The committee met at 8:34 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Good morning, everyone.

My name is Amna Shah. I’m the MLA for Surrey City Centre and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting today on the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

The purpose of today’s meeting is to receive presentations on Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, and hear from the sponsor of Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act.

[8:35 a.m.]

Before we move on to our agenda items, I would like to provide an update on our committee’s work.

At our last meeting, we continued our consideration of Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, and agreed to request additional presentations. I expect our consideration of that bill will continue at our meeting next week, and our committee must

Before we move on to our agenda items, I would like to provide an update on our committee’s work.

At our last meeting, we continued our consideration of Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, and agreed to request additional presentations. I expect our consideration of that bill will continue at our meeting next week, and our committee must report that bill back to the House by April 15.

Additionally, the committee is accepting written submissions on two bills. Members will recall that on Monday, another bill was committed to our committee, Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act. We are accepting written submissions on that bill until Tuesday, March 17. We are also still accepting written submissions on Bill M226, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025 until Tuesday March the 10. To participate in those consultations, please visit our website at bcleg.ca/consultations.

Moving on to today’s agenda, we will begin our presentations on Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We are joined today by Jeannette Van Den Bulk, deputy commissioner of policy, adjudication and audit.

Welcome, Jeanette. As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee, followed by ten minutes for questions from committee members. You will see a timer on the screen to assist you. So we are ready when you are, Jeannette.

Presentations on Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Good morning. I would like to begin by recognizing the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, where we are meeting today.

The Personal Information Protection Act, or PIPA, governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations in B.C. Its purpose is to do so in a manner that recognizes both the rights of individuals to protect their personal information and the needs of organizations to collect it to do business. This bill does an end run around the important protections built into our privacy legislation.

I would like to focus on two main areas of concern. First, the significant financial and administrative burden this will place on businesses in B.C. and, second, the widespread privacy impact this requirement will have on those going about their public lives. These concerns stem from the substantial collection of personal information that would be required by this bill.

I will start with the administrative burden this will place on businesses. PIPA sets out several requirements for organizations to collect personal information, including the requirement for organizations to respond to requests from individuals for copies of their own personal information.

For example, if I cross the street and am captured on a tow truck operator’s dashcam, I could request a copy of that video from the tow truck company. If other pedestrians are also in the crosswalk, the tow truck company would be required to blur out their images before providing the footage to me. Both blurring out images and providing the video footage can be a time-consuming, expensive and technical process.

Organizations are also required to have reasonable security in place for any personal information they collect. In this context, that could mean physical controls, such as access to and protection of the cameras and resulting footage; whether storage is in the device or on a server or in the cloud; administrative controls, such as ensuring all drivers are trained on the use of the cameras; written privacy and security policies as well as breach response plans; and technical controls.

For example, this may include encryption to secure the footage, role-based access to ensure only those with a need can view the footage and audit logs showing who has accessed it.

Last year B.C.’s Passenger Transportation Board discontinued a mandatory camera program for taxis in B.C. The board cited several reasons for its decision, including data accessibility and technological challenges. This is a cautionary tale about the complexities of mandating surveillance for B.C. organizations, many of which are small or medium businesses with limited resources and capacity.

While the administrative burden is a consideration, I do not want to bury the headline. This bill is also extremely privacy-invasive. I read comments in the media that there are no privacy concerns as everything recorded by a forward-facing dashcam is happening in the public.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently followed the Canadian and British courts in expressly stating that people do not automatically lose any privacy interests when they put their image or their conduct in public view. The Supreme Court of Canada also held that privacy is not an all-or-nothing concept and that being in a public space does not automatically negate all expectations of privacy with respect to observation and recordings.

A critical principle of privacy in PIPA is for an organization to only collect information that a reasonable person would consider appropriate. Why do organizations that deliver pizza or exterminate rodents or paint fences need to collect personal information for road safety? These cameras can and will collect sensitive personal information and more than just faces of pedestrians or other drivers.

[8:40 a.m.]

Today’s cameras are high definition with night vision, facial recognition, automated licence plate recognition and other features — potential sensitive information collected from every law-abiding adult and child going about their daily lives.

The potential for scope creep, where technology installed

information and more than just faces of pedestrians or other drivers. Today’s cameras are high definition with night vision, facial recognition, automated license plate recognition and other features — potential sensitive information collected from every law-abiding adult and child going about their daily lives.

The potential for scope creep, where technology installed for one purpose is used for another purpose, is significant. The temptation to use already recorded footage to know more about clientele or to monitor employees can be great, especially if there are enhanced functions such as AI to quickly review the footage.

Surveillance is often the first and easiest solution. However, as a society, we must avoid the temptation to too easily leap to a simple solution.

There are appropriate-use cases for surveillance cameras, but they need to be legal, authorized and proportional. Surveillance can be used in a targeted and measured manner when we need it, without weakening the principles of the society we are trying to protect.

While imposing surveillance across B.C. might seem like a good way to improve road safety, there are many other actions that the government could take that would not diminish personal privacy or impose regulatory burdens on commercial vehicle operators. We encourage legislators to examine these less invasive, less burdensome alternatives.

In closing, we do not consider the installation and operation of dashboard cameras on all commercial vehicles in B.C., as proposed under Bill M217, to be a proportional appropriate response to the problem of improving road safety.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thank you so much, Jeannette, for your presentation.

Are there any questions?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

Does the commission have a position on dashcams, as a whole, as they exist in society and are widely used?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Yes, thank you. That’s a topic that has come up quite a bit, obviously, with cameras and widespread surveillance.

From the perspective of privacy, any time an organization is seeking to deploy technologies as large scale, as public and affecting public places such as dashcams, you need to be prepared to demonstrate that there is a highly compelling case to do so. So you need to demonstrate the risk.

In this case, is it the same across the province? Does everywhere in the province need these dashcams, and would they be effective in the same way? You know, it’s questions of necessity and proportionality.

Will the collection be effective in addressing the risk that you’re trying to prevent? Would it reduce crashes? Would it improve road safety? Are there less privacy invasive alternatives?

Generally, we’re looking at trying to ensure that any time dashcams or cameras of any surveillance are used, you can demonstrate the risk, understand that the camera is actually an effective way of reducing that risk and that less privacy invasive alternatives have been explored and are not appropriate.

Amna Shah (Chair): Do you have a follow up, Gavin?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Yes, I do. Thank you very much.

Has the commission or has the government at any time proposed, discussed or advanced any policy with regard to dashcams, as a whole, that would limit the use of dashcams by individuals or by companies, as is commonplace in our society today?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: I can speak to…. If I understand your question, are there laws already on the books that authorize dashcams?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Sorry, my question is not about…. I’d be happy to hear about laws on the book. What I want to understand is whether this particular bill addresses a specific application of das cams for a specific purpose, and you are advancing a logical and coherent argument around the risks associated with dashcams in terms of privacy.

What I want to understand is whether that conversation has been had anywhere writ large, given the fact that we are operating in a society that has many dashcams. How do you proposed to limit dashcams as government? Help us understand the broader context of the conversation.

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Absolutely. Thank you for clarifying.

As I mentioned, there was work done a few years ago on dashcams in taxi cabs and ride-sharing vehicles, and there was a lot of conversation at that time. A lot of different work was done at that time by the Passenger Transportation Board, doing widespread consultations, looking for evidence whether this was the best approach.

There was a lot of discussion from a lot of different partners, and a lot of work was done on setting up the proper protections and guardrails in terms of how that program would roll out.

With this bill, what sort of seems to be missing is that there’s so much missing in terms of how it would operate. Is road safety the only purpose? Is it just about car accidents? Do we also want to collect poor drivers? If somebody cut me off, if a cyclist isn’t wearing a helmet, is that something we’re capturing? Is it going to be proactively used?

As a commercial driver, do I need to send it somewhere, or is it reactive? Did the police say: “Oh, something happened. Can I come and get that information?”

Do we turn all commercial vehicles into a civilian police force? Are we asking to impose, broadly, a law enforcement purpose on a domestic cleaning service or a meal delivery driver?

[8:45 a.m.]

I think one of the challenges with this bill is that it doesn’t have a focus in terms of what exactly it’s trying to do and how it’s trying to do it. It doesn’t feel as though there’s been lot of demonstration as to the effectiveness that these cameras would have if installed. With respect to proportionality across the province, it’s a pretty big thing to

I think one of the challenges with this bill is that it doesn’t have a focus in terms of what exactly it’s trying to do and how it’s trying to do it, and it doesn’t feel as though there’s been a lot of demonstration as to the effectiveness that these cameras would have if installed.

With respect to proportionality across the province, it’s a pretty big thing to put a forward-facing dashcam on every commercial vehicle in the province, so I think there’s a lot more that should be discussed in respect of that.

Hon Chan: I just want to thank you for your information, first, and the presentation. You did mention about when somebody or an organization actually obtained or captured some footage on the street. Any person who was actually captured, or the public, can request a copy to it.

I’m just thinking, first of all, that there are many cars that have a dashcam right now. A pedestrian legally has the right to request that person or driver to provide the footage to them?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: The requirement for access to information is set out in the Personal Information and Protection Act, which governs the activities of organizations. So if it’s a personal dashcam on a private vehicle, there isn’t that same right of access. But any organization that’s collecting information about an individual — that would be subject to an access request by an individual.

Darlene Rotchford: You had mentioned there are less burdened alternatives to this. Could you give us some examples of what those may be?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Yeah, absolutely. I will say that that’s, in terms of road safety, not an area of expertise at the privacy commission, but just in terms of looking at video surveillance cameras, being more targeted in terms of what you’re trying to achieve with that camera….

If there’s a certain area that’s a high crash area, would it make more sense to have cameras in that specific area? Or if there is a certain kind of vehicle that tends to be involved in that….

I understand that that is something that’s been talked about in terms of large vehicles and transport vehicles and exploring different things that may be relevant for those.

There was a 2018 independent audit of commercial vehicle safety done by the Auditor General, and they came up with nine recommendations to improve road safety, and none of them mentioned dashcams. There were many other things in terms of licensing and training and a number of other things related to road safety, but dashcams weren’t included in those recommendations.

Darlene Rotchford: But would it be fair to also say that in 2018 dash cameras maybe weren’t as accessible and utilized, when that report potentially came out?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Potentially — absolutely. I mean, they’ve definitely improved what happens with dashcams. Another thing you could say is that if you’re requiring all businesses to have dashcams, maybe there’s something that…. Maybe it’s an accident or heavy breaking — something that prompts the dashcam to turn on so that it’s not constantly running.

What you say makes sense in terms of the…. The technology has improved with dashcams, so maybe there are better ways to minimize the privacy burden on how they’re implemented.

Susie Chant: I wonder what the court admissibility of dashcam information now, specifically I guess around commercial vehicles…. I’m sure there are commercial vehicles out there already that carry dashcam info.

Do we know anything about how it plays out in court?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: I actually couldn’t speak to that. I’m sorry. I’m more focused on the collection and the use of the information, but in terms of its admissibility in court, I wouldn’t want to speak to that.

Susie Chant: Okay, very good. Thank you.

Hon Chan: I just want to follow up on…. There are many organizations or even commercial vehicles, including, of course, some buses, taxis or TransLink and Transit B.C. They all have dashcams on board, in fact multiple cameras at different angles. How do they deal with the information that they collect?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Thank you for asking that question.

I think one of the major concerns raised by this particular bill is the scope of the collection. Having every commercial vehicle constantly collecting across the province is quite alarming.

When you think about those buses, in those situations, you would assume that there has been assessment done, that there are safety considerations, and they’re targeted and are there for a purpose.

It’s sort of like when you think about law enforcement and law enforcement’s use of cameras. In those cases, the cameras are put up in an evidence-based way. They’ve determined that there’s a problem in a certain area and that the cameras are going to help those problems. There’s limited access. It’s already established how those cameras are going to be used, and it’s transparent how those cameras are going to be used. There’s notice to those people that are being impacted by the camera.

