The Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation takes effect. Transition treatment depends on the seller’s circumstances.
What changes →2027 · B.C. PUBLIC RECORD
Who could be affected by 2027?
The new licence reaches 18 kinds of business, not only dealerships. Some parts are enacted, some Council rules are still proposed, and important questions about cost, competition, implementation and consumer outcomes remain unanswered in the public record we reviewed.
Mechanus IQ’s position: the scope and proposed disclosure rules deserve hard scrutiny before anyone claims they help or harm the market. This site separates established facts, proposals, models and unanswered questions so readers can judge the evidence for themselves.
Plain language. Primary sources. Questions that can be answered.
WHO IS IN SCOPE18Open the 18-class evidence map
18 business types may be affected.
The regulation lists eighteen kinds of business. That tells us who can fall within the licensing framework. It does not tell us what the real-world cost or benefit will be for each class. Open any class to see the products, source record and unanswered questions that apply to it.
Construction equipment dealershipsCredit grantorsCustoms brokersDeposit-taking institutionsExtraprovincial trust corporationsFarm implement dealershipsFreight-forwarding companiesFuneral providersMortgage brokeragesMotor vehicle dealersPeer-to-peer vehicle service providersPleasure craft dealershipsPortable electronics vendorsTransportation companiesTravel agentsTravel wholesalersTrust companiesVehicle rental agencies
Four things to know before the detail.
A quick guide to what is changing, who is affected, when it happens and what we still do not know.
The proposed paragraph (g) test is compensation divided by the price the client pays. It is not a 30% markup cap.
See the arithmetic →The named public sources reviewed did not provide a complete denominator, whole-regime economic study or class-by-class impact analysis.
See what remains unresolved →Dealers can replace illustrative inputs with store cost, selling price, gross, markup and qualifying compensation.
Open the exposure calculator →The study can find dealer harm, consumer benefit, both, or neither. Baseline work also backfills earlier periods where comparable data exist.
Sources & methods (18)Explore this page · complete evidence index
01WHAT IS CHANGING
A new insurance licence lands on eighteen kinds of business.
Three different things are being talked about as if they were one. One is law. One is a draft. One we could not find in the public record we reviewed.
The licence is law, from January 1, 2027.
The Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation takes effect on January 1, 2027. It was made by Order in Council 598/2025. It names 18 kinds of business that offer insurance alongside what they really sell, from motor vehicle dealers to funeral providers and travel agents.
See all 18 classesThe conduct rules are still a draft.
Rule 7(25) is a consultation draft of 26 February 2026 that remains proposed in the current Council publication. Final status requires checking the applicable express or deemed ministerial consent and publication process. The licence regime around it is enacted: the Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation, made by 598/2025, takes effect on 1 January 2027 whether or not the disclosure rule is approved as written.
The public comment window closed while final fee amounts, course availability, application timing, and some transition details remained unresolved.
What the 30% draft saysNo whole-economy cost study was located in the named public record.
An integrated whole-economy impact analysis covering dealer , employment, families, lenders, consumers, tax bases, product access, aggregate compliance cost, and competitive structure was not located in the named public record reviewed as of September 4, 2026. This does not prove no internal or unindexed analysis exists.
The study we could not locateSources: Province of British Columbia (2025), Sections 2, 4, 5 and 7 · Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026), Current status and rule amendment process
Next How we got here02WHEN IT HAPPENED, AND WHY
From a 2015 consultation to a 2027 commencement.
Cabinet approved the operative regulations on December 18, 2025. The detailed rules that make them workable were opened for comment after that. Every entry links to its source and states what it does not prove.
- 2015
Initial statutory-review consultation
The Province consulted on exemptions and several oversight alternatives. The stakeholder summary records divided positions rather than a consensus for restricted licensing.
What this does not prove. This was a broad consultation, not a dealer-only incident inquiry. Province of B.C., 2015 stakeholder consultation summary
- 2018
Second policy paper
The Province advanced direct intermediary oversight as products became more complex and drew consumer concern and negative attention.
What this does not prove. The published rationale is qualitative; it does not provide a dealer-specific loss baseline. Province of B.C., FIA and CUIA consultation record
- Nov 28, 2019
Enabling legislation received Royal Assent
Bill 37 created the statutory power for the later framework. The Minister told the Legislature that the model drew from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
What this does not prove. Operational classes, fees, and conduct rules were left to later instruments. B.C. Hansard, November 19, 2019, 5:40 p.m., Bill 37 section 31
- Jun 30, 2022
Implementation consultation opened
The 2019 amendments created the enabling framework; the 2022 consultation addressed its proposed regulatory implementation.
What this does not prove. This chronology distinguishes enabling legislation from later implementation. It does not establish how every submission affected the decision. Province of B.C., 2022 RIA regulation consultation
- Dec 18, 2025
Cabinet approved the operative regulations
On Thursday, December 18, 2025, seven days before Christmas, Cabinet approved linked instruments establishing the regulation and changing exemptions. B.C. Reg. 245/2025 was made by 598/2025, and B.C. Reg. 246/2025 by 599/2025.
What this does not prove. The timing warrants scrutiny and a clear chronology. It is not proof of concealment, and it followed earlier consultations. Province of B.C., December 18, 2025 announcement
- Feb 10, 2026
Detailed Council rules opened for comment
The proposed licensing, practice, disclosure, and fee rules entered public consultation after the operative regulation had been approved.
What this does not prove. The Council says feedback remains under review; proposed rules are not enacted rules. Insurance Council of B.C., RIA engagement record
- Apr 27, 2026
Council rules consultation closed
The public comment window closed while final fee amounts, course availability, application timing, and some transition details remained unresolved.
What this does not prove. The effective-date countdown must never be described as this consultation deadline. Insurance Council of B.C., RIA engagement record
- Jan 1, 2027
Enacted regime takes effect
The regulation commences and linked exemptions change, subject to the enacted transition provisions for eligible existing activity.
What this does not prove. The date is enacted. A modelled economic outcome is not. B.C. Reg. 245/2025
Date and instrument checks: Legislative Assembly (2019), Bill 37 progress record: Royal Assent November 28; B.C. Reg. 245/2025, OIC 598/2025; B.C. Reg. 246/2025, OIC 599/2025.
What was the catalyst?
Documented incidents exist, consumers deserve clear information, and insurer distribution oversight has shown weaknesses. The hard question is not whether protection matters. It is whether this particular eighteen-class licensing and disclosure system is proportionate to a measured B.C. problem.
On Track and Haig policies
A Council decision records 169 policies sold from July through December 2015, $328,854 in premiums, and $221,346 retained by dealers as an undisclosed marketing fee.
What this does not prove. This is a concrete enforcement record. It is not an estimate of incidence or loss across the eighteen prescribed classes.
Insurance Council of B.C., October 8, 2019 decisionTitanium coverage not remitted
A 2026 compensation decision records $6,405 paid by a vehicle buyer and not remitted for coverage.
