First Session, 42nd Parliament

OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD)

Tursday, March 11, 2021 Afernoon Sitting Issue No. 28

THE HONOURABLE , SPEAKER

ISSN 1499-2175 PROVINCE OF (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC

First Session, 42nd Parliament

SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ...... Hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...... Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries...... Hon. Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing ...... Hon. , QC Minister of Children and Family Development ...... Hon. Minister of State for Child Care...... Hon. Minister of Citizens’ Services...... Hon. Minister of Education ...... Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ...... Hon. , QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy...... Hon. Minister of Finance ...... Hon. Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ...... Hon. Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations...... Hon. Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Afairs...... Hon. Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ...... Hon. , QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation...... Hon. Minister of State for Trade...... Hon. Minister of Labour ...... Hon. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions...... Hon. Minister of Municipal Afairs ...... Hon. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ...... Hon. Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction...... Hon. Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ...... Hon. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure...... Hon. Minister of State for Infrastructure ...... Hon.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Ofcial Opposition...... Leader of the Tird Party ...... Deputy Speaker...... Assistant Deputy Speaker...... Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ...... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel...... Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services...... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees...... Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ...... Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst...... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms...... Greg Nelson ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ...... Abbotsford-Mission Abbotsford-Mission...... Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) ...... Nelson-Creston ...... Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party)...... Penticton ...... Michael de Jong, QC Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...... North Island Boundary-Similkameen...... Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP)...... –False Creek Burnaby–Deer Lake...... Hon. Anne Kang Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP)...... Surrey-Newton Burnaby-Edmonds...... Hon. Raj Chouhan Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ...... Abbotsford South Burnaby-Lougheed...... Hon. Katrina Chen Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) ...... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ...... Begg, Garry (BC NDP)...... Surrey-Guildford Cariboo-Chilcotin ...... Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...... ...... Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party)...... Prince George–Valemount Chilliwack ...... Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP)...... Surrey-Fleetwood Chilliwack-Kent ...... Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) ...... Columbia River–Revelstoke ...... Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP)...... Vancouver–West End –Burke Mountain...... Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ...... North Vancouver–Seymour Coquitlam-Maillardville ...... Hon. Selina Robinson Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ...... Burnaby-Lougheed Courtenay-Comox...... Ronna-Rae Leonard Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP)...... Burnaby-Edmonds Cowichan Valley ...... Sonia Furstenau Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ...... Vancouver-Fraserview ...... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)...... Columbia River–Revelstoke ...... Conroy, Hon. Katrine (BC NDP)...... Kootenay West Esquimalt-Metchosin ...... Hon. Mitzi Dean Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) ...... Chilliwack Fraser-Nicola ...... Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ...... Stikine Kamloops–North Tompson ...... Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)...... Kamloops–South Tompson...... de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)...... Abbotsford West –Lake Country ...... Norm Letnick Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...... Esquimalt-Metchosin Kelowna-Mission ...... Renee Merrifeld D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) ...... Maple Ridge–Mission ...... Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ...... Vancouver-Kingsway Kootenay East...... Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ...... Cariboo-Chilcotin Kootenay West...... Hon. Katrine Conroy Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) ...... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Langford–Juan de Fuca ...... Hon. John Horgan Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)...... Langley ...... Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP)...... Vancouver–Point Grey Langley East...... Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ...... Vancouver-Kensington Maple Ridge–Mission...... Bob D’Eith Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) ...... Port Coquitlam Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows...... Hon. Lisa Beare Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...... Victoria–Swan Lake Mid Island–Pacifc Rim...... Hon. Josie Osborne Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ...... Cowichan Valley ...... Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ...... –Coquitlam Nanaimo–North Cowichan...... Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ...... Richmond-Steveston Nechako Lakes...... Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party)...... Surrey–White Rock Nelson-Creston ...... Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) ...... Vancouver-Fairview ...... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ...... Langford–Juan de Fuca North Coast ...... Kahlon, Hon. Ravi (BC NDP) ...... Delta North North Island...... Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) ...... Burnaby–Deer Lake North Vancouver–Lonsdale...... Hon. Bowinn Ma Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party)...... West Vancouver–Capilano North Vancouver–Seymour...... Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)...... Shuswap Oak Bay–Gordon Head...... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party)...... Vancouver-Langara Parksville-Qualicum...... Adam Walker Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...... Courtenay-Comox Peace River North ...... Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) ...... Kelowna–Lake Country Peace River South ...... Lore, Grace (BC NDP)...... Victoria–Beacon Hill Penticton ...... Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP)...... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Port Coquitlam...... Hon. Mike Farnworth Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)...... Nanaimo Port Moody–Coquitlam...... Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP)...... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Powell River–Sunshine Coast...... Hon. Nicholas Simons Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ...... Langley Prince George–Mackenzie...... Merrifeld, Renee (BC Liberal Party)...... Kelowna-Mission Prince George–Valemount ...... Shirley Bond Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) ...... Kamloops–North Tompson ...... Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...... Prince George–Mackenzie Richmond-Queensborough...... Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party)...... Cariboo North ...... Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)...... Saanich North and the Islands Richmond-Steveston ...... Osborne, Hon. Josie (BC NDP)...... Mid Island–Pacifc Rim Saanich North and the Islands ...... Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ...... Chilliwack-Kent ...... Hon. Lana Popham Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ...... Delta South Shuswap...... Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)...... Saanich South Skeena...... Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) ...... Surrey-Whalley Stikine...... Hon. Nathan Cullen Rankin, Hon. Murray, QC (BC NDP) ...... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Surrey-Cloverdale ...... Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...... North Coast Surrey-Fleetwood...... Jagrup Brar Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...... Coquitlam-Maillardville Surrey–Green Timbers...... Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)...... Skeena Surrey-Guildford...... Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) ...... Burnaby North Surrey-Newton...... Hon. Harry Bains Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...... Nanaimo–North Cowichan Surrey-Panorama ...... Russell, Roly (BC NDP)...... Boundary-Similkameen Surrey South ...... Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)...... Nechako Lakes Surrey-Whalley ...... Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) ...... Vernon-Monashee Surrey–White Rock ...... Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)...... Vancouver-Hastings Vancouver-Fairview...... Hon. George Heyman Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party)...... Kootenay East Vancouver–False Creek...... Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP)...... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Vancouver-Fraserview...... Hon. George Chow Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ...... Surrey-Panorama Vancouver-Hastings ...... Singh, Aman (BC NDP) ...... Richmond-Queensborough Vancouver-Kensington...... Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...... Surrey–Green Timbers Vancouver-Kingsway...... Hon. Adrian Dix Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ...... Surrey-Cloverdale Vancouver-Langara...... Michael Lee Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) ...... Kelowna West Vancouver–Mount Pleasant...... Hon. Melanie Mark Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...... Kamloops–South Tompson Vancouver–Point Grey ...... Hon. David Eby, QC Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ...... West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Vancouver-Quilchena...... , QC Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)...... Fraser-Nicola Vancouver–West End ...... Spencer Chandra Herbert Walker, Adam (BC NDP)...... Parksville-Qualicum Vernon-Monashee ...... Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ...... Richmond North Centre Victoria–Beacon Hill...... Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) ...... New Westminster Victoria–Swan Lake...... Hon. Rob Fleming Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)...... Vancouver-Quilchena West Vancouver–Capilano...... Yao, Henry (BC NDP) ...... Richmond South Centre West Vancouver–Sea to Sky......

Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS

Tursday, March 11, 2021 Afernoon Sitting Page

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House...... 671 Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021 (continued) Hon. S. Robinson M. Bernier S. Furstenau

Report and Tird Reading of Bills...... 678 Bill 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House...... 678 Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 D. Ashton Hon. J. Osborne

Report and Tird Reading of Bills...... 685 Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House...... 685 Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021 (continued) Hon. M. Farnworth M. Morris M. Lee S. Furstenau

671

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021 starting to hear from a few municipalities — I even heard from one over lunch, as well — with some of the concerns Te House met at 1:32 p.m. around a couple of diferent avenues. Te government is taking on a big portion of it through the application pro- [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] cess. But there are still some administration components that are required within the municipalities themselves. So Orders of the Day it’s not fully centralized. One of them, and I’ll get to it a little later, is even around the collection of penalties. Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage We talked about that a bit. But again, the application on Bill 6. process is through the government now. If there’s a penalty applied, is that going to be the responsibility of the muni- Committee of the Whole House cipality themselves to be following up, or the administrat- or, under this act? BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 Hon. S. Robinson: Tere are no penalties that are under (continued) this act.

Te House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; M. Bernier: Where I’m referring to, then, is more…. I N. Letnick in the chair. guess it’s not so much penalties. It would be the absence of somebody applying for the act. Tey don’t meet the dead- Te committee met at 1:33 p.m. line for the grant. Tey do or they don’t. Let me just explain it to you this way. Let’s go into the On clause 24 (continued). process, then, if the minister can help me with this, for people that are out there. I’ll use simplistic numbers, not Hon. S. Robinson: Over the break, I had a little chance actual grant numbers. Somebody has received a tax notice to refect on my previous response. I just want to provide from their community for $4,000 for property taxes for the a bit more clarity. I don’t know if it was as clear as it could calendar year of 2021. Tey’re eligible as a homeowner for, have been. we’ll say, a $1,000 grant. When they go into city hall, what Te member had asked me, as the minister, about gov- cheque are they writing to city hall on July 1? We both ernment collecting information and the purpose for the know the answer, but we want to make sure this is clear. collection. I want to clarify that, while we might share When we assume somebody has applied now for the aggregate data to help us understand in terms of policy homeowner’s grant — the $1,000 that we’ll say they’re eli- development, we cannot share personal information that gible for — are they going into city hall and writing a we collect without the legal authority to do so. Te amend- cheque for $3,000, or are they writing a cheque for $4,000 ments in Bill 6 do not change authority for sharing infor- and getting rebated back $1,000? mation. I want to make sure that the member understood that. Hon. S. Robinson: Tey would write the cheque for $3,000. M. Bernier: Tank you. I almost understand it. But the personal information the minister is referring to, is that…? M. Bernier: If they’re writing the cheque for $3,000…. Before lunch, we were talking about the sharing of data Again, I’m making this simplistic, I hope. At the time, in two diferent categories. One was within the ministry they’re writing the cheque for $3,000. In essence, the itself — within diferent branches of the Ministry of Fin- $1,000 grant that they applied for to the government…. ance. Ten the other area was between the ministry and Te government will be sending a cheque, a transfer, to the the municipalities. Can she just clarify for me which one municipality for that $1,000, correct? she was referring to? [1:35 p.m.] Hon. S. Robinson: Correct.