When you get on the bus, you know that there’s a camera on there, and there are protections and guardrails in place. There are a lot of policies and processes set up in advance of those cameras going into buses that set the guardrails and the protections.

[8:50 a.m.]

There are clear purposes tied to the mandate. You want to ensure those riders on the vehicles, the riders and the drivers, are safe, and they’ve determined that those cameras in those specific circumstances are helping with that mandate.

Amna Shah (Chair): I have a question, and you’ll have to pardon my ignorance.

and there are clear purposes tied to the mandate. You want to ensure those riders on the vehicles, the riders and the drivers, are safe, and they’ve determined that those cameras in those specific circumstances are helping with that mandate.

Amna Shah (Chair): I have a question, and you’ll have to pardon my ignorance on some of the subject matter here.

The language in this bill…. Would you say that it would be consistent with privacy or inconsistent with privacy laws? I’m just wondering if someone was to challenge it, whether that’s a possibility. I know maybe you can’t comment on hypotheticals, but is that consistent?

I understand that in the past there may have been companies or agencies that have tried to explore the option and have chosen not to continue on, but maybe that was a consideration. I don’t know.

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: One of the situations in the Personal Information Protection Act is…. Consent is the primary way you can collect information, but another way is if it’s clearly authorized by a statute, if it’s clearly authorized by a law — so if an alternative law sets out that that collection can happen.

With this law, I think it’s not necessarily specific enough collecting. It’s not specifically enough authorizing that collection, but, by implication, it probably is. But my recommendation in that space is as soon as you’re using a law to authorize something, you want to be as clear and transparent as you can. I mean, the purpose of it is to make sure that citizens understand what’s happening. If the bill wants to have widespread collection, it needs to be really clear that that’s what it’s authorizing.

Amna Shah (Chair): I see that we are at time, but if the committee would like to continue a couple more questions…. Yeah. Okay.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): If I may, just one more question, Jeannette.

One of the conversations that has been ongoing around this is around provincial versus national standards. Can you just help us understand, to your knowledge, what the state of the conversation is at a national level around the privacy implications of dashboard cameras?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: Yeah, sure. I can’t actually speak to what the laws are and other practices specifically with respect to dashcams, but I can speak to surveillance more broadly.

The privacy laws across the country are based on accepted privacy best practices and international privacy principles, things like minimizing collection and being very specific about purpose and providing notice. All those principles that I spoke about in terms of what you want if you are deploying surveillance are going to be the same across the country.

Susie Chant: Can I just follow up on Gavin’s question? Is there anything at the federal level that is looking at dashboard cams? Do you know?

Jeannette Van Den Bulk: I don’t know that. I’m sorry.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you so much, Deputy Commissioner Van Den Bulk. We appreciate your time and the knowledge you’ve imparted on us.

We now have a presentation online, so we will take two minutes of recess to get them online.

The committee recessed from 8:53 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.

[8:55 a.m.]

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back.

Our next presentation is from the Western Professional Truckers Association. We are joined by Ron Basi, Neil Verrault and Larry James Hall. Welcome to all of you.

As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee.

The committee resumed at 8:55 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Our next presentation is from the Western Professional Truckers Association. We are joined by Ron Basi, Neil Verrault and Larry James Hall. Welcome to all of you.

As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee followed by ten minutes for questions from committee members and you will see or you should see a timer on your screen to help assist you with timekeeping.

We are ready whenever you are and thank you in advance.

Western Professional
Truckers Association

Larry James Hall: Larry James Hall here from the Western Professional Truckers Association. On behalf of the association, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

We can offer support for this bill as long as it’s forward-facing video and does not require audio recording nor subscription-based services to be mandated in unison. The WPTA feels that dash cameras are already widely adopted in use within the industry and therefore pose no significant disadvantage to anyone involved.

With that said, I’d like to draw your attention to our concern for the seemingly endless drafting of rules and regulations to combat poor driver behaviour, mandatory dash cameras just being the latest. The transportation industry has experienced exponential growth over the past three decades, and unfortunately, the ability to police the industry has not been able to keep pace with that growth.

While good folks like you craft legislation with the best intentions, some basic facts remain at the forefront of our minds. Mandating dash cameras is a reactive measure rather than a proactive measure. And you can’t rule the unruly with more rules. So what then stands in the way of safe roads? Why are roads so dangerous?

We propose that the regulatory processes have a long history of addressing the symptoms and not putting enough focus on the root causes, which have long plagued our industry. We believe that it is long overdue to redirect our energy and put the focus where it belongs. Poorly trained drivers are the byproduct of poorly run driving schools. Poor drivers are hired by poorly run carriers. And poor carriers are the byproduct of a poorly structured system.

The Western Professional Truckers Association cares about road safety, and I do apologize that this segue seems to be off track from the subject matter. However, I assure you that there is far too much connective tissue between the lack of road safety and the causation to be ignored. The need for dash cameras is a forensic tool.

We need to get in front of the issues instead of continually being behind them. There are solutions, and we are here to offer our boards collective 500 years of knowledge and expertise in the commercial transportation sector because we care.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. We can now move to questions. As a reminder, we have a little bit more than ten minutes, I suppose. Are there any questions?

Susie Chant: Thanks very much for your presentation. It’s appreciated.

I wonder. You indicated that many trucks already have dashcams in place. And when those are in place, what are the benefits from that, please? What kind of benefits do drivers feel it gives them?

Ron Basi: I could answer that, Larry.

Larry James Hall: Go ahead, Ron.

Ron Basi: Well, the benefit it gives the drivers is exoneration or bad driving habits from the general public. It sort of takes away the cause being blamed on solely one party of the other for an accident. The other benefit it gives the drivers is that they don’t have to continually talk about how tough traffic or road conditions or lack of good road conditions are. They could see it, and they could show it. We could watch it, and go off from there.

[9:00 a.m.]

But as Larry said, dashcams are a plus. And in fact, at a lot of carriers, including my company, we’ve implemented them already. Another thing you’ll find is that I put a sign up on one of my trucks saying that this vehicle is dashcam equipped on all four sides. I asked the driver if anyone drove anyone and drove differently around him. He said

my company, we’ve implemented them already.

Another thing you’ll find is…. I put a sign up on one of my trucks saying: “This vehicle is dashcam equipped on all four sides.” I asked the driver if anyone drove differently around him, and he said: “Yes, nobody wanted to stay close to me or beside me.” So just the fact that other road users recognize that there are dashcams out there, it adjusts and changes their driving habits as well. Now road users know that there’s always going to be some evidence of someone watching them.

Amna Shah (Chair): Do you have a follow-up?

Susie Chant: I do have a follow-up.

In terms of, for instance, something going to court, have you been in a position where dashcam evidence has gone to court, and what was the acceptance of it at that point?

Ron Basi: Neil, you have a good story.

Neil Verrault: Morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

We personally haven’t been involved in a court incident. In the industry, we try to avoid that, obviously, right?

The dashcams tell the story in the moment. There was a horrific crash on the 5A, where a passenger vehicle crossed and collided with a pipelayer going the other direction. The footage was immediately viewed by the RCMP, and it was obvious that the trucking company was in no way or shape involved. It was the pilot truck’s footage that showed it. It was not a courtroom setting but probably something a little more even relevant. It was in the moment, and RCMP were able to allow the company to carry on and then deal with the tragedy aftermath.

But in terms of court, fortunately, our company hasn’t had any experience in that area.

Susie Chant: Very good. Thank you.

Hon Chan: Thank you again for the presentation. It’s just kind of heartbreaking when I hear. Why are our roads so dangerous now? But anyway, we are tackling that, hopefully.

You mentioned it is widely used. I just want to know how widely. Do you know? In the industry, is it that most companies have it, almost half of the companies would use it?

Also, in your capacity, you mentioned it is already implemented. Can you tell us how you guys implement it? Do you guys put it in all of your trucks, and then you guys keep the data in case something comes up, and then you guys provide the data to the authorities? How do you guys work that out?

Ron Basi: Again, I could answer a quick little one on that. One of my customers is Sysco foods. In North America, they have 33,000 employees. They implemented a policy of putting dashcams on all their vehicles, and the only time the footage would be reviewed or recalled is in the event of an incident which would require it.

In some jurisdictions, there have been insurance benefits to have a dashcam — in the States. We haven’t had that privilege up here. It’s just been that it’s the prudent thing to do, to put one into your own fleet up here. I can’t talk for all the companies that I don’t know, but just locally here, that is a good example.

They’re wired into the vehicle. As soon as the vehicle turns on, they’re recording. Some of them even record when the vehicle is shut off. Again, this just gives added security measures for the equipment when the driver is not near the vehicle.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks for joining us today. In your written submission, you mentioned a lack of training for individual drivers, which I understand we need to address in some other way outside of the scope.

You also mentioned enforcement. There are 14 pages of charges in the Motor Vehicle Act, and we’re looking at some more in this committee later, to add for reckless driving. But you said there’s lack of ability to enforce them.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts about — this is enforcement after the fact — collecting this data. Does that not lead to…? I don’t know if you call it enforcement after, but when charges are laid or evidence is given, that would seem to me to be a form of enforcement. Do you see it that way?

[9:05 a.m.]

Larry James Hall: If I were to speak to that, I would say that it’s too little too late all the time. If we’re looking to create safe roads, we’re going to have to get in front of this carnage instead of behind it, and always trying to figure out who

Larry James Hall: If I were to speak to that, I would say that it’s too little, too late all the time. If we’re looking to create safe roads, we’re going to have to get in front of this carnage instead of behind it and always trying to figure out who, what, where and why.

Our industry has been inundated with people that are using the industry as a.... It’s become an industry amongst itself in importing labour and using that to exploit the industry and the people in it. And also the immigrants that are paying to come here, using it as a springboard to permanent residency, the problem being that they are being exploited.

They have no intention of staying in the industry. They’re using it for their permanent resident status. They put up with a really shoddy work environment, and they do it for a couple of years at a time and then move on once they get their status.

We have a big problem with a perpetual revolving door, if you see what I’m saying here, in regards to labour. We can’t seem to keep the people in the industry that we have in the industry and improve their game. That is a big, big problem.

George Chow: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned — I think it was Ron — that you put cameras on the side, and you put a sign, and the drivers will actually take note and not be so close to the truck. But what about using a camera to help the driver, particularly in a turn in an urban area? I think we have certainly encountered a few of the accidents whereby the pedestrians were drawn into the wheels.

Is the industry — this is kind of not on this subject — using cameras to help that situation, a camera mounted on the truck so the driver could actually see what the back is doing?

Ron Basi: If I could answer that. Technology is changing all the time to make those cameras available for that. But currently there’s nothing in place, because when a truck does turn, it turns at more than a 90-degree angle. The cameras could only give a fish-eye version in terms of a view. The same effect is attained with mirrors, wide-angle mirrors and things like that. Really, it’s just one more thing to....

I call it taking the skill level out of the driving ability. A good driver could perform everything safely if they were trained properly, without having more technology to do it for them. It just gives the drivers a false sense of security. If the camera was obscured or failed to work, can they still make the turn — that type of thing? They aren’t popular, and they’re not very prevalent right now in trucking communities.

Darlene Rotchford: I have a couple of questions. The first one is: are you guys just primarily in B.C., or do you cover Alberta as well?

Larry James Hall: Our association is wide open. We have members across the country as far back as Ottawa. However, it is primarily British Columbia.

Darlene Rotchford: Okay, that helps me with my next question.

Part of the question that was flagged for this bill, as well, is that if you have trucks going between the provinces, could there be an issue of not making and supporting this at a federal regulatory level? And would that be a better place to serve this on a provincial level?