What this does not prove. The decision proves an individual loss and an available remedy. It does not establish a province-wide rate.
VSA, May 15, 2026 compensation decisionAll Roads credit-life payment
A 2019 decision records $7,879.48 paid for credit-life coverage and not remitted. The insurer offered a policy-calculated refund of $1,188.38, not the full premium. The Board denied the compensation claim because it found no evidence of a compensable loss.
What this does not prove. This is an individual non-remittance and refund dispute, not a finding that the full premium was lost or refunded. See paragraphs 10 to 13 of the decision. It does not establish the effectiveness of the prior system as a whole.
VSA, June 24, 2019 compensation decisionInsurer distribution oversight review
reported increasing enquiries and complaints, and weaknesses in oversight, training, outsourcing and public information among selected insurers whose distribution activity between 2020 and 2023 was reviewed.
What this does not prove. The thematic review supports regulatory concern. It did not publish an dealer count, aggregate consumer loss, or benefit-cost estimate.
BCFSA 2024 insurance thematic reviewThe record shows real incidents. It does not show a measured rate across the eighteen classes, and that is the first question below.
Add it up.
This dossier documents 4 selected primary-source examples:3 individual decisions and one thematic review. They are not the complete universe of complaints, enforcement matters or consumer losses. Existing remedies in these files do not establish that the prior system adequately prevented or detected the wider problem.
The largest stated amount in these examples led to enforcement under the law then in force.
In the Council decision, $221,346 of $328,854 in premiums stayed with the dealers as an undisclosed marketing fee. That is 67.3% of what those customers paid. The Insurance Council enforced it in 2019, under the law as it stood.
What this does not prove. This is a concrete enforcement record. It is not an estimate of incidence or loss across the eighteen prescribed classes. The percentage is arithmetic on the two figures the decision records, not a rate across any wider population.
The product at the centre of it is one a licensed dealer may still sell.
is one of the 3 classes the regulation lists for motor vehicle dealers: credit protection insurance, guaranteed asset protection insurance, vehicle warranty insurance. The enacted regulation changes licensing; the proposed Council rules would add specified written disclosures if approved and effective. The insurance must be optional, incidental to ordinary business and authorized by the licence.
Source. Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation, made by 598/2025 (effective January 1, 2027), s. 4 table item 10.
The unresolved question is what complete evidence was used to assess frequency, severity, existing remedies and affected populations across the 18 prescribed classes, and how expected benefits were compared with compliance and implementation burdens.
Sources: Province of British Columbia (2025), Sections 2, 4, 5 and 7 · BCFSA (2024), Executive summary; selected insurers, activities in 2020 to 2023
Next What the 30% really means03THE 30% · PROPOSED, NOT ENACTED
What the 30% test actually measures.
The proposed paragraph (g) compares qualifying compensation with the client price, not dealer cost. It is a full-compensation disclosure trigger, not a price cap or an exemption from other disclosures.
“the full amount of any direct or indirect commission, compensation, inducement, or benefit that is paid to the restricted insurance agency, restricted insurance agency representative, or another licensee as a result of the insurance transaction if this amount exceeds 30% of the price paid by the client for an insurance product;”
That sentence, in plain wordsUnder Proposed Rule 7(25)(g), which is a consultation draft and not law, a store would have to put the full amount it is paid in writing for the customer whenever that amount is more than 30% of the price the client pays. The test is run against the selling price. The store’s own cost never appears in it.
One warranty that costs the store $3,000, priced three ways.
Same product, same cost. The only thing that changes is what the store adds on top. Marking a product up 30% is not what trips the rule, and the third column shows what does.
Mark it up 30% on cost
- Store’s cost
- $3,000
- Store adds on top, and keeps
- $900 (30% of cost)
- Customer pays
- $3,900
- Run the test
- 30% of $3,900 is $1,170.00.
The store keeps $900, which is under it. - Goes on the customer’s paperwork
- No full-amount disclosure under paragraph (g). Other duties still apply.
A 30% markup on cost does not cross paragraph (g) in this simplified example. Other disclosure obligations remain.
The last whole cent below the trigger
- Store’s cost
- $3,000
- Store adds on top, and keeps
- $1,285.71 (approximately 42.857% of cost)
- Customer pays
- $4,285.71
- Run the test
- 30% of $4,285.71 is $1,285.713.
The store keeps $1,285.71, which is slightly below the exact threshold. - Goes on the customer’s paperwork
- No full-amount disclosure under paragraph (g). Other duties still apply.
This is not exact equality. One more cent crosses the proposed trigger in this simplified example. The equality ratio is 3/7 of cost; rounded 42.86% is not a safe harbour.
Double the money
- Store’s cost
- $3,000
- Store adds on top, and keeps
- $3,000 (100% of cost)
- Customer pays
- $6,000
- Run the test
- 30% of $6,000 is $1,800.00.
The store keeps $3,000, which is well over it. - Goes on the customer’s paperwork
- The full $3,000, not the part above the line.
The store keeps half of what the customer pays. The whole amount goes in writing, not the part above the line.
So the line is not a 30% markup. On a $3,000 cost, a store can keep up to $1,285.71, which is approximately 42.857% of cost, and still remain below the paragraph (g) trigger. Other disclosures still apply.
And there is no sliding scale.
Cross the line by a single cent and the whole amount is disclosed, not the cent.
Store keeps$1,285.71
Paragraph (g) is not triggered. Other disclosures still apply.
one
cent
cent
Store keeps$1,285.72
The whole $1,285.72 goes on the client’s paperwork.
At $1,285.71 retained, paragraph (g) is not triggered. At $1,285.72, it requires disclosure of the full $1,285.72. Other disclosure obligations remain in both cases. Exact equality in this simplified example is $1,285.714285...; neither whole-cent amount equals it.
One product, $3,000 dealer cost. Compensation retained against what the client pays, and what the proposed rule would put on the client’s paperwork.
Thirty percent of a price ending in an odd cent is not a whole number of cents. At the boundary that fraction decides the outcome, so the threshold is shown exactly rather than rounded.
Proposed Rule 7(25) also addresses optionality, alternative coverage, insurer information, cancellation rights where applicable, coverage documentation, and certain loan or coverage mismatches. Its opening preserves requirements elsewhere in legislation and the Code of Conduct. Below the paragraph (g) threshold does not mean no disclosure.