Hon. S. Robinson: Within the ministry itself. M. Bernier: Tank you. I appreciate the minister indul- ging me here as we’re just trying to make sure this is some- M. Bernier: Just before we move of this section, I’m what simplifed, I guess, using rounded numbers. trying to get a couple of things clarifed here. Are muni- I guess the concern, then, for a municipality would be: cipalities still applying for the grants? If the municipalities what if, as I think this through, somebody comes in two are applying for the grants as a whole, is the administration days before the deadline and says that they applied for the actually fully centralized? homeowner’s grant, so they write a cheque for $3,000 to I guess where I’m going with this is…. We have been the municipality, and then it’s found out aferwards that 672 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021 they actually applied incorrectly or didn’t apply at all, and been done inaccurately — by accident? So just using that there was some confusion in this? example in the past again…. I used the wrong term earlier when I said penalty. Who, I know in my riding, too, that we’d have some seniors then, goes afer the homeowner to say: “Actually, you still that would come in one or two days before the deadline. owe $1,000”? Is it going to be the municipality now re- Tey’d go to the counter with their piece of paper that has sponsible to go afer the homeowner to claim that money the little tab at the bottom. Tey check of the two or three — my assumption is — or is it going to be the government? things in order to qualify for the homeowner’s grant while [1:40 p.m.] they’re at the counter. It gets stamped, and then they pay their taxes, at which point somebody is right there telling Hon. S. Robinson: Again, nothing has changed here, so them: “Actually, you flled out the wrong one. You should just as has always been the case, the municipality would be have flled out here.” having to connect with the homeowner to collect on the [1:45 p.m.] taxes that they still owe. Now it’s going to be online. So one of the concerns that I’m hearing not only from some of these people M. Bernier: Tis goes back to, I guess, where I was — again, municipalities — is if somebody does walk in going with the penalty portion of it, because if you pay a day or two before and says, “Well, I just flled it out your taxes late, past the deadline of July 2, there is a pen- online yesterday,” we’re now taking their word for it. I’m alty imposed by the municipality. I’m assuming the minis- assuming — and Minister, correct me if I’m wrong — ter will say, then, if somebody accidentally flled out their this is not going to be as real time as we would hope. homeowner’s grant incorrectly and there was still a sum, If I apply this morning, the municipality is not getting whatever that sum being, that’s owed to the municipality, notifed that afernoon that I applied for the homeown- then there could be a penalty imposed to the outstanding er’s grant, correctly or incorrectly. sum. Now that’s the municipality’s role to collect that pen- Terein lie some of the challenges. I canvassed that a alty and the additional sum, since it might not have been little earlier during the debate, around the fexibility within caught by the ministry — incorrectly applying for the the ministry and the municipality in the frst year. Obvi- homeowner’s grant. ously, we hope this…. I mean, I think we’re supporting the centralization idea, but I think it is fair to acknowledge and Hon. S. Robinson: We, as the ones responsible for the say that there are some people who have concerns in this homeowner grant, communicate with the municipality frst year. Tat doesn’t necessarily mean they will act on when the homeowner grant application was made, to those and work earlier to apply for the homeowner’s grant. make sure that that is accurate information. So if the Ten there are municipalities, as well, that are saying: homeowner applied for it on June 30, then certainly the “Well, if this is truly centralized, now all of a sudden we’re municipality would…. We would communicate with the in the position where we have to ask the people, when they municipality that the grant application was made in a come to the counter: ‘Did you apply for your homeowner’s timely fashion and no penalties should be applied. grant, yes or no? Did you do it correctly?’ I guess we’re tak- If the homeowner makes an error, then certainly, as a ing their word for it.” Now all of a sudden if they fnd out province, we would work with the homeowner to make it was wrong, the municipality is the one that’s put in the sure that their grant application is accurate and commu- position, with staf, to now go afer people — whether it’s nicate that with them. But just like now, if somebody for penalties, on titles and that. Tat’s just one of the things makes a homeowner grant application that they’re not eli- that I fag on that. gible for and, subsequently, they’re late paying their taxes, Again, I guess, to the minister. Te municipalities are then that is up to the municipality about whether or not still put in the front, dealing with the people. I believe I to pursue the penalty fees that are related with the late tax heard the answer, a couple of days ago, that there’s not remittance. going to be much fexibility in year one. Is it fair to say, then, that the municipalities are still, really, at the front, M. Bernier: One of the concerns along this line that dealing with this issue? I’m hearing from municipalities is…. Human nature being the way it is, and although the minister acknowledged Hon. S. Robinson: Well, this is a property tax program. yesterday by reading out, numerous times, the website — Tis is how municipalities get their revenues. It’s their that people can go on now…. And no, I have not yet, main source of revenue. Tis is a tax for them to do their even though she ofered the opportunity for me to do. Te operating budgets and their capital budgets. It is based on majority of people, for whatever reasons, go in, in the last that, and they have been collecting it. Tey will always, I couple of days prior to a deadline. So there’s where muni- would imagine, continue to be the face of it. cipalities have mentioned to me those concerns around: As I was listening to the member’s question, I was think- who is the one truly going to be put in the position now ing: “Well, you know, in my community in Coquitlam, a to go afer people for something that may or may not have lot of people are…. It’s a lot online now.” Many municipal- Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 673 ities are already doing this online. So a lot of folks are very Hon. S. Robinson: Tese amendments before us don’t much familiar with an online process. make any change to any of that process. Also, there are some that do…. We have a quick mail drop in the underground parking in Coquitlam, where M. Bernier: Just for clarity for those watching at home. you can just drop in, instead of having to stand by the desk Tings haven’t changed, so maybe I’ll just mention…. Tat and get the stamp. Because people would wait for hours, means that the bank will be notifed of the taxes owing which was inefcient and problematic — to wait for hours minus the homeowner’s grant. If the person has already in front of a counter. You can drop of your taxes and tick applied and the municipality has been notifed, the bank of all the boxes. will be notifed accordingly of owings. Is that correct? Like the member suggested, there are those — not me — that do it last minute. God bless you for living life on the Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize edge. Tey would drop it of July 1, because they’d make it that each fnancial institution will have their own process, by the deadline of July 2. By the time that gets processed, so to list that all out here is probably not going to be par- days have passed as well. You know, there is recognition ticularly helpful. Tere’s nothing here with these amend- about what comes in at what time. Ten there’s the process ments that changes any of that portion of how people pay that happens in order to reconcile all the pieces. Tat’s cer- their taxes. Tis is really just around where the application tainly going to happen, going forward, as well — this idea is made for the grant. It’s made to , and the of reconciling. province communicates to the municipality. Tat’s where Certainly, in our consultations with local governments the reconciling will happen. Te way people pay their taxes and in our consultation with UBCM, which the member doesn’t change at all. knows full well, they are very supportive of this. It’s seen as a release, by local governments, from a piece of admin- M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I might have worded my istration that they’ve had to do for many years. I didn’t points maybe a little bit confusingly, but that was the gist hear anyone screaming that they wanted to hang on to this of where we were trying to go, I think, just for people who very important program. We know that local governments had concerns out there of how this was going to happen. will continue to work with us to make sure that it rolls out As you know, so many people out there might just have seamlessly. monetary amounts deducted and put into an account and We have everything in place. Tere has been lots of then paid for by the bank. But it is still their responsibility, work that has gone on in order to put this together so that we all acknowledge, to apply for whatever grants they’re it can meet the needs of citizens as easily and as seamlessly entitled to under the present system, as the minister was as possible. saying, which is not changing. Section 28, if I’m understanding this also, is amending Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive approved. language to enable for municipalities to pay a grant amount. Can the minister give an example of when a mu- On clause 28. nicipality is paying the grant amount? I’m trying to recon- cile that. M. Bernier: Again, some of this stuf is just technicalit- [1:55 p.m.] ies, I guess, in some ways, but it’s an opportunity, also, to put a few things out there — more for information as well. Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the legalese that is used And I apologize. On section 28, I’ll have a question, but I to write these is really not always as straightforward, so I just want to go to the minister’s last comments, and then appreciate the member asking for an example, because I give her an opportunity as well. think that helps everybody and all of those that are abso- [1:50 p.m.] lutely riveted by what is occurring here today. Tey are Maybe I’ll do this. One of the other concerns — again, also really excited to fnd out what this looks like. I know it’ll be an easy answer for the minister to do this When the province approves a homeowner grant, it — is people who have their taxes paid for through their communicates to the municipality that it’s been ap- fnancial institution. We haven’t really covered that one of proved, and it gets applied to the property taxes. But if yet, so for clarity, I’ll give the minister an opportunity to there’s a credit on the balance, this provision allows…. explain that, the way the municipality notifes a fnancial Te municipality may refund the owner if they have institution. overpaid their taxes. Some people that I’ve been hearing from are worried that now this is another example. Te bank is going to pay M. Bernier: Just to follow that train of thought, to help the whole thing owing, and then they have to fgure out here, then. Obviously, we live in a diferent world some- how to get a rebate on the homeowner’s grant. I’m pretty times than what’s happening out there for everybody else. sure the minister knows the answer to it. It’ll give her an When the grant has been applied for, the government.… answer to put on the record. 674 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021

Now, I don’t want to say owes. But that monetary payment municipalities that are questioning it at this time. But we’ll then goes to the municipality. go through that process. In those discussions, was there When does that get transferred? And does the minister any…? Since we’re talking about the beneft to local gov- have an approximation, let’s just say in last year’s budget or ernment, were there any specifcs that were highlighted by something…? What is the cost to government to run this the UBCM around what this will actually save local gov- program? ernments, or any monetary assistance that this actually has to local governments? Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, speak to the fact that the homeowner grant really, operationally, counts as a Hon. S. Robinson: With 162 diferent municipalities, reduction in the school tax payment. It reduces the burden I know that the member can appreciate that some really that municipalities have to pay to the province. It’s sort of rely heavily on walk-in — you know, walking to the front just a shif. counter, as the member has been talking about. Others [2:00 p.m.] relied more heavily on mail-in, yet others had already I also want to recognize — and I want to recognize staf streamlined to online. So it’s really hard to compare and for recognizing — the opportunity to leverage the pro- say: “Globally, this is what the impacts were to local gov- cesses that we already use for rural taxes. Te system is ernments.” already set up. It’s already there. It already works well. It’s Some will beneft, certainly, more than others. But over- just really expanding it to the other municipalities, so the all, there was considerable support for doing this — recog- systems that support doing this already exist. I look for- nition that it makes life within local governments a little ward to conversation or questions in estimates when we bit easier, removes a burden from them in terms of track- get to it, if the member is looking for specifc details. ing and monitoring. [2:05 p.m.] Clauses 28 to 31 inclusive approved. Tere was certainly support from UBCM, as the organ- ization…. As well as many of the local governments, of On clause 32. course, that see this as a relief of some burden that they have been operating under for many years. Te Chair: Tank you to the folks on the screen for showing your white cards — appreciate that too. M. Bernier: I know it’s not necessarily within, obvi- ously, the purview of the minister or the government for M. Bernier: It just goes to show how riveting this is, that. I was just more canvassing on the conversational and that our colleagues are all paying attention. Tat’s aspect that the minister might have had with the UBCM great to see. or other local governments, to give an idea more for those On clause 32, this is really around the auditing, repay- listening or taxpayers, that they can say: “Yes, I see the ments, reviews. So I’m just kind of curious, if the minister beneft to this.” can let me know: with this expansion, are there going to Te minister has said that there are no more full-time be more FTEs, full-time staf, that are going to be hired to employees at this time, for the administration part. So it help with auditing and through this process? was more saying: “Look, this is not just a convenience to you. But is it going to be a savings to taxpayers?” Obvi- Hon. S. Robinson: As I had said before, there had cer- ously, we’ll leave that up to local government and the tainly been audits previously. So we are leveraging an UBCM to discuss that any further if they so wish. existing system. I look forward to budget debate and to Under this section, as well, we’re talking about the the estimates debate. I am keeping track of all of the ques- audits and the audit power and stuf that is coming in. tions that I’m expecting from the member opposite, so that What prompted the need, I’ll say then, for government to I have some really good, robust answers for him. expand a review of its auditing authority, or more reviews to take place? M. Bernier: Well, I’m looking forward to those answers. It’s unfortunate it’s about two months later than normal. Hon. S. Robinson: Te only expansion here that is in But I am looking forward to those answers, as we get to the this legislation is the ability to provide a refund if the budget process. homeowner is entitled to receive the additional grant and During the process with this, the minister has said that making sure that they’re eligible for that. this is going to relieve a lot of…. Maybe burden is the wrong word. But from a local government perspective, it M. Bernier: Well, in 2018, the government did…. I’m should free up some time. It’s taking it out of local govern- trying to remember the actual name of it. Te B.C. govern- ment, putting it into the provincial government. ment contracted a review around the homeowner’s grant, Te UBCM, as the minister has rightfully said, has been, if I remember correctly, in 2018. It sought, like for audit as an organization, supportive, even though there’s some grants and paid, looking at the program, from what I Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 675 remember…. Was there work done within the ministry M. Bernier: Is there interest charged if the error was at that time, then, that helped frame, as well, the ideas incorrect through administration here within government, around putting this bill forward? now that it’s going to be brought in here? [2:15 p.m.] Hon. S. Robinson: I’m wondering if the member could clarify which review he’s referring to. I’m not 100 percent Hon. S. Robinson: If government denied a grant in sure which one he’s talking about. error, then we certainly have the ability to fx that as well.