I’m just wondering what your thoughts would be around that?

Larry James Hall: Right. As we discussed it amongst ourselves, we haven’t seen it as being a big problem.

Somebody on your panel has already asked what the percentage would be, and it’s a very high percentage that are already using dash cameras as part of their own defence mechanism in these companies wanting to know that in the event of an incident: what was their driver doing, and what was the cause of the accident, and are there conflicting stories? What is the truth?

[9:10 a.m.]

That said, I’m only guessing, but I would have to say 99 percent of the big fleets are using them, and at least 75 percent of the smaller fleets would be using them. I don’t know if it needs to be mandated, but I do

I’m only guessing, but I would have to say 99 percent of the big fleets are using them, and I would say at least 75 percent of the smaller fleets would be using them.

So I don’t know if it needs to be mandated, but I do believe that we need to have a bigger discussion in regard to this.

Darlene Rotchford: And I have one more.

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah, a follow-up.

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah. So just one point of clarification. You guys said at the beginning, and I missed it, you’d be supportive of forward-facing — however, no audio. And then there were two other things that I missed.

Interjection.

Darlene Rotchford: Never mind. The committee gave me the answer, so thank you. You get a pass. Thank you for answering my questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): I do recognize we’re out of time, but we’ll continue with a couple more questions.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I think what I’m hearing from you in your presentation and some of the general statistics you’ve provided us with is that most good operators are already using cameras.

Based on anything you can quantify or even a qualitative assessment, is it fair to say that there is a correlation between what could be characterized as bad actors in the industry and a failure to use cameras? And to that end, would a mandate for cameras help to ensure that late adopters actually do come to the table and use cameras when the majority of the industry is already doing so?

L. Hall: I can give you my own personal experience with this, and I shared this with MLA Ward Stamer when I talked to him about this bill.

I was an early adopter. I bought a very expensive camera setup in the early 2000s, I believe, cameras all over the place. The first thing I noticed for the first two weeks was that I really was on my game when I realized that all of my own actions were going to be judged as well as those around me.

Then it became very much like a backup alarm. If you’re working on a construction site, you hear them all day long, “Beep, beep, beep,” and you become numb to them. So you become numb to the camera being in the cab, as well, and you just eventually go back to driving however you normally drive.

So I personally don’t believe that it’s anything more than a short-lived improvement in driver behaviour unless it’s being audited.

Amna Shah (Chair): Suzy, and then I have one last question.

Susie Chant: So this bill…. The wording is Commercial Vehicles Act. So if you were to describe the group that’s within the professional truckers realm, how would you differentiate that group? Is it a gross vehicle weight? Or how do you differentiate that group of people versus somebody who’s delivering dry cleaning in a panel van?

L. Hall: That’s a great question, because that came up in our own discussions. Typically, when we’re talking commercial vehicles, the chatter is, generally speaking, vehicles 5,500 kilograms and above. But yes, couriers and everybody else are commercial vehicles, regardless of their licence weight. And of course, it’s going to be up to you folks to decide who is going to fall into these categories, right?

I know that this bill was brought forward because of large commercial vehicles in the North Kamloops area and their horrible behaviour. So hopefully, I’ve answered your question then.

Susie Chant: Yeah, that’s perfect. Thank you so much.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much. I actually have two short questions. We heard from a previous presenter who was from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner about some privacy concerns around the retrieval of footage from these cameras.

I noticed in your presentation you mentioned, for example, when conditions are bad on roads, one of the benefits is you can actually see it from the feed. So I’m wondering. What are the circumstances in which you would access camera footage, typically for what purpose?

[9:15 a.m.]

I think that’s kind of where the concerns were arising from, for usage beyond the purposes of safety and accountability and also, potentially, maybe bad actors using footage

the concerns were arising from — for usage beyond the purposes of safety and accountability and also potentially, you know, maybe bad actors using footage for reasons that go beyond safety.

I was hoping you could comment on that.

Ron Basi: Well, I’ve got a quick comment on that. Just lately, we’ve had quite the challenging road conditions. It’s come up that the snow removal from the highway contractors hasn’t met expectations or past performance levels. You see vehicles having issues navigating roads because the roads aren’t clear.

Well, an accident happens, and then it has to be investigated. And you could say: “Well, well, look at this. Here’s a time-stamp, and here’s how long it’s been like this.” So it could be used for that — to monitor the performance of highway contractors whose job it is to keep the roads safe by road clearing as well.

Also for security issues as well. Like, whenever there’s an incident, whether it’s property or crime or anything like that, law enforcement will always appeal to the public for any dashcam footage. And a lot of these cameras are recording all the time. So when you have vehicles parked, the public really doesn’t know how many of these vehicles, like a Tesla, are continually recording, whether there’s someone in the vehicle and the vehicle’s off or not. So those kind of things as well.

But the privacy issue is a big thing and things like: who could ask to see the footage? Is it mandatory or is it voluntary? Like, could you be pulled over in a roadside inspection and be asked by a commercial vehicle safety enforcement officer: “I want to see your dashcam to see how you were driving”? Is that going to be one of the questions that are going to be out there?

And what are the consequences for not having a dashcam? Okay, if it’s put in place, it’s legislated, is there going to be a fine or is it going to be, oh, well, you don’t go out of the city, so you don’t need one. Again, how is it going to be enforceable? With a fine? Or is it going to be a carrot instead? Like, here’s a break on your insurance if you do have a dashcam. So those are just some questions.

And how much storage should a dashcam have? Would you like it to record for 24 hours, 64 hours, a week? That’s one of the other things. Dashcams come in many different styles.

A dashcam isn’t going to stop an overhead strike of an overpass or poor drivers, but a dashcam is going to make drivers more accountable if it is monitored by somebody. So again, how do we measure this? Just like speed enforcers. You know, the 105-kilometre limit for speed enforcers was put in commercial vehicles a few years ago now. And we’d like to see some record. Okay, how has it improved our safety on our highways? The numbers have to be out there somewhere.

Once something’s put in, it has to be monitored and evaluated on if is it working and what effects has it had.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you. That gives us a lot to ponder.

And one quick last question. You mentioned that subscription-based service is a no go. Could you maybe just briefly expand on what you mean by that? I’m assuming it has something related to cost or being confined to a specific program, etc. Yeah.

Larry James Hall: Sure. We have currently got mandated electronic logging devices in the trucks. Some of those ELDs, as they’re called, offer video recording as part of the unit.

The trouble with those systems is the added cost. It’s literally in excess of $100 a month per vehicle to add this video stuff to the system. So our concern is that not everybody has the ability to do that through their ELD.

[9:20 a.m.]

When you can go to the store and buy a dash camera for a one-time purchase price, plug it into your cigarette lighter and it works and it records for a period of time, it hits you a one-time cost. And we feel that the cost is affordable.

However, a subscription-based service which costs you $1200 or

plug it into your cigarette lighter, and it works, and it records for a period of time. It’s a one-time cost, and we feel that the cost is affordable.

However, a subscription-based service which costs you $1,200 or $1,800 a year across the board…. Just as an example, I believe there are over 64,000 commercial vehicles licensed in the province of British Columbia. That’s a lot of money for people that don’t have any skin in our game.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you all so much for being here today. I really appreciate your time and your knowledge on this issue.

Ron Basi: Well, thank you for having us.

Larry James Hall: If I could just say one quick thing to the panel. Please, feel free to reach out to us for any additional information. It’s our own mandate to find road safety, not only in the province of British Columbia but beyond. If there’s anything at all that we can do, we’re here to help.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your day.

All right, Members. Just as we get lined up for our next presenters, we’ll take a one-minute recess. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 9:21 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): We are back. Our next presenter is from Go Team Professional Training Ltd., and we are joined by Laurie Dillman.

Welcome, Laurie, to the committee. As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee, followed by ten minutes of questions from committee members. I hope you can see the timer that is on the screen to assist you with timing. We are certainly ready when you are.

Go Team Professional Training

Laurie Dillman: All right. Thank you for your time, everyone. I appreciate this.

I just want to start by saying that I respect that dash cameras can share information. In fact, many are in use today by transportation employers, those that we serve, to protect their drivers from false claims and to prove cause for insurance claims.

However, I do believe that this bill is based on at least two false assumptions: that drivers will respect the cameras and drive appropriately, when this is simply not the case, as we have seen from the sheer number of tickets that are handed out through cameras that are in intersections and such; and the second is that driving is a right, not a privilege. We see that somehow as “everyone deserves a driver’s licence or should have a driver’s licence.” It’s a privilege, not a right.

[9:25 a.m.]

I believe that there are better courses of action, which would include higher training standards for drivers, identifying psychological indicators, including risk-taking behaviours of

somehow as everyone deserves a driver’s licence or should have a driver’s licence, and it’s a privilege, not a right.

I believe that there are better courses of action which would include higher training standards for drivers and identifying psychological indicators, including risk-taking behaviours of drivers, and higher standards for driving instructors.

I’m happy to give specifics on each one of these better courses of action or answer any of your questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): Would you like to maybe just give us some examples?

Laurie Dillman: Sure. With the higher training standards for drivers, on a daily basis, Go Team Professional Training, we’ve trained at least four to five people per day, commercial drivers. We’ve trained more than 900 people across British Columbia from all classes of licence, from class 1, class 2, class 3, class 4. Let me just correct that — all classes of commercial licences.

We know and we recognize that the higher training standards…. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than what is required as through our partnership with ICBC. We do notice that people who have had training, some formal training as a new driver…. Whether it’s graduated licensing or from a training school, from an instructor, we notice the difference immediately with those people when we start to train them in the commercial vehicles. Their spatial recognition, their observation, those types of things — it’s night and day.

When folks don’t have training and they come in to get their commercial licence, we spend a lot more time. It’s almost twice the amount of time getting them up to speed, just to the basics. Before we can even teach them how to operate that commercial vehicle, we’ve got to work on the basic skills.

Two, identifying psychological indicators, including risk-taking behaviours. Research shows that the average commercial driver makes between 12 and 1,600 decisions per hour. This is significant.

They’re not just driving for themselves as well. Lots of people think that they’re just at the wheel, but they’re doing so many different things while they’re there. They’re making decisions, reading signs, and they’re checking their gauges. If they’re in a standard vehicle, they’re shifting their vehicle.

So yeah, identifying psychological indicators like risk-taking behaviours. We’ve had folks that come in to do their training, and they already like to speed. They don’t see any significance. They don’t see their licence as a privilege, not as a right.

These types of behaviours, we need to take a look at these before we give these folks and train…. You know, provide them some support and training on what these behaviours can lead to. I think that there needs to be a lot more with that.

Then the higher standards for driving instructors, part 3. Right now — and you can look on the ICBC website — to become a driver-training instructor for class 5, you need to have only held a class 5 licence for three years and be able to pass a criminal record check. This is what we expect of our driving instructors for class 5.

For class 1 in commercial licences, you need to have only held a commercial class 1 licence for three years — no experience, no anything. These are the folks that are training the people to drive in our province. Not saying that everyone is, because our team has quite a bit more significant training and education when it comes to commercial driving.

Those are some examples. I’m happy to take any questions that you may have.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great, thank you very much.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you for coming in and presenting. Really appreciate it. Those are certainly some very serious considerations.

I have two questions. I’ll start with the first. Everything that you flagged are certainly areas of concern. They’re not necessarily in the scope of this bill, but they’re worthwhile conversations.

I wonder if you could help me understand a little bit more whether you believe that dashcams would help to address some of the risks created by the situation you’ve just described.

[9:30 a.m.]

Laurie Dillman: I believe that dashcams…. I don’t know. I don’t believe that dashcams will make people better drivers and be safer operating their

anLaurie Dillman: I believe that dashcams…. I don’t know. I don’t believe that dashcams will make people better drivers…

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I think that’s a….