Sources: Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026), Page 28, proposed Rule 7(25), including paragraph (g)
Common misreadings, checked against the draft
| Potential misreading | What the draft says |
|---|---|
| “You can mark up 30% over your cost. Anything past that has to be disclosed.” | The 30% is measured against the price the client pays, not against your cost. With a $3,000 cost and no other qualifying compensation, $1,285.71 is the last whole cent below the trigger; $1,285.72 is above it. The exact markup ratio at equality is 3/7, approximately 42.857143%, not a 42.86% safe harbour. Above the trigger, the whole amount goes on the client’s paperwork, not the part above the line. |
| “It only counts the front-end markup on the product.” | Paragraph (g) counts "any direct or indirect commission, compensation, inducement, or benefit" paid to the agency, its representative or another licensee as a result of the transaction. A spiff, allocated bonus or back-end payment may be captured if it satisfies the transaction, payee and compensation criteria. How separate payments aggregate requires clarification. Whether a dealer-owned reinsurance position is reached is not settled; see the caveats. |
| “It is a cap on what you can charge.” | It is a disclosure trigger. Nothing in the draft caps price or compensation. The worst case this page models is the trigger becoming the ceiling in practice, because a store that keeps $3,000 on a $6,000 product has to hand the client a page that says $3,000. |
| “This is already the law.” | Rule 7(25) is a consultation draft of 26 February 2026 that remains proposed in the current Council publication. Final status requires checking the applicable express or deemed ministerial consent and publication process. The licence regime around it is enacted: the Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation, made by 598/2025, takes effect on 1 January 2027 whether or not the disclosure rule is approved as written. |
| “Quebec already does this, and dealers there carried on.” | The cited Quebec notice uses a 30% client-premium threshold. B.C. proposed Rule 7(25)(g) calls for the full qualifying amount in writing when its threshold is crossed; it does not expressly specify a dollar-only format. Product-specific Quebec insurer reports are discussed in the evidence section. They do not establish the effect of B.C.’s proposal. |
Five things the draft actually says
- The base is the client price
- Paragraph (g) measures compensation against "the price paid by the client for an insurance product". The word cost does not appear in it. A dealer who applies 30% to their own cost is applying the right percentage to the wrong base, which is the ordinary margin-versus-markup distinction: under the simplified price = cost + compensation assumption, equality is a markup of 3/7 of cost (approximately 42.857143%). Rounded 42.86% is not an operational safe harbour.
- The threshold moves when the markup moves
- Compensation sits inside the price the client pays, so reducing it also reduces the number the 30% is measured against. Under this simplified assumption, the equality ratio is 3/7 of cost; real compensation structures may differ. Solving compensation divided by (cost plus compensation) equals 30% is what produces the line.
- Crossing it discloses everything, not the excess
- The rule requires "the full amount" once the threshold is exceeded. There is no partial disclosure and no tranche. A store keeping $3,000 on a $6,000 product discloses $3,000, not the $1,200 by which it exceeds the threshold. Reducing gross without going all the way to the line surrenders margin and still prints the number.
- It is a cliff, decided at the cent
- The trigger word is "exceeds", so compensation exactly equal to 30% of the client price does not cross it. At the illustrated boundary, one cent separates not crossing paragraph (g) from triggering its full-amount disclosure. Other disclosure duties remain in both cases.
- Compare identified texts, not assumed equivalence
- The cited May 2020 Québec administrative consolidation contains a notice about remuneration above 30% of the client payment. The B.C. draft calls for the full qualifying amount in writing, but does not expressly specify a dollar-only format. This is a comparison of those identified texts, not a complete current-law comparison or a forecast of effects.
The limits on this explanation
- Rule 7(25)(g) is proposed, not enacted.
- It was published for consultation on 26 February 2026 and remains subject to approval. The Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation, made by 598/2025 and effective 1 January 2027, is a separate and enacted instrument. The two must never be presented as one.
- The rule caps nothing. It is a disclosure trigger.
- Proposed Rule 7(25)(g) itself does not cap compensation; crossing the threshold triggers written disclosure of the full qualifying amount. Other obligations can still apply. Any repricing figure on this page is a dealer-choice scenario, not a loss imposed by this provision.
- The paragraph (g) example assumes no other qualifying compensation.
- The numerator may extend beyond the product spread. An outside spiff or allocated bonus may be captured depending on its connection to the transaction, recipient and legal classification. Aggregation, later payments, refunds and tax treatment require authoritative clarification.
- Aggregation across separate payments is our operating assumption, not the rule’s text.
- The rule reads "if this amount exceeds", in the singular. Treating several payments as one total is prudent, and it is a construction. It must not be published as what the rule says.
- Reinsurance participation is not established as in scope.
- The draft names the agency, its representative and another licensee. That wording alone does not settle every affiliate or reinsurance structure, indirect payment or attribution question. Contract-specific review is required; no blanket inclusion or exemption is established here.
- No factory-channel exemption has been established.
- The regulation does not distinguish franchised and independent motor dealers as classes. The actual manufacturer, insurer, obligor, affiliate and agency contracts can still affect treatment. No blanket factory-channel exemption is established, and equal treatment in every structure is not assumed.
04YOUR STORE · SCENARIO, NOT FORECAST
Put your own store through it.
Enter your units, switch on the products you sell, and type in what the customer pays and what the store keeps. You will see which products cross the proposed 30% line, and what a drop in sales after disclosure would cost against your profit.
The starting numbers are placeholders, not benchmarks. Replace every one with your own. Calculations stay on this device; nothing is stored or transmitted.
STORE-SPECIFIC SCENARIO
Use your own numbers. Keep gross profit and the legal test separate.
Store economics answer “what do we make?” The proposed paragraph (g) screen asks a different question: “what qualifying compensation is paid in connection with this transaction, as a percentage of the price paid by the client?”
How to use thisTurn on only the products you sell. Open a product row to replace every illustrative input.
Creditor Life
306 est. contracts · $1,300 gross / contract · 100.0% markup>30% proposed line50.0% of client price
Enter / edit this productcost · price · gross · markup · qualifying compensation · response
Cost, price, gross dollars and markup are linked. Change either gross or markup and the customer price recalculates.
Gross margin 50.0%Annual product gross $397,800
Enter qualifying compensation separately. Do not copy store gross here unless the actual arrangement supports treating it as the compensation described by the proposed rule.
0%30% proposed line100%
3 · STRESS TESTPositive = less compensation. Zero = no change. Negative = gain. This is an assumption, not a forecast.
20%Proposed >30% amount-disclosure trigger crossedAnnual qualifying comp $397,800Scenario change $79,560
Disability
279 est. contracts · $1,200 gross / contract · 100.0% markup>30% proposed line50.0% of client price
Enter / edit this productcost · price · gross · markup · qualifying compensation · response
Cost, price, gross dollars and markup are linked. Change either gross or markup and the customer price recalculates.
Gross margin 50.0%Annual product gross $334,800
Enter qualifying compensation separately. Do not copy store gross here unless the actual arrangement supports treating it as the compensation described by the proposed rule.
0%30% proposed line100%
3 · STRESS TESTPositive = less compensation. Zero = no change. Negative = gain. This is an assumption, not a forecast.
