to them.

I also have asked myself, too: when this kind of wage garnishing or funds in a bank or even seizing property…? Every one of them, based on our current system, takes effort to go to court to apply for.

What does it mean for a single mother who has to work two different jobs and has two little kids they have to look after? What about families who are struggling and trying to do multiple jobs and keep food on the table?

It will be a discouragement or place people in that circumstance at a disadvantage, and that concerns me. Therefore, I’m very glad our government is putting in an effort to streamline this process. We’re looking at the civil resolution tribunal and the residential tenancy branch.

I want to talk a bit about the residential tenancy branch first. When we have landlords and we have tenants, of course, we have a civil, established relationship. When one breaks the law over the other, we want to make sure the one who has been disadvantaged gets fair compensation.

The question we often have to ask ourselves is: if one of the persons who’s owing the money decided to just drag on the process, almost — I hate to say it — for a little revenge…? Maybe I could say the landlord decided to not pay the renter, and you realize the renter is living cheque by cheque, because we have a very difficult economy today.

British Columbia has been welcoming 250,000 people, joining us, for the last two years, because we have a strong economy in B.C. right now. People are still struggling, living with different challenges.

When you have people who are still trying their best to live from cheque to paycheque to support their family, and then the landlord, who owes them money, decides he’s not living up to the promise…. You’re asking a family member who is struggling, dealing with housing challenges right now, to look for the time, the energy and even take time off from their work in order to gain what they should already deserve, based upon the ruling of the residential tenancy branch.

[5:45 p.m.]

That is not fair, and I think it’s important that our government is introducing this bill to ensure that we’re doing whatever we can to allow streamlining the process, to support individuals who might be in a difficult situation, difficult circumstances, and deserve to get the money that’s owed to them.

If we’re looking at different ways for people who, for example, are dealing with money…. They had go through garnishing wages. Every two weeks, they had to go to the court to reappeal. Why did they talk about 26 times? Let’s call it 52 weeks per year, so 26 biweekly. We’re talking about 26 different types of biweekly wage garnishing. How much effort is that for a few thousand dollars? I don’t even think I’d have the motivation to continue through after three or four attempts, let alone 26 attempts throughout the year.

We understand there are people who are dealing with different challenges. I’m very glad our government is putting safeguards in this law, because we have to look at people with dependents. We have to look at people’s quality of life. We have to make sure that people, whoever had to pay back the money they owe — that they are not taking away their livelihood.

So we’re looking at this kind of owing limits. It cannot interfere with their food, cannot interfere with medical aids. The 70 percent of wages allocated have to still be protected. Court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, burial plots and any equipment used as part of employment are protected, because we also need to understand that this system is designed to streamline, but we still want to protect British Columbians’ interests.

That’s why I’m very excited that our government put this kind of bill together. We understand the importance of providing equity, fairness and appropriate fulfillment of judgment to allow people to have faith and trust in the civil resolution tribunal or residential tenancy branch.

I think one of the key factors — I’m going to go back to my initial example as well — is if a landlord, or even a renter, decided: “You know what? I lost a court case, but I’m going to punish you by making it drag on as long as I can.” This is actually, indirectly, a form of punishment to a person who deserves to be rewarded for the compensation that they deserve.

We need to make sure we establish credibility for the civil resolution tribunal and residential tenancy branch, and people need to respect that this system is being established. That’s why I’m glad we continue looking for ways to streamline and strengthen our system.

I can see why the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the British Columbia Law Institute both endorse this kind of system and why provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan already have similar acts. To be honest, it’s necessary. It’s important for us to continue to support British Columbians in a way that they can actually gain the fairness they deserve.

I also want to talk about the RTB. In 2022, the residential tenancy branch awarded approximately 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters. That’s 4,800 cases being established, and that’s 4,800 individuals who have been awarded the opportunity to claim their money. But we hear too often that when the money is awarded through an RTB decision, it can take months or even years for people to collect.

When we’re going back again…. I know we often talk about renters. We often talk about landlords. We often talk about people participating in civil resolution tribunal cases. This is a small amount of money that people often may be working with and living off or depending upon. This is the kind of credibility we need to talk about. This is the kind of livelihood we are trying to defend.

When we’re talking about different ways of how to en­sure British Columbians can get the money they’re supposed to be justifiably awarded, we need to make sure we find a way to allow the person who collects to also be supported throughout the process.