M. Bernier: Trough the reading I’ve done, it’s my M. Bernier: What’s the process for an individual understanding that the B.C. government contracted a homeowner around appeal, then, if there is a discrep- review of the homeowner’s grant program that sought, ancy between the government, through the grant pro- around the audits, specifcally audit grants paid. I’m not cess, and the homeowner? Mistakes might happen. sure if that gives enough information to the minister for Either a homeowner applies for the grant. Te govern- her staf, because if a review is done around the auditing ment challenges that. Tere’s an appeal process on what process, like under this section for grants, I’m just asking, the eligibility is. Where does somebody appeal? How if that is the case, if that work was done. If so, was that part will that process work? of the information to put this bill together? If I’m incor- rect, the minister can tell me so. Hon. S. Robinson: Te appeal process hasn’t changed. [2:10 p.m.] It’s the same. So they can always make the appeal, which is to the minister. Hon. S. Robinson: Te member is correct. Tere was a small, short-term contract to analyze the data for the Clause 33 approved. homeowner grant. If the member recalls, the other day we were talking about, you know, was there a percentage of On clause 34. grants where we were seeing, as part of an audit, wheth- er or not it was hitting the mark. Tere was 3 percent — M. Bernier: I can just try to fip to 34, because I’m sure sort of the best estimate at the time that came out of that I’ll come up with some questions there. So this is around work. It prompted government to say we need to fnd a the recovery of amounts owing. What is the rate? What’s better way to deliver this grant program for homeowners the anticipation? that would better hit the mark. So it was based on that ana- We talked about fraud earlier. Te minister talked about lysis. 3 percent. Possibly 33,000, we were just saying. We know that’s just an estimate, through a small audit. I’m just curi- Clause 32 approved. ous, though, on the recovery of outstanding moneys or penalties. What kind of rate of disentitlement is there out On clause 33. there or non-compliance with this? What’s the work that will need to be done or the money that, through the min- M. Bernier: So we’re still talking about a lot of the audits istry, will have to be sought afer? and repayments and that they’re built in within this bill. Under this section 33, though, one of my concerns, or Hon. S. Robinson: So if a homeowner is disentitled…. questions, I guess I should say, is…. Well, frst, will there And this is how it works right now with rural homeown- be a new ofce established to handle, specifcally, the audit ers, so it’s not a new system per se. It’s just that it’s new in process? Or is that going to all be done within the ministry applying to those that live in municipalities. It’s been a sys- as well? tem that exists currently. If someone is disentitled, they receive a notice of disen- Hon. S. Robinson: Tere is no new ofce. It is all being titlement. Tey have 30 days to pay. If they don’t pay, then done within the ministry. the tax amount gets added back onto the tax roll of the municipality. So the municipality is provided with notice, M. Bernier: Presumably under the property taxation and it gets added on there. branch. We’ll be taking part of that. [2:20 p.m.] Can the minister confrm if all applicants for the grant — they’re required to repay the grants — must also pay M. Bernier: Was this a huge issue, and has it happened interest on that grant? I’ll leave it at that for now. quite regularly, then? Obviously, we talked about these audits that are being done. Is that what also led to govern- Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, they would have to pay interest. ment wanting to have more say, centralizing of this? And that’s not new. Tat’s always been the case. Hon. S. Robinson: Te very question that the member 676 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021 asks is the very essence of why we’re centralizing. We’ve whatever reason. It can create a huge issue around sale of not been able to identify if people were ineligible, because a property or change of a property if there are liens, as the it was 162-plus diferent systems. It was hard to identify minister would probably acknowledge. What would the where people were ineligible. Tis will help us to under- process be, then, for somebody to remove that lien once it stand and help us to correct information, if we need, to has been administered by the province? make sure people understand their eligibility require- ments. We’ll certainly be keeping track of how ofen and Hon. S. Robinson: Like I’ve mentioned before, the what the challenges are going forward, but we expect that notice of disentitlement signals to the homeowner that centralizing will help make sure that entitlements are used they are not, in fact, eligible for the grant and that now appropriately. there are moneys owing, and they have 30 days. If they dis- agree, then they can certainly appeal to the minister and M. Bernier: Te minister said if there was a disentitle- demonstrate that in fact, they are entitled. A decision, of ment, the homeowner is given notice and 30 days to pay it course, would be rendered based on information and evid- back. What happens if they don’t? ence that suggests that they are in fact entitled. Tere is an appeal mechanism, and if that’s still not rec- Hon. S. Robinson: Te municipality is informed of this, ognized, in terms of not recognizing the notice of disenti- that they haven’t paid it back, and it gets applied to the tax tlement, and a lien is subsequently put on the property, the roll going forward. way to get out of the lien is to pay the amounts owing.

M. Bernier: It goes into the tax roll. Now that means it M. Bernier: Is that the same process for the speculation goes back, again, like we were saying, to the municipality. and vacancy tax? If somebody doesn’t agree with the rul- But under this section, there’s a whole section now around ing, they just write to the minister? liens and liens on properties. Is that new? Is that some- thing that’s been added? Or was that in the previous act? Hon. S. Robinson: Under both instances, there’s abso- lutely a right to appeal. Hon. S. Robinson: Te lien is a new provision. When notice of disentitlement is not recognized and we don’t M. Bernier: I’m not sure what advice she was just given receive payment in 30 days and it goes on the tax roll, if the by staf, but when the right to appeal…. I’m not trying to house has been sold, for example, in the interim, we would be creating an issue on this. Tis is just more for clarity, need to use tools for collection. Tat’s consistent with oth- because we have a lot of people right now under the spec- er modernized statutes, and that’s what this does here. ulation and vacancy tax who don’t agree with the defni- tion or ruling that the ministry has applied on them. Tey M. Bernier: Tis one here came to me from a few dif- seem to be sent in circles all the time, and that’s why things ferent bodies, of course, because it is a new section in the come to us in opposition of: “Where do we send this?” act, and it’s quite a large piece that’s been added in around If the minister is saying it’s the same process, I appreciate giving extra powers, it looks like, around liens and putting that. Tis is more just so people know where…. Under the liens on property. How frequently does the minister anti- homeowner’s grant, if there’s disentitlement and a review cipate that that might actually be needed? or a speculation, does it just go to the minister and then she deals with it appropriately? Hon. S. Robinson: My preference is that it wouldn’t be needed at all. Hon. S. Robinson: As the member is recognizing, in [2:25 p.m.] both these instances, there’s legislation that governs, that determines what the rules are and what the thresholds M. Bernier: Well, I assume that would be in a perfect are. Tat is written in the legislation and adopted by this world, but obviously, the government doesn’t feel that House. way. In order to add a lot of legalese and a lot of wording [2:30 p.m.] into the act to give them this extra power to be able to People do have a right to appeal if they believe that they do that…. I assume the minister thinks that these extra don’t meet that threshold or that they’re somehow cap- powers are obviously needed and justifed for diferent tured in something that isn’t in the legislation. Tere is that reasons. opportunity for that. It’s right there for both of these taxes, Can the minister just explain then…? Maybe it’s an in the same manner, which is to appeal to the minister. unfair question. If the ministry actually has to put a lien on a property, we go back to the whole appeal process. But [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] under this, what I read is that there really is no appeal pro- cess. If you’ve gone through, you’ve been notifed, and you Te Chair: Member. don’t pay…. Tax rolls. Now there’s a lien on a property for Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 677

M. Bernier: Tank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair. S. Furstenau: Tat’s very helpful. Also in this section, it talks about collection. We’ve My second question is about the implications for data talked about the diferent processes in order to gain the collection at the provincial level, something that we’re grant funds that have maybe been applied for incorrectly always quite interested in, and how much this approach and that are owed. In here, it also talks about going to col- is going to improve tracking of home ownership and tax lections. compliance and how it will connect to the speculation tax Somewhere in there through that process — before it and auditing people’s declarations. would be a lien, I assume — it goes to a collections process. What I’m curious about…. I didn’t see it in here, and the Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s minister can point it out for me. If somebody is sent to question about data collection. Tis will certainly help us collections, is there interest applied, or is the collections very much in collecting data for the homeowner grant. We just to the outstanding amount that was incorrectly in the don’t have that data, and that’s part of what this piece of grant? legislation is about, making sure that we understand who is getting the grant and for what. As we canvassed earlier, Te Chair: Minister. the estimation of about 3 percent of the grants are being given to ineligible folks. So we want to make sure, just Hon. S. Robinson: Tank you. Welcome to the chair. from a fairness perspective. Just like I had said earlier, interest is applied. Right now, as it stands in legislation, it can be used for audits for purpose of the speculation and vacancy tax, and M. Bernier: Aside from the interest, does the minister that provision already exists. know of any other penalties that could or would be applied in a situation like this? S. Furstenau: I’m actually heartened that the minister struggles with the same challenge that I have. Is it “daa-ta”; Hon. S. Robinson: No, there are no other penalties. is it “day-ta”? It depends on the day; it depends on which sentence. I’m in the same boat. I haven’t landed. Clauses 34 and 35 approved. Perhaps maybe the Chair could settle it for us.

On clause 36. Te Chair: It could be “datum,” more than one potential source. S. Furstenau: I hope the minister will be understanding. Tis is the section that says “General,” and I have some S. Furstenau: Now the Chair is simply confusing the general questions. I only have a few. matter. Filing for the grant occurs in May afer property tax Final question to the minister, and this is more of a assessments have been completed. Te eligible threshold philosophical political question. Is it fair to assume that for the year was set, for example, on January 5, 2021 — this in making this change, government is not contemplating year — at $1.625 million. Home prices in British Colum- any substantive revisions to the homeowner grant, despite bia are rising rapidly. Vancouver has just seen a 2.6 percent some expert appointed panels — the MSP Task Force, the increase in their price index over the span of a month. basic income panel — recommending restructuring the Home prices are expected to increase in the absence homeowners’ grant to make it income-based and more tar- of government intervention, so could the minister maybe geted? Are we to assume that this isn’t going to happen speak to how this grant will work to account for rapid under this government? shifs in market when the eligible threshold is determined months ahead of the fling date? Hon. S. Robinson: We are not contemplating any changes to the homeowner grant. Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. Welcome to this riveting discussion that we’re having here. Clauses 36 to 58 inclusive approved. It’s the place to be this afernoon. I want to remind the member and all the members of Title approved. the House that assessed values are determined on July 1 of the previous year, and the threshold is based on that. Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the two members So it’s always looking backward, and that’s the value. Te opposite for their really thoughtful questions. I think we threshold is set on that value, not on the market value in got to have a very good discussion — I keep wanting to the moment, on the date. It’s a bit of a look behind, and say riveting discussion — about “day-ta” and “daa-ta” and that’s where it’s based out of. “datum.” [2:35 p.m.] I want to thank them for the time that they’ve taken to read through the bill and be prepared to ask, I think, 678 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021 really good questions to help us, and all British Columbi- rules for local elections with those established for provin- ans, understand what we’re trying to accomplish here. cial elections in the Election Act.” I move that the committee rise and report the bill com- Let me just ask the minister and her staf…. Again, I plete without amendment. would like to welcome her staf. May I ask the minister and her staf: how are these issues identifed, frst of all, before Motion approved. we actually get to section 1 exactly?

Te committee rose at 2:40 p.m. Hon. J. Osborne: Mr. Chair, it’s a pleasure to be here and a pleasure to undertake my frst time in committee. Te House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Tank you to the House for your patience today. I’d like to introduce the staf that are on the line with me Report and today. Tey are assistant deputy minister in the local gov- Tird Reading of Bills ernment division, Tara Faganello; Kara Woodward, who is the executive director of the policy, research and legisla- BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT tion branch; and Patrick Glanc, who is the senior policy AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 analyst in the policy, research and legislation branch. I thank the member opposite for the kind words in the Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021, introduction there, and let’s take this away. reported complete without amendment, read a third time Te issues that these amendments address are issues and passed. that arise in a review of the 2018 local elections that took place and the Elections B.C. report, as well as from min- Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9. istry staf who monitor the media and identify issues that come forward. Tese are the underpinning of the amend- Committee of the Whole House ments that we are bringing forward today.