20%Proposed >30% amount-disclosure trigger crossedAnnual qualifying comp $334,800Scenario change $66,960
Critical Illness / Health
Not included in this store scenarioLoss of Employment
Not included in this store scenarioOther insurance product
Not included in this store scenarioAnnual product gross$732,600
Qualifying compensation entered$732,600
Comp on transactions over proposed 30% line$732,600
Modeled compensation change$146,52022.5% of baseline pretax profit
Calculation boundaries and what this tool does not prove
Starter values are illustrative and should be replaced with the store’s own records. Store cost, gross profit and markup are economic inputs. The proposed 30% screen uses the qualifying compensation amount entered separately and tests it against the price the client pays. Direct or indirect commission, compensation, inducement or benefit may be broader than a simple gross-profit number. The response slider models only a possible compensation response to disclosure. Licensing, training, , supervision, systems costs, consumer outcomes, claims, coverage and financing effects require separate evidence.
Private by design: these inputs are calculated in your browser. This workspace does not send store values to Mechanus IQ.
05THE FACTORY CHANNEL · SAME RULES FOR EVERYONE?
Is the factory channel playing by the same rules?
The regulation does not distinguish franchised and independent motor dealers as classes. The actual manufacturer, insurer, obligor, affiliate and agency contracts can still affect treatment. No blanket factory-channel exemption is established, and equal treatment in every structure is not assumed.
How does the regime apply to manufacturer-as-obligor, captive, factory-branded, dealer-agent, third-party, and referral structures?
- What is missing
- A published structure-by-structure decision tree with worked contracts, obligors, insurers, compensation flows, and licensing outcomes.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance, , and Insurance Council of B.C.
Show the record
- What the record shows
- The regulation applies to motor vehicle dealers without a blanket franchised or independent distinction. The linked exemption change narrows specified manufacturer, dealer, and affiliate treatment when acting as an insurance agent.
- What to ask for
- Publish binding or counsel-reviewed examples covering the main , captive, independent, , and third-party structures.
Sources. B.C. Reg. 245/2025 · B.C. Reg. 246/2025 · BCFSA Regulatory Statement 24-008
Was competitive neutrality tested between -franchised, independent used-vehicle, , marine, farm, and equipment dealers?
- What is missing
- A published competition analysis using actual rate cards, product structures, margins, scale, and compliance cost by dealer type.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance and Insurance Council of B.C.
Show the record
- What the record shows
- Different dealer types have different access to factory-backed products, capital, systems, scale, and compliance resources. The proposed 30% test measures qualifying compensation against the client price, not the dealer badge.
- What to ask for
- Release the competitive-neutrality analysis or commission one before the final conduct and fee rules are approved.
Sources. Insurance Council of B.C., get licensed · B.C. Reg. 246/2025 · Province of B.C., Regulatory Impact Checklist
06WHAT OTHER PROVINCES CAN TEACH US
Compare the rules, dates and populations, not just the headlines.
Three places, three different kinds of evidence. They are useful for asking better questions. None of them settles what happens in British Columbia.
QUÉBEC · DATED COMPARATOR
Compare identified rules and reporting periods
The linked report concerns disclosures for 2020 to 2022. Its products, reporting definitions and sample must be checked before comparison. Historical remuneration notices are dated evidence, not a complete statement of current Québec law or a causal template for B.C.
AMF, disclosure analysis for 2020 to 2022NEW BRUNSWICK · SINCE 2023
A dated restricted-insurance transition
identifies February 1, 2023 as commencement of the restricted-insurance framework. Its current guidance includes vehicle dealerships and and creditor products. This establishes a comparator regime, not a measured effect on dealership income or consumers.
FCNB, commencement and purpose of the frameworkB.C. · PROSPECTIVE
Freeze the baseline before 2027
The planned study identifies consumer, business and market outcomes before implementation so later results can strengthen or weaken competing hypotheses. This is a study proposal, not completed outcome evidence.
MIQ, planned study design and limitations07THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE GAP
Fees, tax, and the study we could not locate.
The government’s administrative policy addresses regulatory benefits and burdens. Published instruments and a blank checklist do not establish what analysis was completed for this particular decision.
0
published integrated whole-regime economic studies located in the named record
No integrated estimate of business population, compliance cost, customer price or access, employment, lender effects, tax bases, or competitive structure was located in the named public record reviewed as of September 4, 2026. This does not prove no internal or unindexed analysis exists.
B.C. regulatory-impact policy and checklist
The government’s administrative regulatory-impact framework addresses benefits, burdens and effects on small businesses. It is not itself the statute, and a public blank checklist does not establish what analysis was completed for this decision.
Province of British Columbia, Regulatory Reform Policy · Principle 2, Assess the Impact on People, Business and GovernmentWhat the public checklist establishes
The public checklist conditionally asks about formal cost-benefit analysis where significant compliance burden is expected. It also states that a no answer may sometimes be warranted. A completed checklist was not located in the named public record; that is not proof it does not exist or must remain internal.
Province of British Columbia, Regulatory Impact Checklist and Regulatory Count Form · Cost-benefit questionThe regulation as made
The instrument prescribes eighteen classes of persons, insurance classes, licence conditions and transitions. It does not contain a cost-benefit study. That does not establish whether analysis was prepared elsewhere.
Order in Council 598/2025, Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation (B.C. Reg. 245/2025) · Whole instrument, nine pagesThe government’s explanation to the public
“Too often, people feel pressured or uncertain when offered add-on insurance with purchases like electronics or mortgages.” No count of businesses, no cost, no price effect, no revenue effect.
Government of British Columbia, news release 2025FIN0046-001271 · Announcement of the restricted insurance agent regulationThe 2022 consultation that preceded it
Eight pages of questions and no estimates. It did ask the industry directly: “Should any restricted insurance agent licensees be limited in the commissions or fees they may charge?” So the compensation question was live from the start.
B.C. Ministry of Finance, Restricted Insurance Agent Licence consultation paper · Consultation questionsThe located programme dollar figures in the named public record
The Council’s proposed fees. A maximum $1,000 application fee, then $750 a year for an agency with one to ten representatives, rising to $8,500 a year at 500 or more. Council explains fees in terms of programme cost recovery. These proposed ceilings are not a complete business-level compliance-cost or net-benefit estimate.
Insurance Council of British Columbia, proposed Rule 5(1)(b) restricted insurance agency fees · Proposed annual fee scaleSearch scope and policy-version limits
Named public record reviewed as of September 4, 2026: the Order in Council, the Ministry of Finance news release and 2022 consultation paper, Insurance Council pages, consultation drafts, fee proposals and industry webcast, publications, and British Columbia’s regulatory accountability report for the year the regulation was made.
The policy and checklist version applicable to the December 2025 decision must be identified before any claim of procedural noncompliance. A July 2026 or currently published checklist cannot establish that earlier requirement. A request for additional integrated analysis is distinct from a claim that every regulation legally requires that particular study.
We could not locate one, so we have committed to one.