Laurie Dillman: …and be safer operating their vehicles. I don’t believe it, no.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Do you believe that dashcams provide an opportunity for strengthened enforcement? And to that end, as you describe the concerns that you have and any changes that you’re talking about from a training perspective are forward-looking conversations around what training could look like, what certification could look like.

What I think this bill is geared toward in the immediate term is addressing the reality on the road today with the existing cohort of operators, drivers, etc.

I’m just trying to understand if what you envision from a strengthened training perspective were to be brought into force, would it not still make sense to ensure that we have dashcams as part of the enforcement regime for the existing cohort of truckers who are on the road today?

Laurie Dillman: Well I’m aware that there are many dash cameras in trucks. The enforcement…. What you speak about…. The enforcement of better, I suppose…. You know what? I believe that it could lead to better enforcement. However, the efforts that would take for that better enforcement, if that’s coming from ICBC…. They’re strained. Their team is strained. They provide very little support even for the training and development of new drivers in British Columbia. They do their best.

I don’t know. There could be a place for it, but I do believe that it’s expensive and that we likely don’t have the manpower to utilize it for enforcement the way you want to do. Yeah. That’s it, sorry.

Susie Chant: When you’re doing your training…. First, I guess I got a couple of questions.

First off, are you, as a training…. Do you have the discretion to screen people out if, not necessarily that they pass or fail, but if you feel that they’re going to be, potentially, a problem on the road?

Laurie Dillman: We have those conversations with employers, yeah. We have that discretion to do that. And we have done that. But there are other schools involved, and there are other…. It becomes a business for some companies and putting folks through so that they can earn a dollar might be one of those indicators.

But for us, for Go Team, yes, we definitely have that discretion, whether it’s competency-based training, if they can or can’t do it. At the end of the day ICBC decides. When they do their driver road test. ICBC is the final factor. It’s a third party assessment, and they will decide whether that person is eligible to have a licence.

Susie Chant: Okay. My follow-up was just in terms of dashcams, is there anywhere that recommends or that says to employers: “You should have a dashcam in your truck”? Is that part of a training component that just says: “A useful tool is a dash cam”? Is there anything of that nature, out of curiosity?

Laurie Dillman: In division 27, it’s illegal for commercial driving schools to have dash cameras because of the Privacy Act. We are not allowed to use dash, have them turned on when we’re training.

Susie Chant: Now, that’s really interesting. Thank you so much. That’s new information to me for sure. Interesting.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions from members? All right.

Seeing none, thank you so much, Laurie, for being here today and spending your time with us. I wish you an incredible day ahead.

Laurie Dillman: Thank you, Jennifer. You’re welcome. Everyone else, thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you. Bye.

And as we get set up for our next presenters, we will take a one-minute recess.

The committee recessed at 9:35 a.m.

Amna Shah (Chair): And as we get set up for next presenters, we will take a one-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 9:35 a.m. to 9:37 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, everyone. Our next presentation is from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, and we’re joined by Executive Director and Registrar Steve Haywood and Senior Legislative Director of Strategic Policy and Legislative Branch Brad Gerhart. Welcome to you both. Thank you for joining us.

As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to committee, followed by ten minutes of questions from committee members. There is a timer ahead of you that will help you for timekeeping purposes. You can go ahead whenever you’re ready.

Brad Gerhart: My name is Brad Gerhart, and I am the senior legislative director and joining me today is Steve Haywood, executive director and registrar, commercial vehicle safety and enforcement. We are here on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to speak to this bill.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit is responsible for building and maintaining B.C.’s transportation system. This includes ensuring the safety of all vehicle standards and rules for all road users. The safety of all road users is our top priority. We look for ways to improve the legislative and regulatory framework, including the feasibility and desirability of the use of dashboard cameras by commercial motor vehicle drivers.

We have carefully considered the bill and have identified policy and legal considerations that may be of interest to the committee.

First, the bill requires dashboard cameras to be used in commercial vehicles as defined in the Commercial Transport Act. It is important to note that the definition includes a vehicle’s physical characteristics, not whether it is used for any commercial purposes. Similar pickup trucks used solely for personal purposes are considered commercial vehicles. For example, a Ford F-150 used solely for personal driving and never for business reasons is a commercial vehicle and is therefore captured by the bill. Taxi, ride hail, ambulances, road, building machines and tractors are also captured. As the bill is currently written, all of these vehicles would be required to have dashboard cameras, which in the ministry’s view is too far-reaching.

Second, commercial motor vehicle standards are a shared responsibility between the federal government, as regulated by Transport Canada, and by each province and territory. The national safety code establishes guidelines for all provinces to follow because carriers regularly cross borders. Federal standards are developed through interprovincial working groups, notably the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. The council has recently been mandated to examine dashboard camera use in Canada as directed by the council of ministers for transportation, for which Minister Farnworth is currently co-chair.

[9:40 a.m.]

The council will be examining the desirability and feasibility of national standards for the use of dashboard cameras by commercial motor vehicle drivers. This process may result in the development of best practices for provinces to adopt and the development of national standards by Transport Canada. The ministry strongly recommends that the

The council will be examining the desirability and feasibility of national standards for the use of dashboard cameras by commercial motor vehicle drivers. This process may result in the development of best practices for provinces to adopt and the development of national standards by Transport Canada.

The ministry strongly recommends that the council complete its work before B.C. or any other province enacts legislation that makes dashboard cameras mandatory.

Third, dashboard cameras raise privacy issues that could lead to Charter challenges. This issue could also preclude the ability to use recordings for evidentiary purposes, which appears to be a key reason for requiring dashboard cameras.

Fourth, changes like this require industry consultation, so all aspects can be carefully assessed. The cost of installing and maintaining a dashboard camera is estimated to be in the range of $1,500 per vehicle, depending on requirements. There are approximately 160,000 commercial motor vehicles licensed in the province. The average carrier with four vehicles could incur $6,000 in new costs.

Fifth, the bill has other issues that would prevent it from having the intended effect. For example, there are no robust requirements in place for prohibiting dashboard camera tampering, which are essential for compliance and enforcement, nor where the camera is to be placed, what the field of vision is, what the resolution requirements are and what the storage requirements are. The six-month coming-into-force date is also insufficient time for far-reaching changes like this to be made.

I want to conclude by recognizing that while dashboard cameras are voluntarily used by many commercial carriers to help with driver issues, incident investigation and training, we are not aware of any current research showing that dashboard cameras directly reduce crashes at a statistically significant level. This is not to say that the benefits may not be great, just that those benefits have not been studied enough to directly say that dashboard cameras themselves reduce crashes.

Given the above considerations and recent federal developments, the ministry recommends to the committee that the bill not proceed as drafted.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation. Now we will start with questions, with Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Brad. I’m trying to figure out where you’re finding $1,500 dashcams, because on the market, you can buy a very good dashcam for probably $100. I’m just trying to understand why the ministry thinks that dashcams cost more than ten times as much as they do on the open market.

Steve Haywood: Thank you, MLA, and good question.

There’s definitely a range of dash cameras that are out there. Now, when we meet with industry and look at the dash cameras that are utilized….

I think we heard from one of the previous speakers that there are more all-encompassing dash cameras that are of great benefit to the industry. I would say the safe players or the safety-conscious portion of the industry want to invest in safety. They invest in the ones that are….

They’re hooked to the vehicle electronic control module. They’re there, working in conjunction with the ELDs. So they can check the video afterwards to then determine if the driver needs further follow up, and that’s done, usually, through AI. So all this cloud computing that’s there for the storage all plays a part in that.

Definitely Brad’s talking at the high end, where you’re looking at the full-meal-deal system. There are obviously the $30, $40, $50 cameras that you can have, but are those going to meet the needs of what we’re looking for?

I think whenever you look at legislation, you’re looking at that 80-20 rule, where 80 percent of the folks are going to be compliant. It’s the 20 percent that we want to make sure that we’re focusing the legislation on so that there aren’t loopholes for them.

Amna Shah (Chair): Follow-up?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Steve. I appreciate the explanation.

I’m sort of trying to reconcile what I’m hearing from Brad and from Steve.

I’m hearing you describe the functionality that is available with sophisticated dashcams and the potential that it holds to add to safety. And I’m hearing you tell us that we need legislation that addresses the 20 percent that have fallen short. I’ve just, respectfully….

Brad has just recommended against the legislation, and Steve has just made the case for the legislation. So could you help us understand where you’re actually coming from as a ministry?

Steve Haywood: Yes. I think Brad’s comments were about…. As drafted, we don’t think it should proceed. There’s a lot of work that can be done to make it a valid and useful piece of legislation.

I always worry about that 20 percent. If we look at somebody that purchases a black-and-white camera with minimal resolution and a field of view that captures a foot, that can technically meet the legislation as drafted right now.

[9:45 a.m.]

Those are the ones where we want to make sure that there is robust legislation, like the ELDs, like the speed limiters, like cargo securement.

The trucking industry is a highly regulated industry. It’s a very safety-conscious industry for the vast majority. It’s that legislation and those rules right across Canada and, in fact, right across North America that are designed to encompass all the vehicles.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Steve, I’m going to ask you….

like the ELDs, like the speed limiters, like cargo securement. The trucking industry is a highly-regulated industry. It’s a very safety conscious industry for the vast majority. It’s the legislation and those rules right across Canada and, in fact, right across North America that are designed to encompass all the vehicles.

Hon Chan: Thank you for your presentation.

First of all, I just want to know, you mentioned about commercial vehicles. Obviously, I mean, under this bill now, it captures almost everything that is even not being commercially used. So in your opinion, I understand many truckers, or not just truckers, but real commercial-use vehicles use weight as their distinguishment.

Can you tell us your opinion, if we want to amend it or just to make this bill better instead of capturing everything, what’s your take on that?

Brad Gerhart: I think it’d be worthwhile for the committee to look at similar legislation. Speed limiters, that legislation is focused on — sorry, I’m going off the top of my head — vehicles that have a licensed gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793 kilograms.

Hon Chan: Sorry, slow that know.

Brad Gerhart: That’s 11,793 kilograms, so it’s 26,000 pounds. Part of that harmonization across North America.

However, ELDs are anything with a licensed gross vehicle weight in excess of 11,793 kilograms. So ELDs are capturing medium size and large size. Speed limiters are really just capturing the large size. That’s the differentiation that we currently use.

Across Canada, there are different numbers. Like, 5,000 kilograms is generally what is used for the national safety code. ELDs in other jurisdictions are really set over 5,000. So we’re a bit of an outlier. But that 11,793 or 11,794, depending on whether you’re talking under or over, is really what we generally use as our benchmark, and then whether it’s the rating or the licensed gross vehicle weight.

Amna Shah (Chair): Do you have a follow up?

Hon Chan: Brad wants to answer.

Brad Gerhart: I just wanted to say there’s a definition in the Motor Vehicle Act of commercial motor vehicle, and it’s in section 118.94. That may be of use.

Hon Chan: Just a follow up.

You mentioned two numbers. The one that ELD is kind of mid to large-size, that number, and also 5,000 that was generally used nationally. What’s the difference between those two? What type of vehicles do they capture between those two?

Brad Gerhart: So 5,000 kilograms, in plain language, your Ford F-350, when it’s licensed, will probably reach that 5,000 mark. That’s really at the low end. Your 11,793 would be like your five-ton box truck or bigger.

For licensed GVW, when you get into the gross vehicle weight rating over 11,793, then you’re getting into the larger commercial vehicles.

Hon Chan: How about those Amazon delivery trucks?

Brad Gerhart: That would be in between. So between 5,000 and 11,793 generally.

Susie Chant: When you made your presentation, you spoke briefly and mentioned privacy concerns. Can you expand on that a wee bit please?