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES D. Ashton: Of the issues that were identifed — I have AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 the elections ofcials’ report in front of me — and of the recommendations for changes, which ones have not been Te House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 9; acted upon, or not brought into alignment with the min- S. Chandra Herbert in the chair. istry with this bill? May I ask why they have not been brought forward? Te committee met at 2:44 p.m. [2:50 p.m.]

On clause 1. Hon. J. Osborne: Tank you again for the question. Tere were 11 recommendations that came forward from Te Chair: I see the member for Penticton, who I the Elections B.C. report, and six of these are fully imple- believe to be the critic on this bill for the opposition. I will mented in the amendments being brought forth today. recognize the member for Penticton on clause 1. One recommendation was partially implemented. [2:45 p.m.] Te recommendations that were not proceeded with, or not fully proceeded with, include around campaign D. Ashton: First of all, I would like to thank the minister account requirements, investigative tools beyond what are for the opportunity to speak to this, and my peers in the being proposed today, confdentiality of information ob- House also. I would also, once again, congratulate the min- tained through the course of duties, general order-making ister on her election and her appointment. I’d encourage powers of the Chief Electoral Ofcer and third-party- her — as I know she has done before, through being a sponsor independence from candidates and electoral municipal electee — to ensure that she, the government organizations. As I said, not all of the recommendations and, actually, all of us in the House do the best for all were followed through, for two general reasons. the citizens of British Columbia and do our best to help Te frst is that the recommendation to align require- those that are elected alongside of us, whether they’re at ments in LECFA with the requirements in the Election Act the regional district, the school boards or municipalities was not always possible due to the unique nature of loc- and townships. So thank you. al elections and that it would require a signifcant shif in A frst question on section 1. As mentioned frst of all policy from how LECFA administers campaign fnancing by the minister in her comments when she introduced for local elections. the bill, the amendments in this bill “respond to issues Second, the amendments proposed to LECFA would identifed following the 2018 general local elections,” and create a fallout — all of them — and would create new the amendments will “closely align the campaign fnancing authorities for the Chief Electoral Ofcer that don’t yet Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 679 exist under the Election Act. Since LECFA typically mir- with my colleague on this in the months to come. I very rors the authorities that are established under the Election much look forward to that. Act, it doesn’t implement them frst. Tat is why. Also, I just want to recognize that the member is making the inference, too, about how technology is changing rap- D. Ashton: Tank you, Minister. I do note, regarding idly in this world. Indeed, that is the case, and it is incum- LECFA, that the Chief Electoral Ofcer has stated that the bent on us to consider that. One of the changes that we are ofcer has such authority for provincial elections under bringing forward today, in the amendments, is around the the Election Act. It would give him a greater ability and role that digital communications play. One of the amend- more administrative fairness. Is he stating, may I ask, that ments we are bringing forward is allowing Elections B.C. he disagrees with what you have proposed, as of what you to compel online platforms to produce records on advert- just stated? Or am I not able to catch up to exactly — and ising — a small but important step towards the acknow- I apologize — what you have said, the reasons why you ledgment of that changing technological world. haven’t included his recommendation for LECFA? [2:55 p.m.] D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the minister for those comments. To herself and to the Attorney General, I Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. I’ll note that the recommendation do hope we keep an eye on it. As the use of technology and for general order-making authority is not consistent with the use of a lot of these online functions increases, I can similar powers vested in the minister and the Lieutenant- assure everybody that there will be more and more issues Governor-in-Council under LECFA. being brought forward, especially at election time. I will say that, at this point, the recommendation is Just on section 1, my last question. It’s actually the only there, and we are always going to keep open to considering question, really, on section 1. and working with our partners in improving the Local [3:00 p.m.] Elections Campaign Financing Act, improving the admin- Election advertising during the campaign period is istration of local elections and, again, just ensuring the partly defned in 1(a)(i) as “a communication that pro- kind of transparency and accountability that we know motes or opposes, directly or indirectly, the election of a British Columbians are looking for. I look forward to candidate or an elector organization that is endorsing a working with the member opposite, and with other part- candidate, including a communication that takes a posi- ners, in this. tion on an issue with which the candidate or elector organ- ization is associated.” D. Ashton: To the minister, thank you for that com- Te defnition of election advertising during the pre- ment. I do look forward to working together. As I said in campaign period is partly defned in (1)(b)(i) as “a com- my brief summation at the front, I think we have to repres- munication that promotes or opposes, directly or indir- ent all of the citizens of British Columbia, especially with ectly, the election of a candidate or an elector organization the rules that are changing on a continual basis. that is endorsing a candidate.” One of the other ones that he made note of specifcally My question is: why does the pre-campaign defnition was cyberthreats and electoral integrity. Having just come not include “including a communication that takes a pos- through a provincial election, we’re all exposed to tweets ition on an issue with which the candidate or electoral and chat boxes and things on Facebook — some stretching organization is associated”? the truth in more ways than one. Plus, where everything else happens today — I’m not that computer-literate — I Hon. J. Osborne: Tis question relates to issues advert- know there are a lot of things that are fying around on the ising, I believe. In this case, we remain consistent. Te Internet these days. amendments do not address this because they remain con- Can I ask, Mr. Chair, why the minister and ministry did sistent with the Election Act. We don’t regulate this with not look at, maybe, some more efective administration consideration to freedom-of-expression issues. to address some of these issues that have taken place, not only provincially but also municipally and through school D. Ashton: Tat’s all on section 1. boards? Clause 1 approved. Hon. J. Osborne: Tank you again for the question. Te report that the member opposite refers to is the May 2020 On clause 2. report that came forward. Te recommendations were dir- ected towards the Attorney General, my colleague sitting D. Ashton: On section 2, can the minister elaborate on to the lef of me here, and to changes that are required in what is meant by “on a commercial basis”? the Election Act as well. Since LECFA follows the Election Act, we are still actively considering this. I will be working Hon. J. Osborne: In this case, we refer to advertising undertaken on a commercial basis, meaning that a person 680 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021 is paid to undertake activities such as canvassing or mail- Hon. J. Osborne: Te act doesn’t have provisions to ing — non-volunteer, a person that is paid. deregister an electoral organization based on an issue or on its platform. Tis would be a freedom of expression D. Ashton: Does election advertising on a commercial consideration. basis also include text messaging? D. Ashton: Ten who has the authority, or is there Hon. J. Osborne: Texting is a venue or a method of authority, to deregister an electoral organization? transmission, so if a person is paid to do this, then yes, it is captured. Hon. J. Osborne: Elections B.C. has the authority to deregister an electoral organization based on the require- D. Ashton: Te reason I asked that was that it says in ments of the act. the act, section 7(2)(d) is explaining that election advert- ising does not include “the transmission of an expression D. Ashton: Chair, I’m fne until section 22. by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on the inter- net, by telephone or by text messaging, of his or her per- Clauses 16 to 21 inclusive approved. sonal views.” [3:05 p.m.] On clause 22. Again I come back. Tere seem to be so many oppor- tunities these days online that I would just ask again that D. Ashton: I think, Minister, it comes underneath this government does keep an eye on this. Tis is changing on section, but the amount applicable that is allowed for a a continual basis. donation…. Could you just tell me what that is at this I have nothing further on sections 2 or 3. point in time, please?

Clauses 2 and 3 approved. Hon. J. Osborne: Te sponsorship contribution limit is $1,200. On clause 4. D. Ashton: Minister, does that align with provincial D. Ashton: Similar to my clarifcation in section 2, does amounts at this point in time, for maximum amounts? election advertising for assent voting on a commercial basis also include text messaging, under section 4? Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. [3:15 p.m.] Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Te rules are consistent for assent voting, as they are in regular local elections. D. Ashton: If memory serves me correctly, though, I thought — with the cost of infation, from the last election D. Ashton: Tat’s all on section 4. We could jump to — it was $1,254, or something like that. Tat’s what I was section 16. just curious about — if both the totals would be the same for the maximum contribution. Clauses 4 to 15 inclusive approved. Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, it is $1,200 and an infationary On clause 16. adjustment. We can get back to the member with the exact fgure. D. Ashton: For the purposes of requiring at least 50 electors of a jurisdiction as part of the registration process, D. Ashton: Tat is fne for section 22 at this time. But a can an elector be a member of one or more electoral question on 23. organizations? Clause 22 approved. Hon. J. Osborne: Te rule regarding 50 members of an electoral organization already exists under the Local Gov- On clause 23. ernment Act, and yes, you may be a member of more than one electoral organization. D. Ashton: It’s regarding advertising through an indi- vidual or organization basis. I think it will ft underneath D. Ashton: How can an electoral organization be dere- this. Sometimes individuals take out advertising as an gistered if it promotes candidates or values that are con- individual supporting a campaign candidate or not sup- trary to those accepted by British Columbians? porting a campaign candidate. Does that ft underneath [3:10 p.m.] here, and who controls that at this point in time with the changes that are taking place underneath this election act? Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 681

Hon. J. Osborne: Could I ask the member to please D. Ashton: A question, a follow-up. Why didn’t the repeat the question? minister and her staf include a provision for real-time donation disclosures for both elector organizations and D. Ashton: My question was for individuals. It’s hap- independent candidates? pened in the past where an individual takes upon the liberty themselves to put an advertisement out either sup- Hon. J. Osborne: Again, I think this is really recogniz- porting or not supporting a candidate. Does that ft under- ing a capacity challenge, with over 1,600 diferent elections neath this section? Who is the authority over doing that? taking place, with over 3,000 candidates at one time in I’m assuming it’s Elections B.C., but I’m not positive. Just a general local election. Recognizing those capacity chal- for my knowledge. lenges means it’s not considered in these amendments at [3:20 p.m.] this time.

Hon. J. Osborne: We’re still looking into the answer on D. Ashton: To the minister, I can understand that. Espe- the question there. But I will read into the record that the cially with the numbers and the capacity that maybe Elec- sponsorship contribution or campaign contribution limit tions B.C. has. Just a point is that there are a lot of changes for 2021 is $1,239.18. taking place here. Real-time information, these days, is of the essence in a lot of situations. So just a point — and D. Ashton: Tat’s all on 23. I have questions on 24. maybe for future consideration. As part of the proposed new section being added to the Clause 23 approved. act, which is section 45.1(2)(b), it indicates an annual fn- ancial report include “information respecting identifca- On clause 24. tion of signifcant contributors.” May I ask what the dollar value is for “signifcant contributors” in this instance? D. Ashton: As this section adds up an annual fnancial [3:30 p.m.] reporting requirement of electoral organizations, why hasn’t a similar requirement been made of independent [N. Letnick in the chair.] candidates, as it would aid voters to know what donations have been made or have not been made to a particular can- Hon. J. Osborne: Te defnition of a “signifcant con- didate before election day? tributor” is contained in the defnitions of the act. In rela- tion to campaign contributions, I paraphrase here. I’m not Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to why electoral organ- directly quoting the defnition. But it is essentially an eli- izations…. Te requirement for annual reporting doesn’t gible individual who makes a campaign contribution of apply to large independent campaigns. I’ll start of, maybe, $100 or more or multiple contributions to a candidate and/ by saying how these amendments all together are creating or an electoral organization that total $100 or more. greater transparency and accountability of the fnancial activities of elector organizations in between elections. Te Chair: Member for Penticton, I’ll just assume you [3:25 p.m.] want to speak afer the minister is done. Would that be Te amendments do focus on the transparency of elect- correct? or organizations, and they aren’t going to apply to inde- pendent campaigns. But in these cases, the existing rules D. Ashton: Yes, thank you. Just a follow-up, Mr. Chair, still apply. So for all candidates, the rules around source through yourself, and welcome to the chair. contributions, around contribution limits, still apply, as Minister, now with the reporting being required over does the requirement to disclose expenses and contribu- the period of time between elections, that would include tions afer the election is over. those amounts also? Or that would include…. If a person Te rules that we’re proposing are diferent from what regularly made a contribution, it would be reportable as a they were previously. It is an amendment. Tere are a signifcant contributor if it’s $100 or more over the peri- number of changes, which if the member opposite would od of time between the elections on a yearly basis. Tat’s a like me to go into, I certainly can. question. Sorry. Perhaps I will close by saying one of the reasons why independent campaigns are not being considered at this Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, that’s on an annual basis, the $100 time is because there are over 1,600 diferent independent fgure. elections that take place during a local election. Te amount of administration and requirements for that D. Ashton: Section 45 is my next questions. would be challenging. Tat’s one of the reasons why they aren’t considered at this time. Clauses 24 to 44 inclusive approved. 682 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021