I’m going to be going back to my initial example. If an individual struggles with a language barrier or cultural barriers, and they find it difficult to engage a stranger who speaks a different language, and every time they go asking for support and help from a family, from a friend — or hopefully, if they have enough support, get it translated to support an action — that takes a lot of emotional credibility. It takes a lot of emotional asks to fulfil those acts. Every time it doesn’t go through, they have to reapply, go through court and reapply…. It is another emotional difficulty they have to experience.

[5:50 p.m.]

When we actually have a one-stop shop to allow this case to actually be brought through, I think we are actually allowing British Columbians to have peace of mind that when the judgment has been delivered, the judgment will be fulfilled.

I especially appreciate the fact that the civil resolution tribunal and other tribunals will automatically incorporate the decision into a registry so that they can continue to work with our government and work with our population to ensure that people with money owed can be addressed too.

I do also want to take a moment to really reflect…. We also want to develop a culture and a community that respect the decisions being established. We want people who realize, in our society, that where there’s money owing, when there’s a judgment against an individual…. Real life is serious. It’s not something where they can retaliate against the person who established the judgment by dragging out what they are supposed to be fulfilling.

One important key factor I do want to emphasize, as we keep on talking about this, is…. How can we ensure that British Columbians with diverse backgrounds, with different economic circumstances, with different kinds of family makeups, with different kinds of cultural backgrounds and language challenges, feel supported and able to work with our court system and able to do a one-stop shop, through a registry, to be able to support and get their judgment fulfilled?

When a court or tribunal rules in our favour, in an individual’s favour…. People deserve to get what is owed to them. Unfortunately, we know that many British Columbians, including renters and landlords, often face a difficult, time-consuming and expensive task of collecting the debt that they deserve.

Without a doubt…. I’m standing today, with my colleagues, obviously, across the aisle, here in the chamber. I do fully support all of this, our government introducing this bill to correct this much-anticipated act that can help us correct all of the unfairness existing in our society.

J. Routledge: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. This is new legislation that will make it easier for people to get money owed to them following civil court decisions, such as from the residential tenancy branch.

I’d like to take a few minutes to explain why this act is so important to the people that I represent. In doing so, I’d like to talk a bit about the evolution of Burnaby North, the people who live in Burnaby North.

In doing so, I think it’s important, first of all, to anchor it by saying that Burnaby North is located on the unceded, traditional territory of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ and Sḵwx̱wú7­mesh-speaking people.

Recently Burnaby North has been bounded by Boundary Road to the west, Kensington Avenue to the east, Burrard Inlet to the north and Canada Way to the south. But our boundaries have changed. Why have they changed? Burnaby North is becoming a vertical constituency. Our skyline is changing. There is an increasing number of high rises.

Having said that, there are still a lot of what we would consider traditional neighbourhoods. I would also like to point out that a high rise can be a neighbourhood as well, and that’s something we need to work on.

When I talk about traditional neighbourhoods in Burnaby North, I’m thinking of neighbourhoods such as The Heights, Capitol Hill, Brentwood, Willingdon Heights. Originally, these neighbourhoods were residential communities for workers in Vancouver and New West. They lived in Burnaby and commuted to other cities. It’s changed a lot, but the character still maintains. It’s dominated by bungalows, pre-war….

Am I missing something here?

[5:55 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: If the member could help the Chair understand the connection to the bill, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.

J. Routledge: Okay. I’m getting there right now. This is the context of why it matters in terms of who lives there.

These are pre-war, post-war bungalows that were built by skilled tradespeople to live in themselves. I’ve met many of them, and I’ve met many of their descendants.

Unlike where I grew up in Ontario, in a working-class neighbourhood where people lived in single-family dwellings, many of these houses were built in order to house multiple families. That’s where I’m coming from.

Unlike my experience growing up in Ontario, there are many working-class, working families in B.C. who are, themselves, landlords. There is a history in B.C. of working people being landlords.

Does that work? The current situation, the current housing crisis, has pitted working people against working people, working landlords against working tenants, working tenants against working landlords. That’s why this piece of legislation is so important.

Now you see where I’m coming from.

A lot of these houses were purpose-built. Some of them are called Vancouver Specials. They were built this way…. This was how working people could afford to pay their mortgages or live after they retired, either to supplement their pension or to have a pension. Secondary suites were there to make ends meet.

As I say, the current situation, the housing crisis, has pitted people who should be unified against each other. I’ve got to say…. In Burnaby North, many, dare I say most, of the people who contact my office by phone, by email — or they drop in to visit — want to talk about their frustration, the way they feel trapped as tenants or as landlords. This legislation will help them get some relief. It will also help create more housing.