Brad Gerhart: It might be useful if the bill were to explicitly exclude inward facing, so voice and recording anything that’s going on inside of the motor vehicle. It’s also the issue of what it is recording outside of the commercial or vehicle. It’s a gathering of information from people that may or may not have consented to have provided that information or be participating in this process, in the recording, versus the road safety benefits.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Gentleman, thank you very much. You’re a fountain of knowledge, and you’re bringing some really excellent numbers and facts and stats for us.

Steve, I wanted to pull you out a little bit more around the appropriate parameters for dashboard cameras.

One of the reasonable amendments we might very well end up making to this bill is to provide a definition of dashboard camera that avoids the blurry black and white poor quality that you spoke to.

Without asking you to get too far down the rabbit hole, can you just walk us through how you would define dashboard camera for the purposes of this legislation in a way that is logical but also durable in the face of changing technology? What language would you suggest we use in order to properly define a dashboard camera to avoid those poor quality options?

[9:50 a.m.]

Steve Haywood: Good question, MLA.

I like to think that I’m…. I’d like to play a lawyer on TV at times, but I think that would be better suited for our Attorney General or legislative counsel to be really providing that. We provide the, you know, the instructions of what we want to see and then the legislative counsel is what writes the

Steve Haywood: Good question, MLA. I like to think that I’m, you know…. I like to play a lawyer on TV at times, but I think that would be better suited for Attorney General or legislative counsel to be really providing that. We provide the instructions of what we want to see, and then the legislative counsel is what writes the leg.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Steve, to be clear, I’m not looking for you to write the legislation, but I am looking to understand, because you’re clearly very knowledgable from a technical perspective.

Can you just walk us through, if you were approached, again, not from a legal drafting perspective, just from a technical specifications perspective…? Can you just help walk us through a little bit of the language that you might offer if you were approached by someone looking to draft legislation to define “dashboard camera” or the quality and functionality of dashboard camera in a way that you think would be appropriate to ensure that it’s of quality?

Steve Haywood: Yeah. First, I would focus with industry consultation, especially the makers of the cameras, to understand where the technology is nowadays, what the resolution power, what the field of view is, where on the windshield this should be placed, what are the current storage requirements that are needed for it, what happens if they break down.

This is something we had to spend a lot of time with ELDs on, ensuring that there is a backup system for ELDs available for when there is a malfunction. I think there’s a lot of those areas that you’d have to put into this bill just to make sure that not only the legislation but, then, the following regulation can make sure that it’s robust enough to ensure that it’s meeting the intention of the bill.

I’m sorry. I didn’t quite answer you fully, but….

Amna Shah (Chair): I have a question, and it has to do with a point that you made around Charter challenges or potential Charter challenges to dashboard cameras. I asked this question this morning with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I’m wondering if you could maybe expand on what you meant by that.

Brad Gerhart: The bill probably should provide clear authority and sets of circumstances where police can get access to the video footage. Also, the requirement for storage and maintenance of the record. In the absence of that, it creates the potential for Charter challenges unless those issues are very carefully considered and constructed.

The committee, I think, has the ability to refer drafting to the office of legislative counsel, if you desire, and that might be useful in this scenario to make sure it doesn’t have unintended consequences.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thank you.

Susie Chant: I did hear you say that currently, when you’re talking about cameras, storage can go to the cloud. There’s AI involved and so on. Is there any concern about where that data is going, like out of country as an example, which is things we’re fussing about these days?

Brad Gerhart: Yes, absolutely.

Susie Chant: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Are there any further questions?

Hon Chan: Do all…? Obviously, I’m guessing, all dashcams don’t always have to have a subscription. We actually heard from some industry representative it actually doesn’t want a subscription base.

How about locally stored? Have you heard about examples like that? Is that something that can be done as well? It doesn’t always have to be with AI.

Steve Haywood: Yeah, you can have local storage with the hard drive to house it, for sure.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Thank you both, Brad and Steve. I wish you an incredible day ahead.

And thanks, committee members. We will now take a 15-minute recess. One-five.

The committee recessed at 9:53 a.m.

[9:55 a.m.]

The committee resumed at 10:10 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back, everybody.

We will now move on to consideration of Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act. We are joined by the sponsor of the bill, MLA George Anderson.

Welcome,

The committee resumed at 10:10 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, everybody.

We will now move on to consideration of Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act. We are joined by the sponsor of the bill, MLA George Anderson.

Welcome, George. Thank you for being here.

As a reminder, you have up to 20 minutes for your presentation to the committee, followed by 20 minutes of questions from committee members. As you may already know, there is a timer on the screen to assist you. Please begin when you’re ready.

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act

George Anderson

George Anderson: Thank you, Committee Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak regarding this proposed bill and amendments that I will also be recommending.

The purpose of the Professional Reliance Act is straightforward. Across British Columbia, we are hearing consistent concerns from communities, professionals and those trying to build housing that the approval process can involve significant duplication of technical review.

In many cases, regulated professionals, engineers, architects and other qualified experts prepare detailed submissions confirming that a project complies with applicable bylaws, codes and technical requirements. Those professionals are licensed, regulated and accountable under the Professional Governance Act. Yet despite that expertise, the same technical work is often reviewed again through municipal processes, sometimes resulting in significant delays.

The intent of this legislation is to address that duplication while also ensuring that young people, seniors and every British Columbian have the opportunity to have access to affordable housing. The Professional Reliance Act allows municipalities to rely on the submissions prepared by qualified professionals while preserving the safeguards and planning authorities that already exist.

I want to emphasize something clearly at the outset. The Professional Reliance Act does not change the rules for what can be built. Municipal zoning bylaws remain unchanged. Official community plans remain unchanged. Development permit areas remain unchanged. Local governments will continue to make planning decisions about what is appropriate in their communities.

What this bill addresses is how technical compliance with those rules is confirmed once those rules are established. Since introducing this bill, I’ve heard thoughtful feedback from stakeholders and local governments. Those conversations have been constructive and valuable. As a result, I will be recommending various amendments that clarify accountability and strengthen oversight.

The amendments ensure that municipalities retain the ability to request peer review if concerns arise regarding a submission. They also enforce accountability of professionals operating within this framework.

In other words, the bill aims to strike a balance. It recognizes the expertise of regulated professionals, it maintains municipal planning authority, and it reduces unnecessary duplication that can slow the approval of projects that already meet the rules.

British Columbia already relies on professional expertise in many areas of this environment. Engineers design bridges and infrastructure. Architects design schools and hospitals. Those professionals operate within rigorous regulatory frameworks and are accountable for the work that they submit.

This particular bill reflects a simple principle that when qualified professionals confirm that a project complies with applicable rules, governments should be able to rely on that expertise while maintaining appropriate oversight. Ultimately, the goal is practical, to maintain the safeguards, respect municipal authority and ensure that unnecessary delays do not prevent projects that meet the rules from moving forward.

[10:15 a.m.]

That being said, I would like to give the committee a brief history of how this bill came to be, a consultation that I have done and, also, go through the recommended amendments for the bill.

The bill, as many of you will know, as you were there

brief history of how this bill came to be, consultation that I have done and also go through the recommended amendments for the bill.

The bill, as many of you will know as you were there, was introduced on October 21, 2025, and passed second reading on November 17, 2025. The bill sets out that municipalities are able to accept submissions from qualified professionals and assigns liability to the PGA professionals who make those submissions.

The intent of the bill is to provide affordable, efficient and a tested way to increase housing development in the province. Housing costs are high. Over 500,000 British Columbians are spending over 30 percent of their income on shelter costs, 669,450 British Columbians are renters, and housing developments are taking too long. I know that MLA Dew will love to hear this. Right now the most expensive material in construction is delay.

Local governments in British Columbia have already implemented professional reliance systems across the province. You can look to Vancouver, Burnaby, Nanaimo, Squamish, Esquimalt. I could continue going on and on. I would actually recommend that members of the committee type into Google “certified professional program B.C.” to see that this is already occurring across the province.

What I’m suggesting through this bill is that we allow the process to occur across the province — to allow for a standard, uniform system of what municipalities have already suggested is a good approach — and at the same time insulate local governments from liability.

I was a city councillor about a decade ago in Nanaimo. I also was a regional district director, and I have tremendous respect for local governments. Local governments are the ones who are on the ground. They’re talking to members of the community. They understand what’s needed in their communities, and that’s part of the reason that in the bill it states very clearly that local governments continue to maintain control over bylaws, zoning and official community plans. At the end of the day, local governments should be the ones who are designing what their communities look like.

Further, in my experience as a commercial lawyer, I have seen what happens when professionals submit work and things go wrong. I give an example of Danbrook One in Langford. I was one of the lawyers who worked on that case, who represented the local government. That local government did nothing wrong, in my opinion. Yet they are being taken along for a significant lawsuit. This bill, if implemented and becomes law, would actually insulate the city of Langford from further liability.

As we moved on after a second reading…. Well, actually prior to second reading, I spoke with many, many groups. I’ve appreciated the voluminous submissions that have been made on this particular bill. I appreciate all of the committee members who’ve taken the time to read the over 400 submissions that have been made. Thank you for that.

What I can say is that this is a non-partisan solution to housing. All of us in this Legislature need to be committed to finding solutions to speeding up the delivery of housing for everyday British Columbians.

When I left city council in 2014, the average price of a house in Nanaimo was $310,000. Today it’s $890,000.

[10:20 a.m.]

We have young people at UBC who are paying $3,100 a month for a place to rent. In downtown Vancouver, prices are high. In Prince George, prices are high. What I can say through my consultation with various stakeholders is that everyone agrees that the current approach to building in British Columbia

place to rent. In downtown Vancouver, prices are high. In Prince George, prices are high.

And what I can say, through my consultation with various stakeholders, is that everyone agrees that the current approach to building in British Columbia needs to be amended or fixed or improved to deliver housing faster. And I mention this because I’m going to highlight a couple of stakeholders from across the political spectrum who have come together to support this bill.

If we’re to consider the Urban Development Institute as being centre-right of the political spectrum…. They have come out to support this bill. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, which would be considered centre or centre-right, also supports this bill. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports the intent of this bill. The Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia supports the intent of this bill.

But then on the left side of the spectrum, you have Homes for Living; YYJ, which is an affordable housing advocacy group; Strong Towns; Abundant Housing. The various groups suggest that there needs to be work that’s done, and this bill is an opportunity to advance those issues.

And the letter from the Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Board of Trade acknowledges that Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey utilize certified professional programs for the issuance of building permits. They’ve made recommendations such as that the legislation should apply to Vancouver trade permits, sprinklers, plumbing and other permits coordinated with the Building Act.

Canadian Home Builders Association — 3.5 million additional homes needed by 2030 to restore affordability.

Homes for Living talked about the degree of inspections and verification that widely varies across the capital regional district.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business highlighted that this bill mirrors legislation that was passed in this House, Bill 15, which endorsed a professional reliance model for major projects.

So that being said, I’d like to move on to some of the recommendations that I have for this committee as they go through the bill. One is that a definition be added with respect to fire codes. That is a nod after a conversation I had with the International Association of Fire Fighters, who requested that it be explicitly clear that fire codes are not amended.

Further, “official community plan.” I recommend including that “official community plan” has the same meaning as in section 426 of the Local Government Act, which would essentially mean that it includes the city of Vancouver.

A further amendment would be to delete, in the definition section, the definition of “superintendent,” which says “superintendent means the superintendent appointed pursuant to section 4 of the Professional Governance Act.”

I’d look to add a further definition of “technical submission.”

For the committee members, I will give you a copy of this document for your review. I would just like to be able to speak to you and ensure that you are paying attention while I go through this.

But “technical submission,” meaning “drawings, plans, calculations, reports, specifications or technical documents that (a) are required for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the building code, fire code or other applicable enactments and are prepared and signed by a PGA professional acting within their area of practice or in accordance with the standard of their applicable regulator.”