On clause 45. have ever really been put forward and organizations that are behind the scenes. D. Ashton: Why have the monetary penalties been When I say “organizations,”it can be those with interests updated to allow for the discretion of the B.C. electoral in who retains a seat on council or school board or region- ofcer? al district, or organizations that are out there promoting politics in British Columbia or promoting opportunities Hon. J. Osborne: Tese amendments contain a suite of for elected ofcials and/or individuals who would like to administrative monetary penalties that are all aligned and become an elected ofcial. One that comes to mind is the to be used at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Ofcer. Columbia Institute. It’s well known for putting their views We did consult with Elections B.C. on this, and they are forward to individuals who would like to attain a higher supportive of it. I would note that what it does is allow the ofce or attain an elected ofce. Chief Electoral Ofcer to look on a case-by-case basis at [3:40 p.m.] the specifc considerations at hand and ensure that high Are institutions and entities like that organization I just penalties are applied when it is appropriate to do so. mentioned and, I’ll say, unions and people that have an expressed interest in putting somebody forward…? How D. Ashton: Te discretion is at the Chief Electoral are they going to be monitored in the process of an elec- Ofcer. tion to ensure that all rules are followed? Te appeal process. Is there one, and if so, where is that through? Hon. J. Osborne: Tanks for the question. Elections B.C. retains the responsibility to monitor organizations Hon. J. Osborne: One can apply to the court for relief throughout the campaign period and throughout the cam- from a penalty. paign, throughout elections. If an organization is behaving [3:35 p.m.] as a third-party sponsor and they should be registering as a third-party sponsor, Elections B.C. will monitor that. D. Ashton: So now that is to the court. It is the B.C. I’ll take the opportunity, too, to point out that the Provincial Court, I’m assuming. Is there not any appeal amendments we’re bringing forward today do introduce process to the Chief Electoral Ofcer, who has assessed new administrative monetary penalties and new investig- the penalty? ative tools for Elections B.C. Tis adds to that oversight and monitoring framework that ensures that people and Hon. J. Osborne: Tis is an existing process in the act. organizations are playing by the rules. A person who applies for a remedy does so to the B.C. Supreme Court. D. Ashton: Is there a complaint process through Elec- tions B.C. that you or your staf know of if an issue was Clauses 45 to 50 inclusive approved. to come up and a complaint was put forward so that new form of investigation that you just mentioned could take On clause 51. place?

D. Ashton: Te section adds penalties for third-party Hon. J. Osborne: Anybody can contact Elections sponsorship, including up to a $5,000 penalty for an indi- B.C., and on their website, there is a process outlined for vidual, or up to a $10,000 penalty for an organization, for how to do so. failing to comply with independence requirements, failing to register as a third-party sponsor or failing to include D. Ashton: Tank you to the minister. I’m fne with sec- sponsorship information. Are these $5,000 and $10,000 tion 51, Mr. Chair, and on 52, I have questions. penalty limits high enough, especially for our larger cities like Vancouver, which are traditionally known to involve Clause 51 approved. individuals or organizations that have, as I guess I’ll frame it, deep pockets? On clause 52.

Hon. J. Osborne: Tose penalty amounts are consistent D. Ashton: Similar to my previous question to the min- with the ofence penalty amounts already in LECFA. We ister regarding penalty limits for third-party sponsors, is would monitor this through the next election to ensure the $5,000 penalty for an elector organization entering into that it is an efective deterrent. a fnancing arrangement before it is registered? Or has the registration suspended been high enough? D. Ashton: Te minister and I basically come from [3:45 p.m.] smaller areas where I haven’t seen, successfully, slates that Hon. J. Osborne: Like my previous answer, I think this Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 683 is another case where these amounts are already in LECFA. advertisement in place? Again, it’s a registration process We will monitor the next elections to ensure that they are that I’m thinking of. an efective deterrent and set at the appropriate level. Hon. J. Osborne: In this case, this was brought over D. Ashton: Monitoring it. Not only is the government from the Election Act to make LECFA consistent with it. It monitoring it, but Elections B.C. will monitor it. With the really is directed at the platforms that host advertising, be new rules in place, the opportunity to address those issues it radio or television or Facebook, say. To go further and will also be in place, correct? add those requirements might be seen as an overreach into telling them how to conduct their business and was not Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Absolutely. A good opportunity considered. to point out, again, just how important it is to monitor the local elections, to work with our partners like Elections D. Ashton: Tank you to the minister. But I know that B.C., to hear directly from local governments, to have our electronically, like on Facebook and on Twitter, the regis- staf monitoring the media to make amendments and tration process can be arduous and take a while for bring forward improvements on a regular basis. approval. So I’m just curious. I guess maybe I’m throwing Te whole point of this is to improve the transparency a line to the Elections B.C. organization to say: “Maybe if and accountability of elections and ensure that people you made this a mandatory rule….” I know, as an elected remain at the heart of good decision-making, so thank you ofcial, that we have to ensure that we have all our ducks to the member opposite for the question. in a row before we put our advertising in place. Quite ofen that involves pre-payment of advertisement dollars to be Clauses 52 to 56 inclusive approved. put up front and/or fxed rates. I’m just thinking out loud that this may be more of On clause 57. a beneft to the new rule changes that are taking place to help Elections B.C. ensure there’s not a little bit of D. Ashton: As part of the proposed new sections being skullduggery. So I’ll leave that. added to the act…. Te new subsection 76.3(2)(a) indic- ates: “(a) if known by the advertiser, the name of the indi- Clauses 57 to 65 inclusive approved. vidual or organization that sponsored the election advert- ising communication.” In what instance would an advert- On clause 66. iser not know the name of an individual or organization [3:55 p.m.] that sponsored election advertising communications? Just a question, please. D. Ashton: Maybe to jump back — and I know it’s passed. It’s just that in the addition to 76.4(3), it indicated: Hon. J. Osborne: Te way that this is written is to “A court may make an order under this section without ensure that we capture whether it is a known or unknown notice to any person.” Just for staf’s and for the minister’s advertiser. Tat is for completeness. notice, what purpose would this serve of no notice being served? I apologize. We scooted by it. I missed my own D. Ashton: Minister, why not make it mandatory that question on it. Just something for the future to maybe advertisers must collect the name of an individual or think about what is transpiring in that section again. organization that is sponsoring election advertising com- Under 66…. So 66 allows for sponsorship contribution munication before the advertisers agree to place the limits to be made by regulation on it. Is there an annual advertisement? look at contributions through Elections B.C., other than [3:50 p.m.] the cost of living? Is there an opportunity to review all I just think about individual sections that I have talked requirements? Since we’re changing and going to a four- about before where this has come up, where you have year basis where everything has to be accounted, will there entities out there that may or may not be supportive of a be an opportunity to come forward if things are not work- candidate or are supportive of a candidate on an individu- ing the way that government thought? al basis. Hon. J. Osborne: Tese limits were chosen to be con- Hon. J. Osborne: Could I please ask the member to sistent with Elections B.C., and we will continue to mon- repeat the question? Tank you. itor them, as we will monitor a number of things, in the coming next set of general elections. I’ll point out, too, that D. Ashton: Absolutely, sure. It was: why not make it Elections B.C. does establish the infationary component, mandatory that advertisers must collect the name of an and if they have feedback on the base amount itself, they individual or an organization that is sponsoring the ad- will provide that to us. vertising communications before the advertiser puts the 684 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021

Clauses 66 to 70 inclusive approved. in some of the more urban areas, of gaining access to tall buildings and strata opportunities there, and rental On clause 71. properties. May I ask…? It allows it. But has the province or Elec- D. Ashton: Te elimination of the 30-day local resid- tions B.C. thought about how access can be gained to indi- ency. May I ask for an explanation of why this is tran- vidual sites like that? If a posting is put in place where “no spiring? soliciting” is specifcally stated, what takes precedence, the [4:00 p.m.] no soliciting or the Election Act allowing an individual to campaign in those areas? Hon. J. Osborne: Te issue of the 30-day residency [4:05 p.m.] requirement was something that we heard from local gov- ernments afer the last general local elections, especially Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. It has increasingly become from those communities that have more transient popu- important for people to be able to access strata properties, lations, people moving in and out. What we heard about apartment buildings, those kinds of buildings, in order was the disenfranchisement, essentially, of those individu- to conduct their campaigning activities. So these amend- als who had moved from one community to another in the ments will allow canvassing in strata properties. 30 days preceding an election. Te way this will work is that canvassers will need to In the spirit of ensuring that everybody has an oppor- meet certain conditions. For example, while canvassing tunity to participate in democracy, this was an amendment voters or distributing candidate information, the candid- that we decided to bring forward to remove that disenfran- ate or their authorized representative would be required to chisement. carry government-issued identifcation and either proof of candidacy or information indicating that they are author- D. Ashton: Tank you for that. I would concur that we ized by the candidate to canvass. Additionally, there are want to ensure that democracy takes place. But listen. We limited hours under which this activity could occur: from are probably talking about a handful of people throughout 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. the province, excluding students going back to university Tese changes were recently made for provincial elec- and/or college. tions afer review of the 2017 provincial election. So this I just think, personally, that when you’re in a new com- aligns LECFA with the provincial requirements. munity and you don’t know the individuals that are run- ning or you don’t know your school board ofcials or you D. Ashton: So this supersedes a co-op and/or a strata if don’t know your regional district ofcials or you don’t there is a posting of no solicitation. Tat would still allow know your council ofcials, it gives you an opportunity to an individual or an entity, along with campaign individu- be a little bit proactive and start asking the questions. als, to go forward and knock on the doors and gain access I don’t condemn it or condone it. I’m just curious about to a large tower apartment block or a strata block or a why this would come in. Believe me. To establish a resid- condo block in a major city — or any city, I would say. ency, to ensure that an individual or an individual’s family is present and to really understand about the dynamics of Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, the intention here is to the new community that they’ve moved into…. prohibit strata or similar buildings from being able to I will leave it at this point in time. prevent unreasonable access…. So in the case of a “no soli- Tank you, Mr. Chair. Up to 77, no questions at this citation” sign, this applies to candidates or their authorized point in time. representatives for the purposes of campaigning or distrib- uting information. Clauses 71 to 76 inclusive approved. D. Ashton: To the minister, well, I think that maybe On clause 77. in the next election, I’m going to ask for somebody from Elections B.C. to come with me when I knock on that D. Ashton: I’m actually fne with 77. It’ll be 78. strata door and see what the response will be. But I understand. Clause 77 approved. Mr. Chair, I have no further questions, other than a quick comment at the end, afer adoption. On clause 78. Te Chair: If you have a quick comment, you might D. Ashton: So 78 to 92 allow for canvassing in co-op, want to make it now before I go through the rest of the strata and rental properties. As many of us know, where clauses, member for Penticton. we’ve been out door-knocking, you do come to a strata complex and have the unequal opportunity, especially D. Ashton: Okay. Tank you, Mr. Chair. Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 685