Let me give you a couple of examples. This one person came to visit me. I’ll just call him “K.” He lived in Burnaby Heights, just off of Hastings Street, and he was evicted. He did not know that he and his family were wrongfully evicted until his former neighbours told him that the landlord did not, in fact, move into that house. He renovated it and expanded it so he could raise the rent.

“K” filed a complaint with the residential tenancy board. He won his dispute. It took him 18 months to get the money that was owed to him. He was told how he could get that money was…. He had to go out and hire a bailiff, which was something that he was in a position to do.

Another person who came to see me several times is a senior. He is a landlord, and he has a tenant who has not paid rent since the pandemic started. He’s owed over $20,000. He is not confident in his English, and he doesn’t know how to navigate the system. The residential tenancy board is only conducting virtual hearings, so he can’t go and explain the situation to them. That’s a challenge.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’ve been visited by a woman. She is a senior. I’ll call her “L.” She rents out her basement suite. It’s a non-smoking suite, but her tenant is a smoker and smokes in the suite. She is really upset about this. She has double pneumonia and is a lung cancer survivor. She is terrified that this will make her sick. She is elderly, she is afraid, and she doesn’t feel confident to go through the whole system.

I can tell you want me to wrap it up here. So I won’t go on with my many other examples.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: It’s not indicating anything, no.

J. Routledge: I guess the other thing…. There’s a family. They were evicted because of his criminal record, not knowing, actually, that’s not legal. The landlord has more resources and has been able to drag out the process. As a result of comments that were made on social media, this person…. They have not been able to find other accommodations, and this family of five is now homeless.

These are some of the examples of how people’s lives are made desperate because we didn’t have the facility that this legislation would provide.

It’s a poorly kept secret in Burnaby North that there are a lot of empty suites, a lot of empty suites throughout the neighbourhood, throughout Burnaby North. Landlords are afraid to rent them out. They’re afraid they will get into the kind of situation that these people find themselves in.

With this piece of legislation, these landlords will feel more confident to rent out their suites. More people will have a place to live, and it will help address our housing crisis.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Minister of Health.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Absolutely. A smattering of applause.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the designated speaker.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s going to be fun, hon. Speaker. I’m ready to go.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: There you go.

I wanted to start by expressing my appreciation for the previous speakers, who I think have underlined how important this legislation is for ordinary people.

I think, if I may summarize why it’s important…. It’s by a phrase that we all know and that we all understand. It’s fundamental, and should be fundamental, to our approach to all issues, particularly when people find themselves in touch with the legal system. That is that justice delayed is justice denied.

At its core and in principle, this legislation addresses that. It makes it easier for individuals to get money owed to them following a civil court decision.

I want to express my appreciation, of course, to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the British Columbia Law Institute for their work on this issue.

At its core, this legislation essentially replaces legislation that dates from the 19th century and does so, I think, in some important ways, which have been reflected on by members of both sides of the House. It replaces, in large measure, the Court Order Enforcement Act. This piece of legislation replaces that and provides, instead of a complicated and difficult process for many to seek justice after receiving a positive judgment before a tribunal…. It simplifies that.

It enables money judgments to be enforced with a single enforceable instruction after registering in a searchable public database. It eliminates the need for people to apply to the court for each collection method, also a critical aspect. Of course, that can be discouraging.

[6:05 p.m.]

Tribunal orders, such as a residential tenancy branch or a civil rights tribunal decision, will be able to be directly registered in the registry and then enforced instead of having to first be registered with the court, again cutting through the red tape that denies, at times, justice.

Certain types of property not contemplated in the old legislation can now be seized, such as co-owned property and crops.

In addition, on the balancing side, additional protections have been introduced to ensure that people owing money, and their dependents, can maintain a basic standard of living. In fact, it exempts a number of things from seizure. This is important in terms of ensuring balance and justice on all sides.

These include things such as food and medical aid, 70 percent of wages or other income, court awards to pay future medical expenses, pets, burial plots, etc., and any equipment, of course, that’s used as part of employment, which might reasonably be used by someone to, in fact, hold or maintain or keep their obligations to pay what they owe.

This is, I think, significant legislation. You’ll see it in the next number of days as the legislation is discussed by the Attorney General and probably a number of critics on the opposition side — 215 sections, over 140 pages. You’ll see the seriousness as we go through each section of the legislation and the importance that has for ordinary people as they engage in the justice system.

This idea of breaking through barriers, of allowing and avoiding the delay of justice, of course, is not a new idea, and people have been struggling with it for a long time. I was reflecting, hon. Speaker, and you will know, of course, being an admirer of Dickens yourself…. I know that, in particular, the member for Peace River South will join me in this discussion.