If we were to move to clause 2, a small deletion, in the title, of “certified,” essentially removing the word “certified” from all of the entire bill, just striking it out.

[10:25 a.m.]

Clause 2 would read: “A local government must accept as meeting permit or bylaw requirements any submission by a PGA professional acting within their regulated scope of practice unless,” — which is a very key word that, as you would have gone through the submissions, as I have…. Many people seem to not read the word “unless.” But “unless” — and this is the change — “the local government determines that the submission is incomplete.”

That additional wording is added

“unless,” which is a very key word. As you would have gone through the submissions, as I have, many people seem to not read the word “unless.”

But “unless” — and this is the change — “the local government determines that the submission is incomplete.” That additional wording is added for clarification. It doesn’t change the substance of the clause, and my conversations with various local governments and various officials suggested that adding that additional language would make it clear.

I think if one is reading the sentence, “that a local government must accept” is the controlling part of the paragraph. But that being said, we always want to be as clear as possible, so I suggested that we add “local government.”

Sub (b). You formerly would have said “a complaint to the superintendent.” Striking that out and adding “the local government makes a complaint regarding the competence with which the submission was prepared to the regulatory body of the PGA professional who was responsible for preparing the submission….”

The intent of that clause was always to ensure that regulated professionals like engineers and architects are reviewing their work. I think most people would agree that it’s important for apples to be measured against apples and compared to apples. In the particular case of having someone who’s not an engineer reviewing that work, that would be an issue. But regardless, it should be, where a local government has an issue, that they make a complaint to the regulator regarding the competence of that particular professional.

Moving on to clause 3, it’s the resolution of dispute. That clause, I recommend, is deleted, as there is no discussion regarding the superintendent.

Moving on to what would be clause 4, peer review. This would be slightly amended: “That a local government may require a peer review of a submission by a PGA professional within ten days after the submission is made to the local government.” That is acknowledging some of the concern that various stakeholders have mentioned regarding the desire…. Ten business days is used for the purpose of legal sense for clarity. But it’s not that a peer review would have to be completed within ten days.

There would be clause 4(1)(2): “Subject to (2), if a local government does not require a peer review within the time frame specified in (1), the submission is deemed to have been accepted by the local government for the purposes of this act.”

Building codes. That’s to add at the end: “That nothing in this act affects the authority of the province with respect to the establishment of building codes and fire codes.”

At the end of the day, some very minor amendments that I think address some or many of the concerns that have been brought forward by members of the public and various industry professionals.

That being said, this bill has had a lot of attention. I think that’s positive, because at the end of the day, we want people participating in the democratic process. We want people to engage. My intent is not to have a bill that would move forward without amendment, but rather that we listen to industry, that we listen to professionals and say: “Hey, you know, you have some good ideas, so let’s hear what you have to say and let’s bring the best bill forward.” At the end of the day, British Columbians expect us to work together and to deliver results.

As I begin to conclude, I want to thank the members of the committee for the discussion that we’re about to have and the questions that you’ll raise regarding the review of the bill. I also want to thank you again for reviewing the voluminous submissions.

But I just want to say that legislation benefits from careful scrutiny, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in that process with the many stakeholders, from the regulators to industry professionals, because at the core, the objective of this bill is practical.

[10:30 a.m.]

We hear about delays in approvals of projects that are already complying with existing rules. Professionals who go to school, are regulated and pay insurance for the purposes of protecting the public interest believe we should trust their work.

I want to emphasize again that this bill does not change a single statute in British Columbia.

Professionals who go to school, are regulated and pay insurance for the purposes of protecting the public interest believe we should trust their work.

I want to emphasize again that this bill does not change a single statute in British Columbia. Municipal zoning bylaws remain in place, official community plans remain in place, development permit areas remain in place, and local governments will continue to make decisions over their communities.

I appreciate the committee’s time and engagement with the legislation, and I look forward to our conversations and questions regarding the clauses of this bill and the intent of it. That being said, thank you, Madam Chair. I am hopeful that we can find some opportunities to have a thoughtful conversation about how we deliver results for everyday British Columbians, young people, seniors and people looking for affordable housing.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thank you for your presentation, George.

Members, now we have 20 minutes for questions. Please indicate if you wish to speak, and I’ll put you on a list. We’ll start with Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): George, can you speak a little bit to the consultation that was undertaken both in the initial drafting of the bill and in your subsequent conversations leading toward the amendments that I believe you’re proposing?

Specifically, just for the purposes of my first of two questions, what consultation was undertaken with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, the office of the superintendent of professional governance or with regulatory bodies covered under the Professional Governance Act?

In reviewing the submissions made by each of those groups, they appear to have some fairly substantial concerns. So I just want to understand again what consultation was undertaken in the drafting of the bill and what subsequent conversations have happened between then and now.

George Anderson: Yes, and thank you very much for the opportunity and the question that you’ve asked.

First off, as I mentioned earlier on, the bill is inspired through my work as a municipal councillor. I was a city councillor and regional district director from 2011 to 2014, where I had to deal with various housing projects across a significant area and saw the issues that arise from delays in the local government process to issues developers had to face.

So as you’ll know, as we both were elected in October 2024, the order of precedence is that a hat is there and our names are drawn out. I believe I was number 12 on that list. From that time, I started talking about how I could come about providing a reasonable solution to dealing with housing issues or just issues that impact everyday British Columbians.

At the end of the day, this bill…. It’s not too often that government brings forward…. And I’m not government, because I’m just part of the government caucus as a private member. But it’s not too often that individuals, through the private members process, bring forward substantive ideas — substantive ideas that have no cost and actually save money. That was what my goal was.

To go on to your follow-up question or questions about consultation. Did I speak with the Ministry of Housing? Yes, I did speak to the Ministry of Housing regarding what I would like to be able to see in the sense of delivering affordable housing and results for seniors and young people and individuals who are seeing a housing market and the hope of owning a home completely out of reality.

Did I speak with the regulatory bodies? Yes. I’ve continued to speak with regulatory bodies. I’ve continued from speaking to individuals in practice to speaking to the regulatory bodies upon second reading and continuing to engage with them on how we can best make sure that this bill, if it can work, will actually deliver results and not create bottlenecks. Several of the amendments that I’m actually proposing to this committee come from my consultation with the regulatory bodies.

[10:35 a.m.]

Have I met with the superintendent? Yes, I have met with the superintendent, and I’ve had conversations. Part of my presentation from earlier is actually stating to you that the intent of the bill was always to have regulated professionals, such as an engineer or architect, respond to the work of an architect or engineer.

So in conclusion, yes, lots of consultation, many follow-up conversations. And again, the bill is modelled after a very

such as an engineer or architect and respond to the work of an architect or engineer.

So in conclusion, yes, lots of consultation, many follow-up conversations. And again, the bill is modelled after a very successful program that exists in British Columbia which is called the certified professional program in British Columbia.

Amna Shah (Chair): Do you have a follow-up?

Gavin Dew: I do, yes, thank you.

Much appreciated. Thank you for outlining that consultation, George. I appreciate that very much.

Obviously, this is a new process, this private member’s bill process, and you, like others early in the process, certainly are serving as guinea pigs to a process that is still working itself out. And I think that you can take a measure of pride in the fact that you have enlisted a significant conversation with the bill that you’ve moved forward.

As we review the submissions that have come in, there were 484 submissions of which 88 percent were opposed. In your opening remarks, you did mention the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade and the Urban Development Institute, neither of which submitted a submission through the process, so we do not formally have submissions from either of those groups.

You mentioned the city of Nanaimo, who are opposed; the regional district of Nanaimo, who are opposed; and the city of Langford, who are opposed. In fact, out of all of these submissions from municipalities and First Nations, 100 percent of the submissions we’ve received are opposed.

Can you help us to understand what you think municipalities and other stakeholders who appear to be opposed to the bill as it is currently structured…? What are they misunderstanding about the intent and effect of the bill? And in what ways through the amendments that you are proposing for somebody to move forward do you believe you’re going to be able to mitigate some of the opposition that has emerged through the bill?

George Anderson: Well, thank you, MLA Dew. What I can tell you is that young people are opposed to increasing housing prices. Seniors are opposed to the fact that municipalities have not created an environment that is streamlined enough to ensure that they can downsize into homes that will allow them to live a life with dignity.

I think of my niece and I think of my nephews. He’s going to be going off to UBC and won’t be able to find affordable housing.

So yes, did we enter government expecting that we would always have high praise? No. Often people come out and they say: “You know what?” People will say: “Hey, I’m upset.” It’s not too often that people come out and say: “Hey, you’ve done a great job.”

The role of government is to be able to lead and to provide solutions that actually provide results for people. So is there some opposition? I’ve seen it. I’ve heard the concerns, and that’s why I’ve gone to meet with them. I’ve gone to meet with them in good faith.

You’ll note the letter from Langford where I actually went and sat down with the mayor. Interestingly, he wasn’t on council when I was there helping lead the local government through a significant issue that related from the work of an engineer.

Again, I’m trying to create a solution where local governments are spending dollars on building sidewalks, buying parkland, rather than spending dollars on legal fees. I can tell you I would much rather be seeing dollars spent in that vein than seeing hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars.

That Danbrook One is potentially going to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Imagine what the city of Langford could’ve done with hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than going to legal fees.

I can tell you the only people who should be opposed to this bill right now are lawyers for the fact they might have less clients and the banks, because every month and year of delay are costs that are passed on to the end-user. That means young people who are looking for affordable housing.

So yes, is there some concern? I’ve heard them, and I’ve gone in good faith to address them, but I don’t think that just because there are some people who are saying that there are concerns that there are no ways to actually address the challenges.

What I would say is we are in the midst of a housing crisis. I don’t think anyone believes that the system that we have right now is creating more affordable housing. And if that is the case, we need to work harder and find solutions rather than saying there is nothing that can be done.

[10:40 a.m.]

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah, I have a twofold question. So the municipalities are concerned, because under Bill 44, they have concerns, right? With an extension of it, they’re saying they’re going to lose authority to plan their community. So under this bill, can you kind of elaborate

Darlene Rotchford: A couple of questions. The municipalities are concerned, because under Bill 44 they have concerns, right? So with an extension of it, they’re saying they’re going to lose authority to plan their community.

Under this bill, can you kind of elaborate how they maybe don’t have to have those concerns? And then can you still talk about how they’ll be involved in the planning approval process?

George Anderson: Yeah. Thank you very much for the question.

As I mentioned earlier, I have tremendous respect for people who choose to be in local government. They’re the ones who plan communities. They’re the ones who are delivering on-the-ground results. Here at the provincial level, the matters that we touch are a bit further away, and as you get to the federal level, they get even further away. There’s a reason why local government officials often have higher approval ratings than every level of government.

That being said, it’s very clear in this bill, in what you would see as clause 4, under no limitation, that nothing in this act limits a local government’s ability to establish zoning bylaws, development permit areas or official community plans. And that language was very purposeful for the fact that local governments need to be able to design their communities.

Yes, there is Bill 44 that was brought in under a government before I was elected. But what I’m saying is that when the political process is done, let’s build. This is a very technical piece of legislation that looks at one specific area.

Just because an engineer or architect submits their drawings or plans to a local government does not mean that a development is approved. It still requires the work of planners to review that work, to make suggestions, and as I’ve suggested with some of the amendments that I will circulate to all of you and give to the Clerk to circulate to you, they’ve suggested that they would like to see more peer reviews.

I’m saying sure, absolutely, but if you also consider the work of the regulators like AIBC, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, and engineers and geoscientists of British Columbia, they already have their own rules that tie to peer review.

I’m suggesting here, where you have individuals who are regulated for the purposes of protecting the public interest, that we trust them the first time, and if something goes wrong, then put that to the professional themselves.