I would like to thank the minister and, especially, thank Report and her staf, who I’ve had the pleasure of working with over Tird Reading of Bills my tenure as an elected ofcial in Victoria. To me…. I just hope that these new rules and regulations take into BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES account those outside of the Lower Mainland that may or AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 may not run on slates. Tere are an awful lot of communities in British Col- Bill 9, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, umbia where everybody knows everybody. I just hope the reported complete without amendment, read a third time rules and regulations don’t become too overbearing. Other and passed. than provincial politics…. My campaigns were run of the kitchen table. Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to request a ten-minute recess. [4:10 p.m.] I really think it’s important that we continue to remem- Mr. Speaker: Tis House will be in recess for ten ber that there are large municipalities in British Columbia minutes. where slates are prevalent and large organizations are pre- valent. Tere is a vast area in British Columbia where indi- Te House recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:24 p.m. viduals run for elected ofce, and they don’t have anybody other than themselves or maybe their family. I really think [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] that needs to be taken into consideration, not only by the government but also by Elections B.C. Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage Te minister, on several occasions, has mentioned de- of Bill 5. mocracy, and democracy is incredibly important. Demo- cracy, in my opinion, encompasses everybody, whether Committee of the Whole House you run with a slate and you have a huge organization behind you or whether you have your kids stufng envel- BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION opes to get into the mail. AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 Once again, I would really, really like to thank the min- (continued) ister. I look forward to working with her, for all the citizens of British Columbia, on this fle that she has. I would really Te House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; like to thank her staf that have done an admirable job of N. Letnick in the chair. bringing this forward. I look forward to ensuring that the next election that Te committee met at 4:25 p.m. the new rules are in place with is run fairly and is run without too many obstacles through regulation so that On clause 2. “democracy” can take place all through British Colum- bia. Hon. M. Farnworth: Because this is a three-clause bill, Tank you, Mr. Chair. and we’ve dealt with clause 1 and clause 3 is on commence- Tanks, again, to the minister. ment, the bulk of it — well, everything else — is based in clause 2. We’ve been having an easy way to sort of deal with Clauses 78 to 102 inclusive approved. the questions as they come up because they kind of bounce around within that section. Title approved. Anyway, in our discussions yesterday, we were talking about tabling reports that had been public and having Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and access. I indicated that, yes, of course, the reports would be report the bill complete without amendment. public and, yes, they’ll be tabled by ICBC. But I also said that I expect, as minister, to be tabling those reports in the Motion approved. House. I want to make it clear that that is something that will Te committee rose at 4:12 p.m. take place, and therefore, I have shared with my colleague across the way an amendment that will make absolutely Te House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. clear that that is what is to happen. So I would move the amendment that I have provided to do just that. [CLAUSE 2, in the proposed sections 59 to 61, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: Report to corporation 686 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021

59 (1) Te fairness ofcer must submit, on a prescribed basis, a port under section 59, but the report under section 59 is report to the minister and the corporation that includes the follow- only published afer the requirement to table the report ing information: (a) the number of fairness complaints received; with the Legislature has been met. (b) the number of fairness complaints heard by the fairness of- [4:30 p.m.] fcer; Section 61 requires the corporation to submit an (c) any other prescribed information. annual report to the minister no later than August 31 (2) As soon as practicable on the receipt of the report submitted under subsection (1), the minister must either, as applicable, in each year which includes a summary of ICBC’s re- (a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if it is in ses- sponses to any recommendations of the fairness ofcer sion, or in the previous fscal year and any other prescribed mat- (b) fle the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if ters. Te annual report must be published on a publicly the Legislative Assembly is not sitting. Publication of information accessible website. Te proposed amendment adds a 60 Te fairness ofcer must publish, on a publicly accessible web- requirement for the minister to lay ICBC’s report before site maintained by or on behalf of the fairness ofcer, the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or fle a report (a) the rules made under section 58, and with the Clerk if the Legislative Assembly is not in ses- (b) as soon as practicable afer the minister has complied with section 59 (2), the report submitted to the corporation under sion. It also requires the report to be published on a pub- referred to in section 59(1). licly accessible website only afer the minister has tabled Corporation report the report with the Legislature. 61 (1) Te corporation must, no later than August 31 in each Tis proposed amendment provides for even further year, submit to the minister an annual report. (2) An annual report submitted under subsection (1) must include accountability and transparency by putting the fairness of (a) a summary of the corporation’s responses in the previous the ofcer’s report and ICBC’s responses in front of the fscal year to the fairness ofcer’s recommendations, if any, and House. I think it makes it clear — yesterday, when I com- (b) any other prescribed matter. mitted to the House that that would take place — that, in (2.1) As soon as practicable on the receipt of the report submitted under subsection (1), the minister must either, as applicable, fact, this will happen. (a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if it is in ses- sion, or M. Morris: I very much appreciate the minister listen- (b) fle the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if ing to our comments yesterday and providing the amend- the Legislative Assembly is not sitting. (3) Te corporation must publish the annual report, as soon as ment here today. We’re in favour of that. practicable afer submitting the report to the minister has complied with subsection (2.1), on a publicly accessible website maintained [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] by or on behalf of the corporation.] Amendment approved. Te Chair: We’ll take a moment while the amendment is circulated. On clause 2 as amended.

On the amendment. M. Morris: As I spoke about in our discussion in second reading, the whole purpose of the fairness ofcer, and the Hon. M. Farnworth: Te proposed amendments to sec- impetus behind the government presenting this bill, was tions 59, 60 and 61 in part 3 relate to the reporting duties transparency and fairness within ICBC. of the fairness ofcer and the corporation and submission I guess I’m a little bit confused by the transparency part. of specifed reports to the minister and the Legislative I’m just wondering. In section 55(3), under clause 2, if gov- Assembly. ernment’s intention is to truly have an independent fair- Section 59 will provide that the fairness ofcer must ness ofcer, why have the board set out the terms and con- submit a report to the board of ICBC regarding the num- ditions and remuneration for the fairness ofcer? ber of complaints that were fled, the number of com- plaints heard by the fairness ofcer and any other pre- Hon. M. Farnworth: Te fairness ofcer is going to be scribed information. Te proposed amendment requires working within ICBC. Tey’re going to be working, obvi- that the fairness ofcer must also submit that report to the ously, closely with the board to ensure that ICBC’s pro- minister and that the minister must lay that report before cesses are fair. the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or fle the report Tey will be responsible for providing the resources with the Clerk if the Legislative Assembly is not in session. necessary for the ofcer to fulfl their mandate. It is Section 60 requires the fairness ofcer to publish the appropriate, given the rest of ICBC, that the board is rules made under section 58 and the report submitted involved in setting the terms and conditions and, in par- under section 59 on a publicly accessible website main- ticular, remuneration. tained by or on behalf of the fairness ofcer. Te proposed Tat being said, they are both…. Because this is a Lieu- amendment continues to require the fairness ofcer to tenant-Governor-in-Council appointment, they are also publish the rules under section 58 and to publish the re- subject to my approval. Tey will set the terms, but then Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 687