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY · PLANNED 2026-2029
Measure consumer benefit and economic cost on the same ledger. The recovered study protocol is designed to be able to disprove the dealer-harm hypothesis, the consumer-benefit hypothesis, both, or neither.
Capture current dealer, product, labour, consumer and compliance measures and backfill comparable earlier periods.
Track actual licensing, training, disclosure, product and workflow changes.
Publish controlled post-implementation analysis with limitations and null results.
Test persistence, substitution, consolidation and market structure.
What the licence is proposed to cost
KNOWN FEE ARCHITECTURE · PROPOSED / NOT FINAL
These are published proposed ceilings and tiers, not final invoices. Actual charged fees require Council motion. The designated-representative course amount remains unpublished.
Sources: Insurance Council (2026), RIA fee consultation; proposed Rule 5 fee tiers. General accreditation changes below are a separate rule package.
| Fee type | Proposed amount () |
|---|---|
| Application fee | up to $1,000 |
| Annual fee, 1 to 10 representatives | $750 |
| Annual fee, 11 to 20 representatives | $1,040 |
| Annual fee, 21 to 99 representatives | $1,950 |
| Annual fee, 100 to 249 representatives | $3,900 |
| Annual fee, 250 to 499 representatives | $7,000 |
| Annual fee, 500+ representatives | $8,500 |
| Late annual fee | up to $500 |
| Designated representative course | Mandatory in the proposed programme. Amount not yet published. |
| Training accreditation | Maximum $20,000, revised down from the $25,000 first proposed. Approved by the Minister of Finance, published September 14, 2026, effective October 15, 2026. That approval covers this ceiling in the general Council Rules only. The licence fee amounts remain proposed. This is a ceiling, not a charged fee; actual amounts are set by Council. Council revision notice (checked 2026-09-21). |
Other Council fee ceilings in the same draft Rule 5
Licence amendmentup to $50
Corporate ownership information amendmentup to $800
Copying / printing / scanningup to $1 per page
Licence information listup to $300 per list
Council courseup to $100 per credit
Trainee registrationup to $100
Licence upgrade within same classup to $300
These are general Rule 5 fee ceilings. They are not presented as confirmed -specific charges unless the final approved Rules or fee schedule makes that application clear.
CURRENT OPERATING GUIDANCE · REVIEWED 2026-09-19
The current Get Licensed page says the licence will have an annual fee, that Council is evaluating different options, and that other one-time initial fees are anticipated.
The separate 2026 Rule 5 consultation publishes proposed application, annual-tier and late-fee ceilings while the current Get Licensed page still describes the annual fee model as under development. These sources are preserved as different publication stages; neither is treated as a final charged-fee schedule.
Current Council page ↗ · Fee consultation ↗ · Open fee-receipt model →
Six tax categories to check. No automatic six-part loss.
Premium taxes, , vehicle , corporate income tax and employer health tax use different bases. Vehicle-price treatment is product- and structure-specific: some insurance products are expressly excluded, mandatory warranty/service charges can be included, and installed physical products require their own analysis. Any fiscal model must identify the actual changes in taxable premiums, supplies, vehicle consideration, profits and payroll; it cannot multiply every lost sale by all six rows.
Tax reference: classify the actual contract first (8 products)
Contract-specific tax review is required. Rates are not a determination of an individual agreement’s treatment. Premium tax is a licensed-insurer tax, not a dealer fee or an automatic additional charge on the retail price. This update does not independently certify every tax row.
Ministry of Finance, PST 116, Motor Vehicle Dealers; PST 303, Warranties and Service Contracts; RIA regulation, product definitions. Reference table review: 2026-09-19.
| Product | B.C. insurance premium tax | Vehicle treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Extended warranty / vehicle warranty insurance | Vehicle Warranty class: 4.4% on licensed-insurer taxable premium. Ministry tax-rate table | Optional warranty is not added to the vehicle tax-rate value; mandatory warranty treatment differs. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| coverage | 4.4% when written as the insurance defined by B.C. Reg. 245/2025: that definition places within property or automobile insurance, and both classes are taxed at 4.4% for licensed insurers. Ministry tax-rate table | B.C. interpretation guidance explicitly excludes insurance from vehicle purchase price. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| Creditor life insurance | 2% when the underlying contract is Life insurance. Do not infer the premium-tax class only from the distribution label. Ministry tax-rate table | B.C. interpretation guidance explicitly excludes life insurance from vehicle purchase price. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| Creditor disability insurance | 2% when the underlying contract is Accident and Sickness insurance. Do not infer the premium-tax class only from the distribution label. Ministry tax-rate table | B.C. interpretation guidance explicitly excludes disability insurance from vehicle purchase price. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| Other credit / credit-protection insurance | Credit and Credit Protection are listed at 4% for licensed insurers. This does not reclassify creditor life or disability contracts. Ministry tax-rate table | Vehicle purchase-price treatment must be established from the actual contract; do not generalize the explicit life/disability exclusions. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| Road-hazard / tire protection plan | Unknown until insurance classification and premium basis are established. Ministry tax-rate table | Optional agreement does not automatically change the vehicle tax-rate value. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| Repair / maintenance / service plan | Not an insurance-premium-tax lane unless the contract is insurance. Ministry tax-rate table | Optional agreement is separate from vehicle tax-rate value. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
| Installed coating, film, tint, rustproofing or anti-theft improvement | Not an insurance-premium-tax lane unless a separate insurance contract exists. Ministry tax-rate table | treatment must be determined from the vehicle sale and agreement facts. Ministry vehicle-price interpretation |
Treasury and public-value ledger
Consumer savings and public revenue both require measured behaviour, not slogans.
Where is the provincial and federal fiscal-impact analysis?
- What is missing
- A transaction- and tax-specific study of taxable-income, payroll, consumption, price, volume, and product-mix scenarios.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- B.C. Treasury Board, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Finance Canada
Show the record
- What the record shows
- Dealer activity contributes payroll, corporate income, consumption, and other taxes. Federal luxury-tax guidance excludes many optional products from vehicle consideration, so a blanket tax claim would be wrong.
- What to ask for
- Publish the fiscal model, tax-base definitions, behavioural assumptions, rates, offsets, and sensitivity ranges.
Sources. NCDA and MNP, B.C. new-car dealer economic impact · Canada Revenue Agency, luxury-tax consideration
How will government measure whether consumers are actually better off?
- What is missing
- A published success framework covering price, access, take-up, cancellation, claims, coverage continuity, household outcomes, complaints, shopping time, and pass-through of compliance cost.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance, Insurance Council of B.C., , and Consumer Protection B.C.
Show the record
- What the record shows
- Written transparency and consistent oversight may help consumers. Lower prices are possible, but are not required. If availability or take-up falls for creditor life, disability, Critical Health, job-loss, warranty, tire, towing, or repair protection, a household may be left carrying a risk it cannot absorb.