Just to wrap up, because…. I believe your question was just: how will planning professionals still be involved? They will still be involved, and they will also be doing more high-level work. This bill does not touch upon reducing any work levels for planners in British Columbia.

Susie Chant: I’m probably going a little bit outside of the envelope, so bear with me.

The riding that I live in has creeks, lakes, ocean and multitudes of other natural disasters waiting to happen. One of the things that was expressed from my municipality is…. As an example, we’ve had houses slide into rivers and people die. We’ve had creeks leap over their banks, and people died. This is local knowledge stuff.

Again, I hear and respect what you had to say about planners. But sometimes the concern is — and how real this concern is, is another matter — that the professional person knows what they’re doing about building the building, engineering-wise, or designing the building, but what they don’t necessarily know about is where that building is going.

The other component of this is that we have a lot of buildings that were built 100 years ago in places you would never build now. Somebody comes along and says: “Okay, I want to drop my house and build again.” And I’m on a pre-established site that in this day and age — maybe that’s not the brightest of ideas.

My municipality is worried about that particular piece. Can you speak to it a little bit, please?

[10:45 a.m.]

George Anderson: Yeah. Thank you for the question.

This bill is short, quite short, and doesn’t amend a single statute in British Columbia. If anything, as a result of this bill, the

little bit, please?

George Anderson: Yeah. Thank you for the question.

This bill is short, quite short, and doesn’t amend a single statute in British Columbia. If anything, as a result of this bill, the standards are higher. The bill states, and if you also were to use the amendments that I’m discussing, that a local government must accept as meeting the permit or bylaw requirements any submission by a PGA professional acting within their regulated scope of practice, unless the local government deems the submission is incomplete.

It’s up to the local government to create a checklist and say: “These are the things that we require you to do before it’s done.” Again, geoscientists, all of these individuals are still going to do that work. No one is saying that environmental checks shouldn’t occur. I wouldn’t put forward a bill that would do that. What I’m saying is that we need to make sure that the processes that are in place are clear so that we can move forward.

We’ve mentioned houses sliding into rivers and oceans and so on. That’s happening under this current system right now. It’s happening under this current system right now, so to state that things will get worse...?

I have a lot of faith in our professionals. They’re individuals who go to school for significant periods of time — architects, engineers, professionals generally. Their entire livelihood depends on the work that they do and makes sure that they do it well. Because if they don’t, the punishment is pretty severe.

I can use an example again of Danbrook One in Langford where.... Here’s going to be a rhetorical question, but what do you think happened to the structural engineers in Danbrook One? It’s rhetorical. My apologies. It’s that they are no longer eligible to practise in British Columbia.

When people make significant mistakes in their profession that they are regulated under, there are real consequences. That’s what this bill states. If you are going to say as a professional, “Here is the work that I’m submitting,” and that relies upon serving the public interest, you’re going to be penalized.

I think this bill actually states to professionals: “You’d better think twice before you cut corners.” I would say to your local government that, yes.... I would say that.... Should they have concerns about environmental impacts? Absolutely. But this bill is not one that is going to increase environmental impacts.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you. I’ve actually put myself on the list, but I’m hoping the answers to this are very short.

George Anderson: My apologies, Madam Chair.

Amna Shah (Chair): No, no, because I think these are simple ones.

Currently, where is the certified professionals program used?

George Anderson: If you go to Google, you can see Nanaimo uses a certified professional program, Surrey, Burnaby, West Vancouver, Squamish — like, a lot of municipalities.

Amna Shah (Chair): So a number of...?

George Anderson: Yes.

Amna Shah (Chair): Okay, that’s wonderful.

Second question. Are you aware...? You’d mentioned that what this bill does is it addresses duplication of checks and approvals, because we rely on the certification and the expertise of the professionals that are doing the work.

Are you aware of any data from municipalities that shows approval rates for work that is submitted to a municipality that doesn’t have the certified professionals program and what that approval rate is? Or do they have data about how many applications of work were rejected in a given year?

George Anderson: I don’t have that particular information on me at this moment, but what I can tell you is the reason the certified professional program is established was to streamline and move building permits along faster. And I actually would just mention very quickly that even in Prince George, where the president of UBCM is from, they use professional reliance to move things along faster. It’s a proven model.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I couldn’t help but notice in some of your prior remarks that you were careful to delineate yourself or to distance yourself from Bill 44.

[10:50 a.m.]

It’s my sense that some of the municipal pushback against this bill might be cumulative frustration building on a series of different instances of housing legislation that municipalities feel is eroding their local control.

Can you just help me understand and clarify what you meant earlier about Bill 44? Do you believe Bill 44 is flawed? Do you

simple pushback against this bill might be cumulative frustration building on a series of different instances of housing legislation that municipalities feel is eroding their local control.

Can you just help me understand and clarify what you meant earlier about Bill 44? Do you believe Bill 44 is flawed? Do you believe that municipalities are opposed to Bill 44? Help me understand what you’re saying about Bill 44.

George Anderson: Happy to respond. I believe it was MLA Rotchford who brought up Bill 44, and I just….

Amna Shah (Chair): Sorry. I apologize, MLA Anderson. I would just remind members that questions are to be about the bill that is in front of us rather than seeking a sponsor’s opinion around other bills that may be present.

Interjection.

Amna Shah (Chair): Sure, but just a reminder, we have the Professional Reliance Act ahead of us.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

What I’m trying to understand is, again, we have a bill that has 88 percent opposition from 484 submissions. We have dozens of municipalities, including the municipalities that many people in this room represent, who have pushed back very actively on this bill, and the substance and content of their opposition appears, in many cases, to be rooted in a feeling that there has been an agglomeration, an accumulation of legislation that erodes municipal control over their own processes.

I’m simply trying to understand whether MLA Anderson, having brought forward this bill, having done extensive consultation with these groups, believes that the good intentions and the good work done in this bill are being conflated with some of the other legislation that has caused frustration among municipalities, hence my question about Bill 44, which he brought up.

George Anderson: All I can say is that the intent of this bill is to move housing approvals faster and ensure that we’re delivering results for British Columbians, young people, families. My generation has not been able to have housing that is affordable. At the end of the day, we need to be delivering results for everyday British Columbians so that their dream of owning a home can come back into reality.

I am proud for the fact that I went out and did that work, went out and communicated with stakeholders in good faith. I sent an email to all chairs, electoral area directors, mayors, councillors across the province, trying to engage with them on how we can deliver results.

If that is a problem, I think that we ought to go and talk to British Columbians and say: “Hey, do you think that the system is working right now, and do you want your government to try to find a way to work together to deliver results?” I think you’d hear a resounding “Yes” from everyday British Columbians, because housing prices are too high right now.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just recognizing that we are at time, however, I do have Hon and Jeremy on the list.

Hon Chan: Thank you, George, and thank you, Chair, for that opportunity.

I understand the intention of the bill, which I guess everybody in the chamber, elected officials wants to make sure the housing crisis is addressed. But I do have some similar questions with MLA Chant.

I’m just thinking different municipalities obviously have specifics to their building codes and stuff like that, and that depends on the geolocation of their cities. Some cities might have river, creek, ocean, and some have flats. Richmond is on a more…. It’s liquefied zoning. That’s what they use. And then in the Interior and the north, there will be different weather. The soil will be different.

I’m just thinking the expertise between the city’s professionals versus the PGA, which is obviously still licensed in B.C. I’m just questioning…. Maybe the local government would be more intended to use their own people, which is more specific to their own local area, so that they know their building codes more — and not just building codes.

That also draws my second question to the liability. I understand PGA has to…. In clause 7, it mentions that it will be liable for damages or stuff like that. But PGA…. Do they actually carry enough liability? Because when we talk about buildings, we’re not talking about millions of dollars, we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars of a building. And once it’s built, you can’t really tear that down or else it will be a really big construction problem.

[10:55 a.m.]

So can you answer those two questions if you can?

George Anderson: Could you repeat the first one? My apologies, sorry.

Hon Chan: Just more specific to now a PGA professional, which is licensed in B.C., versus the municipality’s own professional engineer.

can you answer those two questions if you can?

George Anderson: Could you repeat the first one? My apologies, sorry.

Hon Chan: Just more specific to now a PGA professional, which is licensed in B.C., versus the municipality’s own professional engineer.

George Anderson: If a local government wants to use their own professional, they can. Interestingly, through the certified professional program — I’d recommend taking a read of it — often the developer can hire the certified professional who ends up representing the municipality, and it’s the same person. So that already is happening. That’s why I mention Abbotsford, Squamish, the city of Vancouver, Surrey who are already doing this work. I’m really just trying to uplift the great work that local governments are already doing and saying: “Hey, local governments, you came up with a great idea. Let’s do this across the province.”

Your second question was about liability, correct? Do professionals hold liability insurance? Yes, they do. When you’re looking at…. I was a commercial litigator before I was elected. Well, technically, I still am a commercial litigator. I continue to pay my licensing fees. You have multiple parties who are involved in litigation. You’ll have architects. You’ll have engineers. You’ll have builders, developers. There’s a whole group of people who will be involved in that particular litigation.

What I’m saying is where local government relies upon the work of that professional, then they should not be sued. It should just be left to the PGA professionals who are involved in that particular litigation. So even in the case of a local government not being in the litigation, you’re still going to have insurance available from the engineers. You’re going to have insurance available from the architects. You’re going to have insurance available from the builders. That is in multi-million dollars.

Jeremy Valeriote: One quick one, and then I’ll try and pull together a second one quickly.

First of all, I just want to clarify. The certified professional program currently is engineers, geoscientists and architects. Is that correct?

George Anderson: Yes.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay. I’ll just try and frame this. I apologize. I’m still working this through in my mind, but I guess…. I’ve worked in this sector. I was an engineering consultant. The pressure to cut corners is systemic, and it partly goes back to who’s paying the bills for these engineers.

I’m interested in how the certified professional program can take that bias out of the professional’s purview, in that this person is paying my invoices so I should keep them happy. That’s the constant struggle and the real problem with this system. I’m trying to understand if this addresses that in any way.

This presents increased risk to professionals in terms of liability and insurance, and it puts more onus on the associations. I will say that, while it was always in the back of my mind as a professional engineer, the reality of being taken, having disciplinary action is quite rare. I don’t know about Danbrook, but in the case of Mount Polley, it’s ten, 15 years in court and god knows what expense.

I’m concerned there are unintended consequences when it comes to speed and cost. But I would like to understand, from your point of view, MLA Anderson, how this will impact this industry.

We’ve got some submissions from the consulting engineering industry. Will it discourage them from taking up this profession? Does it place too much liability? And is it realistic that the regulatory bodies will take action on every single mistake or cut corner that happens?

George Anderson: Thank you for the question. The first comment that I would make is that this bill is not about mining projects. I hear you talking about Mount…. This bill does not touch upon mining. This is a bill about how we deliver housing and projects that build our communities. That’s the first thing.

Secondly, the certified professional program…. The certified professional stands in the place of the local government.

[11:00 a.m.]

You’ve mentioned that you’re concerned about…. What I’m hearing is conflict of interest. Well, the certified professional program allows the developer to pick the professional who then sits. That person can be the exact same individual.

So if you look at the certified professional program, it’s saying, “Hey, we

about what I’m hearing is conflict of interest. Well, the certified professional program allows the developer to pick the professional who then sits. That person can be the exact same individual.

So if you look at the certified professional program, it’s saying: “Hey, we trust people who go to school, who have liability insurance for the purposes of protecting the public interest.” We trust them to do that work.

And what I’m hearing…. I’m a professional. I went to law school. I pay my professional dues. I have a lot of respect for the work that people in industry, professionals, go and do because it is not easy to do that work. On top of it, being someone who did a lot of professional indemnity work representing architects and engineers, architects and engineers are brought into a lot of lawsuits when things go wrong. And, yes, they do have high insurance premiums as well.