I also am the one that has to approve them. It’s not just ICBC. At the same time, it is an LGIC, a Lieutenant-Gov- dependent on ICBC. It also has to meet with the approval ernor in Council, appointment, so I will, as minister, have of myself as minister. to approve any remuneration package that is put in place. At the same time, in terms of the independence, as I M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response in terms of said a moment ago, if the fairness ofcer believes that the interaction…. Te terms and conditions of the fairness the budget is not adequate — or there’s an issue with ofcer’s appointment and remuneration are subject to the the budget that’s required for them to be able to do their approval of the minister. job — there will be a mechanism where I, as minister, Does the government consider, then, that the fairness have the ability to resolve any issues on that basis. I think ofcer is independent from ICBC? that by legislating this in terms of the mandate, we have [4:35 p.m.] made it clear that this is an ofcer who has a mandate and has signifcantly greater independence than the pre- Hon. M. Farnworth: Te answer to that question would vious position. be yes. Tere is a signifcantly greater degree of independ- ence of the new position than the old position. M. Lee: Just because…. Te minister, in his response — perhaps for the second or third time, certainly for M. Lee: Tank you to the minister for that response. the second time — referred to this relative measure: that It is a relative test of independence that the government this fairness ofcer has greater independence than in is proposing that we consider here in this House, meaning the current set-up. Tis, again, the member for Prince the fairness ofcer is more independent than the current George–Mackenzie had questioned quite a bit in his ofce that’s in place. Is that correct? second reading speech, in terms of the current arrange- ment. Hon. M. Farnworth: Te answer to your question, hon. We know, of course, that in the context of the no-fault Member, would be yes. Just in terms of how that takes regime, there’s a greater onus on this fairness ofcer, at place, the fairness ofcer will have a greater degree of inde- least in the way the government has positioned this ofce. pendence from ICBC. In part (1), it’s appointed by govern- It was supposed to give peace of mind, in the words of the ment. Terms and conditions, including remuneration, are Attorney General, regarding individual circumstances of subject to the approval of myself as minister. Te fairness injured British Columbians. Tat is not a procedural, sys- ofcer’s mandate will be in legislation. temic issue. Tat’s a specifc issue relating to a specifc indi- In terms of the budget, a process will be laid out in the vidual dealing with ICBC. regulations where, if there’s a disagreement between the Certainly in terms of peace of mind, if that was the test ofcer and the board on what is necessary for the ofcer to or the positioning that the government wants to put on fulfl their mandate, the ofcer can submit a special report this new regime, on the fairness ofcer and in the way that to the minister regarding the budget. Tis will provide the this ofcer is positioned within this regime, you’d think minister with the opportunity to bring a resolution to any that the ofcer would be independent — not just more dispute on the budget that the ofcer requires and if there’s independent than the current ofce is, but independent. a potential dispute with the board. When the ofcer is subject to the board setting the terms Te goal is not to create an additional independent and conditions, the remuneration and the budget, that ofce similar to the Ombudsperson, who still has the abil- adds an additional layer of infuence by the board. ity to look at issues as well. Tat’s why I make the point that We know that in many instances, in terms of…. You it is more independent in answer to your question. know, when I was the acting corporate secretary of B.C. Hydro, for close to a year in my legal practice, I know M. Lee: Tere are a couple of ways to come at the the interaction between a Crown corporation, the deputy response of the government here. In this particular provi- minister, the minister’s ofce, the minister, the board and sion of clause 2, then, why have the board set the terms and the CEO of a Crown corporation. We know the function conditions and the remuneration of the fairness ofcer? If and the level of reporting and accountability. the objective of the government is to achieve greater inde- Unless the minister is prepared to have a direct hand on pendence for the fairness ofcer, why have this provision the board of ICBC for the decisions and the interactions set out this way and in this manner? that they would have with the fairness ofcer and unless I’m hearing from the minister or anyone who serves in his Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll just reiterate, I guess, the points capacity in the future that they’re going to have that hands- I made a moment ago. on oversight of the board of ICBC to ensure that the inde- [4:40 p.m.] pendence of the fairness ofce and the ofcer, him-or her- Tat is that the ofcer works within ICBC. Tey will self — I’m not seeing that in this bill. I don’t see that. work within that structure. Tey work closely with the I appreciate that the minister did listen to our concerns board, which has remuneration policies in place with relating to ensuring that the report is publicly available and 688 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021 that he made that adjustment to the bill. But I dare say that put on to this province, the ways in which injured British there are other adjustments that are necessary for this bill Columbians can seek redress to get their rights addressed to at least clarify the independence of the fairness ofcer. through the courts has been taken away. It was replaced [4:45 p.m.] with the CRT. Again, that’s been ruled unconstitutional in Let me ask this to the minister. Te minister did refer to terms of its jurisdiction. It was limited in terms of the evid- the Ombudsperson and not wanting to replicate the func- ence rules, in terms of how many experts one could deploy. tion of the Ombudsperson here. If we consider that com- Tat was, again, ruled unconstitutional in the Attorney ment, if there was no fairness ofcer in place at all, is that General’s frst attempt to do that. possible? Does the minister see any challenge with just [4:50 p.m.] merely having the Ombudsperson take care of any fairness Tere are further challenges here. Now we have the complaints within ICBC? fairness ofcer, and this is presented as an independent fairness ofcer. Tis is how this minister continues to Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member communicate that. is trying to say, and I’ll make this clear. We have said I would say that as much as the Attorney General and that this fairness ofcer is independent. Teir mandate this minister would suggest that the fairness ofcer will is legislated. Tey will be dealing with the processes and provide — this is to directly quote the Attorney General — the procedures of ICBC and how they do things. Tey “peace of mind that they will be treated fairly afer they’ve will be reporting. Tey will be making recommenda- been injured in a crash….” Afer they’ve been injured in a tions. Tat report will be public. crash. We will get to that point in a moment in the latter I indicated that that report would be tabled in this sections of this particular clause, but the peace of mind House. We have been abundantly clear on that. I will also is supposed to be coming from the fairness ofcer. And now be abundantly clear on this. Tis individual’s role is this fairness ofcer, who is providing that peace of mind, ICBC, its procedures, its practices, its policies, 365 days a should be independent of ICBC. But that ofcer is not. year. Not an issue of a complaint that somebody has, and Unless the minister is going to do the kind of oversight then they say: “Oh, I’ve got to go to the Ombudsperson’s that a board would typically do, it’s the board that the fair- ofce and then join that queue.” ness ofcer is efectively reporting to. Tis is a function of Tis is specifc to give peace of mind, as we said at se- ICBC and their board. Tis is not a separate function like cond reading, to people, to know that there is an individu- the Ombudsperson is. al that is dedicated, completely and totally, to what takes We just heard from the minister why that is. Because place at ICBC. Tat is the right way to go. It is the way that this government wants to have a fairness ofcer that is government is moving. Tat is the appropriate way to go. functioning 365 days a year. Well, let that person func- Tat’s why this legislation is here before you. I would trust tion. Why is this person subject to the undue infuence and hope that you would support it. of the ICBC board? I’m using those words deliberately, because the way the government is defning “independ- M. Lee: I most certainly appreciate the last response ence” is not independence. It may be relative; it’s more from the minister in terms of the confrmation about the independence than the current function of the fairness diference between the Ombudsperson as an ofcer of this ofce. But that was the old system. Tat was the system Legislative Assembly, duly appointed with the Ombud- that they got rid of because they have a promise of a uto- sperson’s own separate act, versus a fairness ofcer that pia where everybody will be taken care of. Everyone will is within ICBC, still having their terms and conditions be subject to ICBC rule. of employment or appointment and remuneration and Te 108 pages that they put out last Friday of a defn- budget determined or set by the board, subject to the ap- ition of what you will get if you’re injured. If you lose proval of the minister. a limb, lose a fnger, lose an eye. Who is taking care of As the minister just said, it’s 365 days of the year. I injured British Columbians? Well, the fairness ofcer. But understand that. Tat is the way, again, the government that fairness ofcer is not independent. So I fail to see how positioned when the Attorney General stood here in this this government can stand here and present this fairness House, and in front of the media, and announced the fun- ofcer in truly the way that will provide peace of mind to damental change to the insurance system of our province. British Columbians. Te fairness ofce was a key component. As I discussed I’ll just ask the minister to have one more opportunity in my second reading speech, the civil resolution tribunal to talk about, again…. Does the minister see his role in was another key component. But as we learned from the respect of the fairness ofce as providing greater oversight chief justice of our province last week, it was ruled uncon- to the ICBC board? stitutional. Tat’s the reason why we’re spending this amount of time on the fairness ofcer. Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear what the member is saying, It’s because we see already that under this fundamental and I fundamentally have to disagree with his assertion change, this insurance regime that this government has that the board will have undue infuence. In fact, I disagree Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 689 with that quite strongly, because the fairness ofcer will be people would be treated now.” I just stop on the words mandated to hear complaints. Mandated. “treated now.” Tey will, on their own initiative, be able to identify Well, we will get into this. But, again, the reason why areas of process, for example, that may lead to an unfair it’s important that the fairness ofcer has true independ- decision in the future or in the way someone has been ence is because, as we see in subsection 57(1): “Te fair- treated now. Tey will be empowered to make recom- ness ofcer may not comment on or make recommenda- mendations to the board. Empowered. Tey don’t have to tions respecting (a) an amount payable by the corporation, ask permission of the board to go and do their work. Tey or (b) the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a are empowered. person is responsible for an accident.” Tat report is tabled here in this chamber. It is made When we talk about how an individual is treated by public. So it is not even a question of: does the minister ICBC now, when they have a complaint with ICBC now, have oversight? With that report being tabled, and even if when they want peace of mind in terms of what a fairness it was not tabled in this House…. I said yesterday in my ofcer can provide to them now, they’re talking about: how remarks that I committed to doing that. I made it clear much am I getting in benefts and compensation? And through the amendment that it would be tabled, that the who is responsible? Te fault determination. questions around those recommendations will obviously When the member from Richmond south spoke in his be asked, both publicly outside and in here, in terms of second reading speech, he talked about an unfortunate what the fairness commissioner is doing, how they are accident that he was involved in where he was found at doing it, and the response to their recommendations and fault. He said: “Really happy to see this fairness ofcer their fndings. come into place, because I wish they had that back when [4:55 p.m.] I was dealing with my injury.” I think he needs to, with Tat, in my view, is pretty transparent. It’s pretty respect, read the bill, because, specifcally, fault cannot be accountable in terms of accountability. It’s a legislative…. commented on or even recommended on by the fairness It’s not a board appointment. It is a Lieutenant-Governor- ofcer. in-Council appointment. Tere is a signifcance. It is inde- Tere is no peace of mind for the member from Rich- pendent. Tey will be able to do their job. Teir mandate mond south, nor any other British Columbian. Tat’s why is legislated. what we’re lef with is the future. We’ll talk about what that I have every confdence that the person who is appoin- future looks like in an ICBC no-fault way. But that’s the ted to do this job will do this job in the way that the legis- reason why we are spending the time talking about the lation intends and the way that the public would expect. independence of the fairness ofce. So having made that comment in response, I just invite M. Lee: I believe my colleague the member for Prince the member for Prince George–Mackenzie to move the George–Mackenzie will have an amendment that we’d like amendment that we wish to propose. Unless there’s other to propose to this section, particularly as we’ve had this comment here. discussion and debate. I just wanted to make two com- ments in terms of the minister’s response. Hon. M. Farnworth: I respond to the member’s com- I think we’ve already had the exchange of views here. ments. I’ve made it clear. Te fairness ofcer is mandated. But just, certainly, acknowledge — as we did in dealing Tat’s independence. with the amendment, as we came back onto this bill in [5:00 p.m.] this committee stage — that the minister heard the sug- I understand where the opposition is coming from. I gestion that we ought to introduce greater transparency to understand where the member is coming from. Tey don’t the reporting mechanisms. Tat was what we dealt with in like the transition. Tey don’t like the move that will take terms of the amendments that the minister brought for- place on May 1. I understand that, but let’s be clear. Tis ward in this committee stage. So acknowledge that. is about a fairness ofcer that will be independent, that is Te minister made reference to, certainly, an area of mandated with a job to do and functions to do. Tey don’t concern that I know the Leader of the Tird Party and have to ask the board for permission. I think it’s import- ourselves here will have some question about further. But ant to stress that point. As of May 1, and when the new I just wanted to stop on it because, again, I’m not talking fairness ofcer is appointed, they will be doing just that by about greater transparency. We dealt with that, so thanks legislation, by mandate, by reporting to this Legislature. very much. I’m talking about independence. Te member says transparency. Tey all go together. Why am I talking about independence? Because the Tey’re not separate. Each one complements the other. So minister, in his response, just said something that is a point the idea that somehow we’re not wanting him to be inde- of contention, which is: yes, the fairness ofcer can look at pendent, not wanting him to do his job — because that’s recommendations for what happens in the future. But he the impression — or that they are not going to be able to also suggested…. He used these words, which I ask him do their job is simply wrong. It’s something that I do not to refect on in future responses to us. He said: “As to how accept. 690 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021