- What to ask for
- Set a pre-launch baseline, public reporting cadence, independent evaluation date, and correction trigger.
FOUNDER-REPORTED · ANONYMIZED · NOT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. The founder reports that, shortly after a vehicle purchase, one spouse called to ask whether creditor life coverage had been taken. The file showed that the coverage had been declined. One account illustrates why coverage access can matter. It does not establish aggregate product value or the regime's net effect.
Sources. Province of B.C., December 18, 2025 announcement · Insurance Council of B.C., RIA engagement record
Where is the integrated whole-economy impact study for the complete regime?
- What is missing
- One integrated analysis covering dealers, workers and families, lenders, insurers and providers, consumers, provincial and federal tax bases, compliance markets, regional access, and competitive structure.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- B.C. Treasury Board, Ministry of Finance, Insurance Council of B.C., and Department of Finance Canada
Show the record
- What the record shows
- The reviewed public record contains regulatory instruments, consultations, qualitative rationale, a regulatory checklist, and proposed fee material. Each answers part of the file.
- What to ask for
- Publish the integrated study, or state that it was not located in the named public record reviewed as of September 4, 2026 and identify what internal or unindexed analysis exists.
Sources. Province of B.C., Regulatory Reform Policy · Province of B.C., Regulatory Impact Checklist · Province of B.C., 2022 RIA regulation consultation
08WHO COULD BE AFFECTED
18 kinds of business. Not only car dealers.
The regulation names every kind of business below. Each has its own products, customers and margins. Open one to see the question we could not find answered for it in the public record we reviewed. No favourites: they are listed alphabetically.
CLASS 01
Construction equipment dealerships
- Credit protection
- GAP
- Equipment warranty
What does the regime do to equipment affordability, financed principal, warranty access, and service employment?
Open the dossier →CLASS 02Credit grantors
- Credit protection
How many credit grantors are in scope, what products do they distribute, and what will compliance do to credit access and price?
Open the dossier →CLASS 03Customs brokers
- Cargo
What delay, cost, or coverage effect was modelled for time-sensitive imports and exports?
Open the dossier →CLASS 04Deposit-taking institutions
- Credit protection
Which existing controls were found insufficient, and what duplicated cost will the new layer add?
Open the dossier →CLASS 05Extraprovincial trust corporations
- Credit protection
How will duplicated licensing and supervision be avoided for firms already regulated outside B.C.?
Open the dossier →CLASS 06Farm implement dealerships
- Credit protection
- GAP
- Farm implement warranty
Could new cost or product friction reduce equipment protection, rural service capacity, or farm credit resilience?
Open the dossier →CLASS 07Freight-forwarding companies
- Cargo
What effect on transaction time, coverage continuity, and trade cost did government model?
Open the dossier →CLASS 08Funeral providers
- Funeral services
What consumer-harm baseline and affordability analysis supports the chosen licence and product scope?
Open the dossier →CLASS 09Mortgage brokerages
- Credit protection
What overlap, borrower-cost, and broker-capacity analysis was completed for mortgage transactions?
Open the dossier →CLASS 10Motor vehicle dealers
- Credit protection
- GAP
- Vehicle warranty
Where is the dealer-level analysis of profit, jobs, lender economics, consumer take-up, taxes, and OEM competitive neutrality?
Open the dossier →CLASS 11Peer-to-peer vehicle service providers
- Rented vehicle
Who is the licensee and representative at each digital step, and what platform conversion work is required?
Open the dossier →CLASS 12Pleasure craft dealerships
- Credit protection
- GAP
- Pleasure craft warranty
What seasonal, financing, warranty, and marine-service impacts were assessed?
Open the dossier →CLASS 13Portable electronics vendors
- Portable electronics
What volume, retailer-size, frontline-training, and consumer-price analysis supports this class design?
Open the dossier →CLASS 14Transportation companies
- Cargo
- Travel
How many carriers are affected, and what operational delay or coverage gap could the transition create?
Open the dossier →CLASS 15Travel agents
- Travel
- Rented vehicle
What will change for existing licensees, frontline advisors, travellers, and small tourism businesses?
Open the dossier →CLASS 16Travel wholesalers
- Travel
- Rented vehicle
What wholesale-system, downstream-agency, and traveller-continuity effects were modelled?
Open the dossier →CLASS 17Trust companies
- Credit protection
What distinct consumer-protection gap remains after existing trust-company and insurer supervision?
Open the dossier →CLASS 18Vehicle rental agencies
- Rented vehicle
What transaction-time, staffing, take-up, and traveller-protection effects were tested?
Open the dossier →How thin is the margin these rules land on?
Numerical verification limit. The national figures in both groups below are retained from ’s dated source dossier. Every value has not been independently reproduced in this update, and the original generated report exports are not attached here. Treat them as provisional national context, not verified B.C. dealership or estimates. The source, population and reproduction instructions are provided for checking.
These come from federal government data. Two are printed in the federal report as shown. Two we worked out from the averages that report prints, and each box says which. Every box also says exactly which businesses it covers, because a margin for small businesses is not a margin for every dealership in the country.
-1.0%Recreational vehicle dealers · net margin
42.3% of 612 businesses were not profitable. 44121.
Canada, 2024, all business types, annual revenue $30,000-$5,000,000. /Statistics Canada marks the whole-industry net-margin estimate E: use with caution.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada7.6%New car dealers · net margin
32.3% of 1,019 businesses were not profitable. 44111.
Canada, 2024, all business types, annual revenue $30,000-$5,000,000. The public all-business report does not provide equity-based .
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada2.8%Used car dealers · net margin
36.5% of 5,387 businesses were not profitable. 44112.
Canada, 2024, all business types, annual revenue $30,000-$5,000,000. 2.8% is calculated from whole-industry average net profit $23.4k / revenue $834.6k.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada0.5%Other motor vehicle dealers · net margin
39.7% of 2,013 businesses were not profitable. 4412.
Canada, 2024, all business types, annual revenue $30,000-$5,000,000. This broader code includes but is not limited to motorcycle, boat and other motor-vehicle dealers; 0.5% is calculated from $6.2k / $1,161.4k.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaWhat does a dealership with $5 million to $20 million in revenue earn on the owner’s own money?
The same federal data has a second group: incorporated businesses with $5 million to $20 million in yearly revenue. The number in each box is what the average one earned in 2024 on the money its owners have in it, before income tax. The federal report prints it as net profit to equity. The glossary ISED publishes for that report says this is also known as return on equity, and that net profit is recorded before income taxes. It does not describe every dealership, it is not a British Columbia figure, and the federal report has no separate line for finance-office income.
0.3%Recreational vehicle dealers · return on equity, before income tax
Net profit was 0.1% of total revenue, averaged across 210 businesses. 44121.