But I can tell you, when I decided I was going to become a lawyer, I didn’t say: “Hmm, I wonder how much my liability insurance is going to be.” People choose to enter a profession because they’re interested in it, because they want to be able to make a difference, and that’s why I believe people choose to be in the professions that they are. I don’t think that it is going to be because of the fact that they’re concerned about a liability.

Just to answer the last question about dealing with every issue. Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, AIBC, professional regulators look at their professions, and they assess complaints regularly.

Jeremy Valeriote: Follow up. Yeah, I just want to be very clear. I understand it’s not about the mining industry, but my point is that it takes a spectacular event like Mount Polley to actually get disciplinary action for most professionals. It’s not a common occurrence. If you look at the EGBC registers, there’s maybe a handful of people per year that have their licences revoked. So my point is that it takes that kind of thing for action to be taken.

I’ll leave it there. I’ve lost my train of thought, so I’ll leave it there. We’ve got lots of time to talk about this in the future.

George Anderson: May I just make a very quick point here.

Amna Shah (Chair): George, is that a very quick question?

George Chow: Yeah.

Amna Shah (Chair): Okay. How about maybe you can ask that, and maybe you can just close it very quickly.

George Chow: Sure.

So I see the system, the suggestion working with engineering geologists. How does it work with architects when you actually have municipal zoning and plans? Would that require the municipality to actually examine that individual, that they know the zoning, the setback and all these other things to be in that program?

George Anderson: So the certified professional program is one that is governed through AIBC and EGBC. Architecture and engineering, there are numbers of people. It’s something that’s better easily understood. Again, the programs existed since the 90s. It’s been deemed to be safe, it’s been deemed to deliver results, and that’s why you see more municipalities adopting it.

Amna Shah (Chair): We’ll just quickly go back to Jeremy as he’s regained his train of thought.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you. I just…. Have I? Oh, no. My goodness. It’s been a morning.

I wanted…. Okay. I just want to draw the analogy to the conversation we just had about dash cams where you’re enforcing after the fact, after the accident has happened, the mistake has been made. And so I’m trying to get to the point where we can talk about this.

Instead of the professional association having to come in after the fact and discipline somebody, how do we get at the front end of this, which is the right training? I’m interested in how the certified professional program might be able to help with that. But I think putting this all on the associations to discipline is missing the point. It’s a symptom of the problem.

That was the last point I wanted to make. I’ll just leave it there.

Amna Shah (Chair): George, and very quickly.

George Anderson: Very quick. The member had mentioned that there’s only a handful of cases of disciplinary issues. Well, first off, that doesn’t mean that there’s a whole bunch of issues out in British Columbia. The reason that we’re in this building, houses don’t just fall down every single day. People go to work and they do their work well, and that’s why engineers are such respected individuals.

[11:05 a.m.]

Do things go wrong? Yes, they do. And I can tell you from January 6 of this year to February

be the reason that we’re in this building. Houses don’t just fall down every single day. People go to work, and they do their work well. That’s why engineers are such respected individuals.

Do things go wrong? Yes, they do. I can tell you that from January 6 of this year to February 6 of this year, there have already been six decisions rendered. To say that there’s only a handful of complaints from the regulatory bodies is completely untrue and an unfair characterization.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, George, for your presentation, and I wish you a splendid day ahead.

George Anderson: Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here, and thank you very much for the thoughtful questions.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thanks, Members.

Deliberations

Amna Shah (Chair): Our next agenda item today is in-camera deliberations.

I’ll ask for a motion to go in-camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera at 11:06 a.m.

The committee continued in open session at 12:04 p.m.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right, we are back in public session, and I will throw the floor to Gavin to move a motion.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): We are presently facing a situation where we have 484 submissions in regard to this bill. It is my strong belief that we need to afford people the opportunity to be heard on this bill, as well as make sure that we are allocating sufficient time to hear about the potential amendments that have been outlined by MLA Anderson.

[12:05 p.m.]

In the spirit of making sure they were able to give this bill the diligence that I believe it deserved, I am bringing forward a motion that the committee allocate up to eight hours for presentations and questions.

That motion has been circulated to everyone with the exact wording. Again, the premise and intent here is to provide up to eight hours for presentations and questions. By passing this motion, we would afford ourselves

forward a motion that the committee allocate up to eight hours for presentations and questions. That motion has been circulated to everyone with the exact wording. Again, the premise and intent here is to provide up to eight hours for presentations and questions.

By passing this motion, we would afford ourselves the opportunity to give serious and due consideration not only to the full range of groups that we would like to hear from but also make sure that we’re not asking groups that have provided substantial information to present all of it in five minutes. We’re were actually affording the opportunity to hear in some depth from groups like the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, the office of the superintendent of professional governance, the regulatory bodies affected, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, as well as the litany of other groups that have submitted the 484 submissions, of which 88 percent are opposed.

Again, I think it’s very important that we give people the opportunity to be heard on this bill, and I believe that allocating up to eight hours is the bare minimum of that due diligence and consultation.

Amna Shah (Chair): Member, please move your motion.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Yes, certainly.

The motion is that the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills request organizations and individuals to appear before the committee to provide additional information on their written submissions regarding Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, and respond to questions from committee members at the earliest opportunity; and that the committee allocate up to eight hours for presentations and questions.

Susie Chant: I’m a little concerned, just saying, that the first part, up to the semicolon, we’re already agreed on — that we want people to come and submit. My concern is that the committee allocate up to eight hours for presentation and questions. I feel, given the folks that have indicated they’d like to present, that there is a good capacity for representation to be done of those entities by several groups that are also on our list.

I am concerned. The first part of the motion I’m okay with, but the second part of the motion, saying that the committee allocate up to eight hours for presentations and questions, I’m quite uncomfortable with and I’m not able to support.

Jeremy Valeriote: Yeah, I’m concerned this creates the expectation that we will spend eight hours on this when we may not agree to that. Is it MLA Dew’s intention that we will discuss how this is structured at a later point? And then are we going to have to vote on each, whether we have an agglomeration of stakeholders or individual ones or….

I mean, we will have to come to consensus on this somehow. Up to eight hours…. Some people will read that differently, but I’d read it literally. I’m happy to agree to it so we can move on and keep going.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): To answer the questions from MLA Valeriote, it is my expectation that the composition of that eight hours would be defined by the committee. I’m not looking to be prescriptive in terms of what those groups are. I am simply looking to make sure that we do not find ourselves limited by the typical shorter time that we allocate to receiving presentations.

I anticipate that we would determine by consensus what groups we wish to receive and for how long we wish to receive them. I am, again, asking that we allocate up to eight hours. If we determine that we can accomplish this in seven hours, in six hours, in five hours, fantastic. What I don’t want is for us to be having a conversation where we are shutting people down who want to be heard on this on the basis that we only have a very short period of time to hear from them.

I’m simply trying to give the committee flexibility to make sure that people can be heard and that we can have an appropriate level of consultation and due diligence on a bill that has elicited a tremendous amount of feedback from the public and indeed from many municipal governments in particular.

Darlene Rotchford: I don’t agree with this. I think when I look at this list, and I’m just looking at the local government…. Ironically, some of them are mine, so I’m sure I’ll hear about this, and that’s fine.

At the end of the day, there are organizations that oversee these other organizations. They’ve agreed to them. They’re part of them. So when I look at the allocation of time we have allowed and I look at who we can agree to, I think it is reasonable to stick with what we currently have and move forward with that and come to a consensus with the potential people that are there, especially because these organizations that oversee these other ones also are not in support of this and are bringing forward similar concerns.

For your purpose with them being on the record, they’re on the record. They’ve submitted already.

Hon Chan: I think with unprecedented submissions of feedback on this bill, very different from the previous bills or the private members’ bills or the private bills committees have seen, these submissions are…. We’ve almost 500 submissions. We do need to hear from them.

[12:10 p.m.]

I think it is a democratic process. This says up to eight hours. It doesn’t always have to be eight hours. As MLA Dew mentioned, if it’s 7, 6, 5, that would be good, if we can actually finish them. But I think in a democratic world, we need to hear from the presenters, especially as this bill actually affects almost every single

from them.

I think it is a democratic process, and this says up to eight hours. It doesn’t always have to be eight hours. As MLA Dew mentioned, if it’s seven, six, five…. It would be good if we can actually finish them. But I think in a democratic world, we need to hear from the presenters, especially as this bill actually affects almost every single corner in the province.

George Chow: I also have a question about this motion, particularly with allocating up to eight hours. I think we were on the path of trying to decide on who we’re going to hear, so I think that’s a good way we’re going to go. So I will have to vote against this motion.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I appreciate all the feedback, and I respectfully reject the premise that these groups are already on record.

We just received an extensive presentation from MLA Anderson, who is bringing this bill, and in that process, MLA Anderson laid out a set of amendments which he tells us he has consulted in order to develop.

It’s not yet certain whether, how and by whom those amendments will be brought forward, but I think it is very important. If the claim that has been made is that those amendments will mitigate the concerns that are on record from these groups, then we need to have the opportunity, on record, for those groups to respond to the proposed amendments and to determine whether or not those amendments have mitigated the very serious and substantial concerns laid out.

I think that this needs to be done in the open. I think we need to be having conversations with the groups that are affected, and I think, again, we owe a debt of diligence and also a debt of listening to people who are very, very frustrated by this bill.

Maybe, in receipt of all of the amendments that will be duly brought forward, maybe some of the 484 people, the 88 percent who were opposed, will change their minds. But they deserve the opportunity to put that on the record and for this bill to be looked at in the plain light of day.

Susie Chant: Just really quick. I thought that in previous discussion today we said that whoever was presenting would be speaking to the bill as it stands now, and we would have the opportunity to insert queries around what we…. If we were to get the correspondence from George, we would be able to sort of insert queries about that to try and elicit. But they would not be exposed to the amendments prior to presenting. I thought that’s what I understood earlier.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just to remind members that I understand there’s healthy debate going back and forth, but at some point we will have to decide on the motion.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Susie. That’s a very good and legitimate question. I think that the difference that you’re outlining actually makes the case for this exact motion. The point you’ve made is that the individuals presenting….

No, they will not necessarily be exposed to the amendments having been brought as amendments. Suggested amendments from MLA Anderson have no status as amendments until they’re brought forward by a member of this committee, which I presume would follow after that consultation.

However, what we had talked about was MLA Anderson sending correspondence to this committee that would outline those amendments he proposes to see made, which he believes would mitigate some of the expansive concern laid out by these groups.

I don’t think that we can pretend that these groups are on the record when they’re responding only…

Amna Shah (Chair): Sorry, member.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): …to the original version of the motion…

Amna Shah (Chair): Member.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): …not the proposed amendments.

Amna Shah (Chair): I just want us to get back to the content of the discussion, which members seem to be particularly interested in. The concept of up to eight hours is what’s at play here.

Again, I am confident that every single member on this committee would like to do good work in good faith with the bill that is ahead of them. So I would just remind members to focus on the question that is at hand, and please keep your comments related to this motion.

Hon Chan: I want to respond to MLA Chant’s comments.

I think that is exactly the question why we need the presenters to actually come and present. I mean, the process is actually not just to look at the online submissions but to also ask questions.

And now, after hearing from the presenters, MLA Anderson, we do have more questions that need to be asked. And I think those are the groups that have the expertise that we can actually ask them those questions. If we want to make this bill perfect or can be presented or can be passed, we need to ask these sponsors or ask these organizations. If we change it like that, would that actually alleviate their problems or their concerns?

[12:15 p.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right, are there any further comments?

I will put the question to the committee.

A division has been called.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. are there any further comments? I will put the question to the committee.

Division has been called.

Motion negatived on division.

Amna Shah (Chair): The motion is defeated on division.

Any other business?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I move to adjourn.

Motion approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): We are now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 12:15 p.m.