We have had discussion on this. I look forward to seeing mendation to ICBC about what they found in terms of what the amendment is that is being put forward, but I just those processes and procedures, with a recommenda- have to reiterate that. Tey have a mandate, and they will tion on changes that would need to happen. So ICBC be doing and fulflling that mandate. would potentially, depending on what the fairness com- missioner said, reengage. S. Furstenau: I’m fnding the discussion and the debate very interesting. In my second reading speech, I talked S. Furstenau: But just to be clear, the fairness ofcer about other Crown corporations that have some measure would look at the procedures and the process but would of oversight, which is perhaps what might be what we’re not be able to comment or make any recommendation on describing this fairness ofcer’s role as, an oversight role. the outcome, as in the payment or beneft that has been We have ministries with independent ofces that operate conferred to the person? — for example, the Representative for Children and Youth operating as an independent ofcer but looking at the Hon. M. Farnworth: Tat is correct, and that has been operations of Ministry for Children and Families. clear from the beginning in the legislation and in the I think that the concern that is being expressed around second reading of the bill. the independence but also the efectiveness of this role stems, in some part, from the fact that we see other roles, M. Morris: I’ll wait just for a second before I introduce other oversight bodies, that maybe aren’t as efective as the amendments, as we’re on the topic of fairness now. we’d like them to be, then also stepping back to the fact Tat was one of the issues that I wanted to speak about. that we now need these oversight roles or these fairness I guess I ask the question: what is fairness? How is fair- ofcers for Crown corporations that are supposed to be ness defned? Because it’s a very…. It could tend to be a serving the public and that are failing to do that in some very subjective term. way, shape or form. Terefore, we’re putting in this next [5:10 p.m.] layer. We’re layering up, instead of possibly dismantling. Te issue around the fairness ofcer that I think we Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I want to make one of the have some concerns around is that, for example, the fair- key issues around the fairness commissioner, and whoever ness ofcer cannot comment or make recommendations occupies that position, clear. Tey are, obviously, going respecting an amount payable or the extent, as determined to have to have considerable skills, in essence, in natural by the corporation, that a person is responsible. I think justice, an understanding of how process and procedures this is where the point was being made. Te member from are supposed to be followed and take place and an under- Richmond south…. Most people would think: “Oh, there’s standing of how that happens. a fairness ofcer. I don’t like what happened. I can go to Fairness is ensuring…. ICBC has a mandate to deliver that person, and they can help out.” But that’s not really service. It has a mandate to deliver and ensure that an indi- what this is. When we look at the act, that’s not going to be vidual is getting and receiving the care that they need to the role of this person. recover. Tat’s why there is not a cap on the benefts that I guess I’ll just put the question to the minister on this, you can receive. which is: can he explain to the public exactly…? I’ve heard Te fairness commissioner will be making sure that the minister talk about the mandate and the role and the those procedures and those policies are, in fact, followed independence, but what can the public exactly expect from and, in doing so, ensure fairness — and, in doing so, by an this person if they fnd themselves in an accident? ICBC individual who has that skill set and understanding of how makes a determination on a settlement for this person. these things have to happen. A critical component is that Tey’re not satisfed with what has happened. What sense of natural justice. exactly would the fairness ofcer be able to do in that cir- cumstance? M. Morris: What is the standard of review for the fair- [5:05 p.m.] ness ofcer? Te fairness ofcer would be looking at…. Most review boards or authorities would be using a stand- Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s ques- ard of reasonableness or correctness. So I’m just curious as tion. Te fairness ofcer…. Let’s say yourself, for example. to how the fairness ofcer would be looking at his fles, the You are not happy with the benefts that you felt that you complaints that he has to review. should be receiving. You would be able to go to the fairness ofcer and make your complaint. Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, as I said a few moments While it’s absolutely correct that the fairness ofcer ago, it comes back to the skill set of the individual so that does not comment on the benefts that you are paid, they they understand that process of natural justice and fair- have every authority and ability to investigate the pro- ness, so that the processes and the procedures of ICBC are cedures and the processes that were used to determine in place and are being followed properly, so that people your benefts that you received and to make a recom- have the ability to be heard and to be listened to. It puts in Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 691 place that they have been treated fairly not just by ICBC. Hon. M. Farnworth: Again I’ll repeat that the ability But its processes and procedures that are in place are to make recommendations is signifcant. It is important, designed to ensure that people are treated fairly. because those recommendations cannot be ignored. [5:15 p.m.] Tey have to be responded to. Tey are made public. As I Te fairness commissioner will have the ability to en- said a number of times now, they also come back to this sure that that is, in fact, what is taking place. If they feel it chamber. is not taking place, then they can make recommendations. Te fairness commissioner, and I’ll repeat it again, has Tose recommendations have to be responded to. Tose a signifcant mandate to fulfl that is legislated, that gives recommendations and those responses come back and are them independence and that they will be able to: fulfl that made public, both at ICBC and in this chamber. role in a way that will ensure that people are heard, that they are treated fairly, and that the processes, policies and M. Morris: Te fairness ofcer is tasked with invest- procedures that were used in making determinations were igating and making decisions on whatever the results of in fact done in a correct and fair manner. his or her investigations are. What I don’t see outlined in this particular bill is the…. Where is the procedural fair- M. Morris: Does the fairness commissioner make de- ness that is built into the act? Also, what does the fairness cisions? ofcer base his decisions on? Is it reasonableness, or is it correctness in the process? Hon. M. Farnworth: As I say, there seems to be some issue with the opposition on the fairness ofcer — what Hon. M. Farnworth: Tis position is about ensuring power they have. I’ll just repeat again. I think it’s pretty fairness and that people have been treated properly. signifcant power, which is to make a recommendation, to Te fairness commissioner is not a judicial position. make an assessment of what took place — what policies, Tey’re not a judge. What they are is there to ensure that what processes, how they were followed. Were they fol- if individuals have a complaint or concern, that that com- lowed in the appropriate way? Ten, from that work, they plaint is investigated, that people are treated fairly. Tey will make a recommendation. ensure that the proper procedures and processes were fol- A recommendation is pretty powerful, particularly lowed in the determination of whatever the complaint, as when that recommendation is made public, particularly my colleague the Leader of the Tird Party said, about when the board has to respond to that recommendation. what benefts they were to receive or how they were treated Tat’s pretty signifcant. I think that it will be a very efect- in the determination of those benefts and will make ive way of ensuring that ICBC, on May 1, works the way recommendations. that it is intended to and that people expect it to. I think that is crucial. Te fact that this position is being [5:25 p.m.] legislated and mandated in the way that it is says to ICBC that this is a critical component in terms of what happens M. Morris: Seems to be a signifcantly elaborate process on May 1 and how people can expect to be treated in terms to appoint somebody who appears to be merely a customer of receiving the care that they need for as long as they need service representative dealing with the customer com- it. Tere is a mechanism, if they have a concern, that will plaints that may come in. Tere doesn’t appear to be any ensure that they have been treated fairly. decision-making authority granted to this particular posi- It comes back to, as I said at the start of this discus- tion. Terefore…. sion, this exchange on these particular questions…. Te He may make recommendations. It’s a pretty elaborate individual occupying this position, clearly as their skill process to have somebody make recommendations to set, will have very strong skills in this area in terms of somebody as to what they should be doing or what they how fairness and natural justice are dealt with. Tat is a shouldn’t be doing. I fnd the lack of decision-making key component. authority that lies within this position to be problematic. I guess part of it is the fact that there’s no real procedural M. Morris: We have a fairness ofcer who is appointed process involved in this. If somebody makes a complaint, through an order-in-council but who doesn’t have any and the fairness ofcer comes back and says, “Yeah. No, it decision-making powers or decision-making ability under looked fair to me,” where does that individual go next to this particular bill. He’ll listen to somebody’s concern, and have his or her concerns addressed, redressed? What is the he’ll make a recommendation to somebody, but he makes process here? Go to the fairness ofcer. He arrives at his no decision that can be reviewed. Basically, he’s a…. recommendation, and if the customer that is making that I’m not sure exactly what he is or what that position complaint is not happy, where does he or she go? might be. If they don’t make decisions pertaining to the complaints that they receive, what else does they do? Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. First, [5:20 p.m.] I think it’s unfortunate that my colleague refers to the pos- 692 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 11, 2021 ition as though it’s some sort of glorifed customer service plaint process? Tat is efectively what my colleague from clerk. Tat is simply incorrect, and it’s simply not the case. Prince George–Mackenzie asked — a straightforward Te individual occupying this position will have to have question. My understanding, which I’d like the minister to a considerable skill set, in terms of fairness, administrative confrm or at least provide us with some further explan- fairness, natural justice, an understanding of the proced- ation of — that can certainly happen now or when we ure and process that are used in making a determination of reconvene — is that that individual of course talks to the a beneft, for example. Tey will be making recommenda- adjuster, or the individual…. I don’t know what the new tions that are public, that will be scrutinized, that will have terminology might be under the new regime. Or that to be responded to. adjuster’s manager. Presumably, the fairness ofce is Tis is a considerable senior position. As I have said, I another point of call. have every expectation that the person in that position will I’d like the minister also to respond to the nature of the do that job to the absolute best of their ability. I just want decision of last week, in terms of the chief justice’s decision to make that clear. Tis idea of, in essence, a diminishment ruling that the CRT does not have jurisdiction. What is the of the role, I reject. impact on the no-fault regime? I expect that the CRT, as [5:30 p.m.] we looked at the bill last summer as part of this as well…. If an individual is not happy, for example, they would In terms of the nature of what the fairness ofcer needs be able to…. If they felt the process was not fair, that they to consider, there is a provision that the minister has been were not happy with the recommendation of the fairness speaking around, which is subsection 56(2)(a), which is: ofcer, they would also be able to access the Ombudsper- “…the fairness ofcer (a) may make recommendations to son, and they would be able to use that avenue as well. Tat the corporation to resolve fairness complaints.” would not be denied them in the least. In the absence of decision-making power, as the But as I said earlier, my full expectation, and why this member for Prince George–Mackenzie has demon- fairness ofcer position is here, is that this is an individual strated in a number of questions and responses from and their staf who will be dealing with ICBC 365 days a the minister, in the absence of the ability of the fairness year. It’s not another compartment that they have to deal ofcer to comment on or make any recommendations with. It is their total focus, and it is their total obligation respecting the amount payable by the corporation or the and duty that they will have. extent that the person is responsible for the accident, how will the fairness ofcer resolve fairness complaints? M. Morris: So my understanding is correct. Te fairness What is the nature of the fairness complaints that the ofcer makes a recommendation that somebody is not fairness ofcer is able to make recommendations on in happy with, and that individual can take that to the order to resolve? Tat’s my question. Ombudsperson’s ofce for review. [5:40 p.m.] Now, are they reviewing the recommendation from the fairness ofcer, or are they ultimately reviewing the Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that there were a number decision that was made and that led to the fairness com- of questions in the member’s question. In terms of the plaint in the frst place? What would be reviewed in this procedure — the member asked about the procedure — particular case? I’m concerned about the procedural fair- that’s in section 58. It authorizes the fairness ofcer to ness here as well, but I’m also concerned about the stand- make rules regarding the practices and procedures to be ard of review that somebody, at the end of the day, has to followed in submitting or withdrawing a complaint and level upon whatever that complaint is. the practice and procedures to be followed by the parties involved in an investigation. Hon. M. Farnworth: What I will do for the member is It will be the fairness ofcer that has the ability and the get clarifcation on the specifc aspect of the Ombudsper- authority to set, and subsequently change if warranted, the son Act as to how it would relate, if that would assist the procedures related to fling or withdrawing of a fairness member in his question. complaint and, as I just said, what is expected of the com- [5:35 p.m.] plainant, what is expected of the fairness ofcer and what is expected by ICBC during the investigation process. It M. Lee: Just recognizing the time that we’re at right now, will be the fairness ofcer that sets what those procedures with a few more minutes lef in this proceeding on this are. It will not be, for example, ICBC that sets those. day, I would ask that the minister consider the question that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie asked two M. Lee: Well, I think that the minister, perhaps, was questions ago. I think it would be helpful, in the further addressing another question from the member for Prince committee process on this bill, to get a clearer understand- George–Mackenzie. I think that’s helpful. I think we can ing of this. certainly review that further, in terms of the practices and When an individual has a complaint or a concern as to procedures to be followed by the fairness ofcer. how they have been treated with ICBC, what is that com- I did ask two other questions. I can restate the questions Thursday, March 11, 2021 British Columbia Debates 693 and see how much time we have lef at this juncture. Te individual, the fairness ofcer, is able to deal with Again, I’m asking what is the complaint process that an the issues that are laid out in section 54. Tey involve the individual will be following if they have a complaint about administration of insurance plans under 7(b); the repair- ICBC and they have a dispute? Perhaps I should use that ing of insured property under section 7(c); the provision word because I think that triggered a diferent response of medical and hospital services to an insured person; the here. Let’s just focus on the word “dispute.” Tere’s a dis- carrying out of powers and duties related to the Motor agreement with ICBC in terms of how they’re being Vehicle Act, Commercial Transport Act and the Of-Road treated. Te fairness ofcer is only one venue for review, Vehicle Act; the receiving, holding, managing and collect- I expect. Tat’s my understanding, when we looked at the ing of fnes, penalties and sales taxes, for example. Tose no-fault regime. are a number of the areas that the fairness commissioner is I’m asking the minister to confrm what the other able to deal with. alternatives are to which an individual who has a dispute, a Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report pro- disagreement, with ICBC will look to get relief. I’ve named gress and ask leave to sit again. a number of them: the supervisor for the adjuster, the CRT, the courts, under very high thresholds that the Attorney Motion approved. General and I had discussion about. I’m asking the minis- ter to describe that so that we can properly situate this role Te committee rose at 5:48 p.m. of the fairness ofcer. My second question relates to subclause 56(2)(a), where Te House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. it says that the fairness ofcer “may make recommenda- tions to the corporation to resolve fairness complaints.” Te Committee of the Whole, having reported [5:45 p.m.] progress, was granted leave to sit again. I’m asking, in light of subclauses 57(1)(a) and (b), given the limitations that “the fairness ofcer may not comment Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House. on or make recommendations” on the amount payable or the extent that an individual is found responsible for an Motion approved. accident, what kind of fairness complaints is the fairness ofcer authorized to resolve if it doesn’t include anything Mr. Speaker: Tis House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. to do with the amount that is payable by ICBC or the fault Monday morning. determination? Te House adjourned at 5:49 p.m. Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your second ques- tion, that’s laid out in section 54. It’s laid out on a question that I in fact dealt with yesterday with my critic.

Hansard Services, Reporting and Publishing

DIRECTOR D’Arcy McPherson

MANAGER OF REPORTING SERVICES Laurel Bernard

MANAGER OF PUBLISHING SYSTEMS Dan Kerr

TEAM LEADERS Mike Beninger, Kim Christie, Barb Horricks, Paula Lee, Julie McClung, Karol Morris, Glenn Wigmore

EDITORS Erin Beattie, Janet Brazier, Sophie Crocker, Tim Ford, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray, Iris Gray, Mary Beth Hall, Sophie Heizer, Louis Henderson, Bill Hrick, Jennifer Isaac, Quinn MacDonald, Anne Maclean, Claire Matthews, Jill Milkert, Sarah Mitenko, Erik Pedersen, Janet Pink, Robyn Swanson, Antoinette Warren, Heather Warren, Kim Westad

INDEXERS Shannon Ash, Robin Rohrmoser

RESEARCHERS Hannah Curran, Brooke Isherwood, David Mattison

TECHNICAL OPERATIONS Pamela Holmes, Daniel Powell, Patrick Stobbe

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

Te Ofcial Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca.

For inquiries contact: Hansard Services 612 Government Street Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 Telephone: 250-387-3681 Email: [email protected]

Published by Hansard Services under the authority of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.