Statistics Canada small business profiles, published by . Canada, 2024. Incorporated businesses with $5 million to $20 million in annual revenue. Averages, before income tax.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada11.0%New car dealers · return on equity, before income tax
Net profit was 1.0% of total revenue, averaged across 665 businesses. 44111.
Statistics Canada small business profiles, published by . Canada, 2024. Incorporated businesses with $5 million to $20 million in annual revenue. Averages, before income tax.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada14.4%Used car dealers · return on equity, before income tax
Net profit was 1.9% of total revenue, averaged across 614 businesses. 44112.
Statistics Canada small business profiles, published by . Canada, 2024. Incorporated businesses with $5 million to $20 million in annual revenue. Averages, before income tax.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada10.8%Motorcycle, boat and other motor vehicle dealers · return on equity, before income tax
Net profit was 2.3% of total revenue, averaged across 441 businesses. 44122.
Statistics Canada small business profiles, published by . Canada, 2024. Incorporated businesses with $5 million to $20 million in annual revenue. Averages, before income tax.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaReproduce the federal reports and check their limitations
Open the application, choose the $5M - $20M revenue range (the application then fixes Canada and incorporated businesses), search the five-digit code and create the report.
prints no quality indicator on the ratio lines. On the lines behind them, net profit is graded A for recreational vehicle dealers and C for the other three trades, and total equity is graded C for all four. Interest and bank charges, which enter return on total assets, are graded E (use with caution) for all four. For new car dealers, total assets and total liabilities are also graded E.
These four reports cover incorporated businesses with $5 million to $20 million in annual revenue only. They do not describe every dealership, they are not British Columbia figures, the report has no separate line for finance-office income, and they do not measure the effect of the proposed rule.
The large-band figures retain the September 21, 2026 source review recorded in this dossier; the session-generated outputs were not independently reproduced in this update. The application link alone is not proof of the displayed values. The small-business and large-band cards are different populations, not matched cohorts. A dated report export is needed for independent numerical audit.
Workers, payroll, and dealership families
If income is put at risk, the distributional analysis must reach the people behind it.
How many jobs, payroll dollars, and dependent families were included in the impact analysis?
- What is missing
- A public model connecting compliance cost or product-income scenarios to occupations, regions, wages, hours, and household exposure.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth
Show the record
- What the record shows
- Dealer associations publish substantial employment and payroll footprints. The regulatory checklist explicitly asks about new staff and disproportionate small-business effects.
- What to ask for
- Publish the employment and distributional analysis with sensitivity ranges, not a single headline estimate.
Sources. NCDA and MNP, B.C. new-car dealer economic impact · Province of B.C., Regulatory Impact Checklist
Was consolidation or transfer of work to larger agencies, road representatives, or compliance providers modelled?
- What is missing
- A published analysis of whether fixed compliance costs favour large groups, change local ownership, or shift jobs between businesses.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance and Insurance Council of B.C.
Show the record
- What the record shows
- The regime places formal accountability on the licensed business and its designated representative while permitting employee and nonemployee representatives.
- What to ask for
- Release the small-versus-large firm analysis and any mitigation for rural, independent, and single-location businesses.
Sources. Insurance Council of B.C., licensee impacts · Province of B.C., Regulatory Impact Checklist
09THE HARD QUESTIONS
Unanswered means unresolved.
Each question identifies the public evidence reviewed, the remaining gap, the responsible authority and the record that could answer it.
Evidence status, not a finding of wrongdoingAn answer not located in the named public sources remains unresolved. It does not establish refusal, concealment or motive. A direct response must be recorded even when it contradicts the concern or gives an answer with which disagrees.
23questions coded in the case file
Across 10 subjects, from the catalyst to the factory channel. Read all 23.
16have no published answer we could find
7 more are only partly answered.
0are coded fully answered by
Counted from the audited case file. It reflects the named public record reviewed as of September 4, 2026; it does not prove that no internal or unindexed analysis exists.
Catalyst and proportionality
Show the measured problem, the alternatives, and why this remedy fits both.
What incident pattern, complaint count, and quantified consumer loss triggered this exact policy?
- What is missing
- A published B.C. baseline by product, channel, dealer type, harm type, remedy, and year that connects the measured problem to the chosen scope.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance, Insurance Council of B.C., , and
Show the record
- What the record shows
- The record contains real incidents, qualitative consumer concerns, and insurer-distribution weaknesses. The 2015 Council submission also said it had not experienced complaints arising from the relevant exemptions at that time.
- What to ask for
- Publish the complaint, incident, investigation, enforcement, refund, and quantified-loss dataset used for the decision.
Sources. Insurance Council of B.C., 2015 submission · BCFSA 2024 insurance thematic review
Which lighter alternatives were scored, and why was an eighteen-class Council overlay selected?
- What is missing
- A published alternatives scorecard comparing expected benefit, burden, duplication, enforceability, and small-business impact.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance
Show the record
- What the record shows
- The 2015 process discussed stronger insurer responsibility, individual licensing, greater Council powers, and an agency-level restricted model. The final framework resembles models used elsewhere.
- What to ask for
- Release the decision note, signed Regulatory Impact Checklist or exemption form, options analysis, and issue-disposition matrix.
Sources. Province of B.C., 2015 initial consultation paper · Province of B.C., Regulatory Reform Policy · Province of B.C., Regulatory Impact Checklist
Why this remedy, why now, and what evidence connected the stated concern to an eighteen-class licensing system?
- What is missing
- The published causal chain from measured harm, through rejected alternatives, to the scope, timing, and design of this remedy.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance and Insurance Council of B.C.
Show the record
- What the record shows
- The public chronology runs from the broad 2015 statutory review, through enabling legislation in 2019 and implementation consultation in 2022, to the operative regulations approved in December 2025.
- What to ask for
- Publish the decision memorandum, evidence inventory, alternatives analysis, issue-disposition record, and accountable decision owners.
Sources. Province of B.C., 2015 initial consultation paper · B.C. Hansard, November 19, 2019, 5:40 p.m., Bill 37 section 31 · Province of B.C., 2022 RIA regulation consultation · Province of B.C., December 18, 2025 announcement
Why propose contingent full-amount disclosure instead of Alberta-style disclosure of the fact of compensation?
- What is missing
- A published comparison of consumer benefit, behavioural response, competitive effect, compliance cost, and enforcement value under the two disclosure designs.
- Responsible authority / proposed recipient
- Ministry of Finance and Insurance Council of B.C.
Show the record
- What the record shows
- Alberta section 15(4) requires a restricted certificate holder who receives compensation from an insurer to disclose the fact of compensation; it states no amount, percentage, or threshold. Proposed B.C. Rule 7(25)(g) instead requires the full qualifying compensation amount in writing when it is more than 30% of the client product price. The B.C. rule remains proposed and has no effective date.
- What to ask for
- Release the jurisdictional comparison and decision analysis that selected the proposed B.C. design.