As I reflected on this important piece of legislation…. I think one of the greatest novels ever written in the English language, Bleak House, which is not, I should say…. I want to exclude my colleague the member from Oak Bay from consideration in its reflection on the legal profession, which is not entirely positive. It was, in fact, the 19th century.

As everyone knows, in that book, the narrative of that book really formed the background around the legal case that never ended in Bleak House. It never ended. People would come and go and continue. Everyone, of course, involved in the story — and this is the genius of the novel — sadly met some form of tragic fate. But the case continued — in fact, as you will know, hon. Chair — until the entire value of the estate was taken up in court costs. Then it ended.

So just to reflect from the book because it’s important to do this…. It’s important to reflect on Dickens because, as you know, he was a clerk in a law office and he, in his own way, reflected the Hansard of his time. And his knowledge of the legal system came from that perspective. He was not a lawyer. He was a clerk, and he was a scribe of the legal profession.

But he starts off…. This is the case. The case was called Jarndyce and Jarndyce. He says:

“Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in the course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.

“Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world.”

And so on, hon. Speaker.

[6:10 p.m.]

This is why what we’re doing here is so fundamentally important. This is sometimes what people feel when they approach the legal system — that somehow the process will become so complicated that the justice that they aspire to is not there.

That is why all the work that has been done by Law Institute and the Uniform Law Conference is so important here, and why, I think, the legislation introduced by the Attorney General is of such value, because of course, what we’re talking about here are thousands of cases.

Consider, for example, that in 2022 the residential tenancy branch awarded approximately 4,800 money judgments to landlords and renters — not necessarily, for the most part, to individuals who can afford extensive legal processes. We need, where we can find it, to have simplicity in this case, allowing people simple access to justice, and to get the money owed to them enhances and supports faith in the legal system and in institutions, I’d argue, but also fundamentally supports justice.

If you go through a process, as frequently happens, where a judgment is received, money is owed to a person, and there is no way other than complications to get that money, that leaves a permanent stain on the system and on how ordinary individuals interact with that system. That, in every way — including our own procedures in this House, our own legislative processes, our own electoral processes — is so important.

We have to give people, of course, the means to find justice but have, in our legal system, mechanisms that ensure simplicity. When the proposed legislation enables many judgments to be enforced with a single enforcement instruction after a person registers in a searchable public registry, it eliminates the need to apply to the court multiple times to pursue collections.

Tribunal orders will automatically be entered in the registry and enforced, instead of having to be first regis­tered with the court. It is a one-stop shop, but it’s more fundamental than that, I would argue. It’s more fundamental than that. It is ensuring that justice not be denied when justice is delayed.

That’s why it’s my honour to support this legislation, which brings this important area of law into the 21st century, an action that supports ordinary individuals as they engage in the justice system, whether they be a landlord, a tenant or others — as my colleague from Oak Bay said just a few moments ago in this debate — to find the justice that they seek in the process and to ensure, in seeking that justice, that the response and the process is proportional.

What we have is legislation that on the one hand, ensures that those that are owed money get their money and then don’t have to go through complicated processes. On the other hand, it provides protections to others to ensure that when those processes are coming, there are not unintended consequences for those who have to pay the money.

That, at its heart, is what we need to do as we reform the law. That it is, at its heart, not to make bills more complicated. It’s not to make life more complicated but to bring about simplicity in process.

As Bleak House tells us — and tells us with tragedy, humour and everything else — when processes become so long and so extended, when justice is delayed so much that it’s denied in its absolute, then the cynicism and the confidence that people have in their society wanes with it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Speaking as one who doesn’t have the expertise of my colleague from Oak Bay, in the law, our job as legislators is to ensure that the laws that we pass here are understood, are supportive and increase access to justice for all citizens.

[6:15 p.m.]

That is precisely what this legislation does. It’s why we are strongly supporting this legislation at second reading, why I hope this Legislature today unanimously supports this legislation and why the debate about the details and the 14 parts of the legislation, composed of more than 200 sections, will require detailed debate at committee stage.

Fundamentally, when we vote on this today, it will not be the most controversial moment of the session, but it will be about members of the Legislature bringing a law into the 21st century, ensuring access to the law for individuals, ensuring that justice will not be delayed or denied through delay.

In all of those ways, it does what we should consistently do as legislatures, which is to make the whole process of justice, the whole process of government simpler and easier, because when it’s simpler and easier, more people can engage in it and achieve what they need through it.

With that, and I know it’s been a significant debate today, I hope we’ll be able to come together and vote in support of this legislation at second reading.

I’m happy to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:17 p.m.