Sources. Alberta Insurance Agents and Adjusters Regulation, s. 15(4), printed page 17 · Proposed Insurance Council Rule 7(25)(g)
Six questions that decide whether the policy worked
QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD SURVIVE EVERY REDESIGN
| Q01 | What measured problem, incident rate and quantified consumer loss justified this exact scope? |
|---|---|
| Q02 | What evidence calibrated the proposed 30% compensation-disclosure breakpoint? |
| Q03 | What regulatory impact, cost-benefit or whole-economy analysis was completed before the regulation was made? |
| Q04 | Who will monitor and enforce the new regime, with what data, systems, staffing and service standards? |
| Q05 | Will any creditor life, disability, Critical Health or job-loss product terms change? No reviewed B.C. source currently establishes a one-year coverage requirement. |
| Q06 | What measurable consumer outcomes will define success, and what results would trigger review or adjustment? |
10CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ask for the record. In writing.
Readers decide whether and how to participate. The site supplies the source record, editable correspondence and official contact routes.
PETITION
Put the record in public view.
We seek a clear public record of the evidence, consultation feedback and reasons considered in developing British Columbia's Restricted Insurance Agent licensing rules.
- Publish consultation findings and submissions that can lawfully be released, with necessary privacy and confidentiality protections.
- Explain how material concerns raised in consultation have been addressed.
- Make the evidence and reasons supporting the final rules readily accessible to the public.
LETTER BUILDER
Choose your industry and questions.
Open official routes for B.C. , the Finance Minister, Premier, Insurance Council, MPs and federal offices. The editable evidence-request builder covers the provincial offices and regulator closest to the B.C. framework.
Open contact routes →FOR DEALERS
Plan your store’s response.
Verify products, model gross and pay-plan changes, test replacement capacity, and protect cash. Worked examples explain every input.
Open the dealer response plan →Primary references, not proof by assertion
Check the source behind the claim
Core references below were checked September 23, 2026. Linked sources retain their own publication dates and scopes. A citation to a proposal is not a citation to enacted law. Other tables identify their own review limitations beside the data.
- Province of British Columbia (2025). Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation, B.C. Reg. 245/2025. Sections 2, 4, 5 and 7. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Province of British Columbia (2004). Insurance Council Rule-Making Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. 570/2004. Sections 2 to 7; consolidation current to September 1, 2026. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026). Restricted Insurance Agency Licence. When does the licence regime start?. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026). Getting a Restricted Insurance Agency Licence. Application timing, proposed qualifications and licence fees. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026). January RIA announcement. Historical November 2026 application expectation. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026). RIA rule amendments consultation. Current status and rule amendment process. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Insurance Council of British Columbia (2026). RIA Rules for Consultation, February 26. Page 28, proposed Rule 7(25), including paragraph (g). Accessed 23 September 2026.
- Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (2026). Guidelines for Petitioning the Legislative Assembly, April. Petition requirements and presentation; Standing Order 73. Accessed 23 September 2026.
- BCFSA (2024). Insurance thematic review. Executive summary; selected insurers, activities in 2020 to 2023. Accessed 23 September 2026.
Acronyms and plain-language meanings
In body text, hover, focus or tap a dotted acronym; press Escape to close its explanation. Acronyms inside links and other controls have native hover titles to avoid nested buttons. Their full meanings are also listed here, without JavaScript.
- A&S
- Accident and sickness insurance.
- AMF
- Autorité des marchés financiers, the Québec financial-sector regulator.
- APR
- Annual percentage rate, a yearly measure of borrowing cost.
- BCFSA
- British Columbia Financial Services Authority, the provincial financial-services regulator.
- CAD
- Canadian dollars.
- CADA
- Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.
- CBA
- Cost-benefit analysis, an assessment of expected benefits and costs with its scope and assumptions stated.
- CCIR
- Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators.
- CISRO
- Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations.
- CRA
- Canada Revenue Agency.
- CUIA
- Credit Union Incorporation Act of British Columbia.
- DR
- Designated representative, the individual designated by a licensee and approved by Council as its primary contact.
- E&O
- Errors and omissions insurance, a form of professional liability coverage.
- F&I
- Finance and insurance, the dealership function that arranges financing and related products.
- FCNB
- Financial and Consumer Services Commission of New Brunswick.
- FIA
- Financial Institutions Act, the British Columbia statute underlying this licensing framework.
- FIPPA
- Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British Columbia.
- FOI
- Freedom of information, a process for requesting existing records under applicable access legislation.
- FPD
- Financial Performance Data, the federal industry-statistics product.
- FSRA
- Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario.
- GAP
- Guaranteed asset protection insurance. Coverage and eligibility depend on the actual policy.
- GDP
- Gross domestic product, a measure of economic production.
- GST
- Goods and services tax, the federal consumption tax. Exemptions depend on the actual supply.
- HST
- Harmonized sales tax, used in participating Canadian provinces.
- ISED
- Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the federal department publishing the linked industry data.
- LLP
- Limited liability partnership, a legal form of business partnership.
- LTV
- Loan-to-value ratio. The loan and collateral values must use the lender’s definitions.
- MIQ
- Mechanus IQ, the publisher of this independent evidence page.
- MLA
- Member of the Legislative Assembly. An elected provincial representative decides whether to present a petition.
- MLAs
- Members of the Legislative Assembly.
- MNP
- MNP LLP, the Canadian accounting and advisory firm named in the cited study. MNP is its firm name.
- N/A
- Not available or not applicable, as explained by the adjacent field.
- NAICS
- North American Industry Classification System, the classification used for the industry statistics.
- NCDA
- New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia.
- OEM
- Original equipment manufacturer, such as a vehicle manufacturer.
- OIC
- Order in Council, an order made by the Lieutenant Governor on the advice of the provincial Executive Council.
- Portable Document Format, used for the linked official publications.
- PIPA
- Personal Information Protection Act of British Columbia.
- PST
- Provincial sales tax. The taxable base and treatment depend on the product and transaction.
- RIA
- Restricted Insurance Agency. The enacted instrument is titled the Restricted Insurance Agent Licence Regulation.
- ROE
- Return on equity. The linked ISED measure uses net profit before income tax divided by equity.
- ROI
- Return on investment. Its definition and denominator must be checked in the particular source.
- RV
- Recreational vehicle.
- RVs
- Recreational vehicles.
- VSA
- Vehicle Sales Authority of British Columbia, the motor-dealer regulator.
The deep record
15 product rows, 18 statutory classes and the full research and action record remain one click away.
Industries
Open all 18 prescribed business classes and their individual dossiers.
Open →Products
Separate statutory product scope, proposed disclosure rules and unresolved classifications.
Open →Exposure
Run dealer-entered scenarios without presenting them as forecasts.
Open →Research
Open the 2026-2029 study architecture, comparators and source graph.
Open →Questions
Review the audited questions the public record should be able to answer.
Open →Action
Build an editable evidence request and use official contact channels.
Open →