Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call continued second reading, Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, continued estimates on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, to be followed by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

In the Birch Room, Section C, estimates on the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2023

(continued)

Hon. N. Sharma: Just continuing from where I left off before the break. I was talking about the amendments to the Vancouver Charter. Specifically, the amendments will enable Vancouver to establish and regulate fees for the use of municipal property or for any service that it’s authorized to provide under the Vancouver Charter through bylaw.

The amendments will also provide Vancouver the broad authority to take remedial action and recover the costs at the expense of someone who defaults on a property-related requirement authorized by the Vancouver Charter. These amendments bring Vancouver into line with the authorities all other local governments have under the Community Charter.

Next we have the Motor Vehicle Act. The proposed amend­ments to the Motor Vehicle Act will support the digitization of forms that police are required to complete when using licence suspensions and driving prohibitions. The amendments establish an electronic certificate of service that police will be able to complete electronically at roadside to establish a person’s knowledge that they are suspended or prohibited from driving.

Digitization of forms will assist police in completing forms more quickly, improving the quality of documentation for courts, the public and police, and will streamline the review process for prohibitions. The changes build on the success of the current e-ticketing system by aligning the act to allow for electronic certificates of service for future forms.

Next we have the Community Living Authority Act. Amendments to the Community Living Authority Act will establish specific composition requirements for Community Living B.C.’s board of directors and require the continuation of the board’s Indigenous Advisory Committee.

[1:05 p.m.]

These changes generally codify existing practice, repair changes made by the old government and respond to requests from adults with developmental disabilities, their families and support organizations. The changes aim to ensure that people impacted by decisions made by the CLBC board are involved in providing advice and making those decisions, by requiring a minimum of two directors eligible for CLBC support and services, one director that is a family member or a person eligible for CLBC support and services, and one Indigenous director — and requiring the continuation of the Indigenous Advisory Committee in the statute.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

These measures support government priorities including community inclusion and meaningful and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous people.

M. de Jong: Another miscellaneous…. It’s the second one this session. That’s not unusual. As with other miscellaneous statutes amendment bills, an amalgamation of proposed changes. They’re interesting, these.

[Interruption.]

Was it something I said?

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

M. de Jong: The bill includes, I think, 46 clauses. It touches on, broadly speaking, eight areas of public policy and, as the Attorney has said, a number of statutes.

The first thing: the opposition is going to facilitate, to the extent that the opposition can. The opposition has a role in that: to facilitate some movement of the bill into the committee stage. What’s often the case is that a lot of the provisions that are included in some of these bills, miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, are technical in nature — the term that we tend to use around here is housekeeping; in some cases they are not.

The fact that a statutory provision can be short doesn’t mean that it cannot be of great significance or great consequence. The difference between “shall” and “may,” for example, as the Attorney knows, can be quite significant in a piece of legislation. In some instances, there can be provisions contained within a bill like this that are very significant and represent an important shift in law and public policy.

What I will do today is what I have done in the past: I will try to alert the Attorney — and, through the Attorney, her colleagues — who will be called upon to answer some questions where the official opposition has some interest and areas that it wishes to explore. I’ll try to characterize, in a couple of instances, where they are matters of technical interest and areas, in some other provisions, where the opposition has more serious concerns about the direction or what is being proposed.

There will be some questions relating to the Child, Family and Community Service Act amendments. I think the government, the minister and her colleagues will find there’s general agreement with the direction, but there will be a desire to explore briefly some of the mechanics involved in the changes being proposed there.

[1:10 p.m.]

Similarly, I wouldn’t characterize the amendments to the Societies Act as being controversial, but staff and the minister should anticipate being made available to answer a few technical questions.

On the health tissue gift act, there will be some questions. Again, I wouldn’t characterize them as questions that denote a passionate opposition to what’s being proposed here, but it’s an area that obviously elicits a great deal of interest. As whenever scope-of-practice issues and matters relating to human tissue donations are concerned, it’s worthwhile to ensure that any lingering questions are being dealt with.

Part 4 in the act, clause 11, deals with the Strata Property Act. My intention is not to belabour the discussion here at this stage of the debate with this bill, but suffice to say the opposition has some concerns. It has articulated those concerns with respect to other pieces of legislation that the government has introduced. The degree to which this provision is even necessary is a reflection of the fact that the government hasn’t got it right. Despite repeated assurances, we see yet another attempt at corrective legislative action.

The government has caused, by virtue of the direction it is headed here, a lot of concern. What my colleagues, particularly in committee stage, are going to point out through their questions is this steady erosion on the rights of property owners in strata developments, their neighbourhoods and the ability they have to determine and govern the composition of their neighbourhoods, the impact that this erosion on those rights is having and the concern it’s causing.

The fact that this provision is even here is a reflection of the fact that the government hasn’t got it right and that it is causing distress, confusion and unintended consequences. My colleague from Kamloops is here and will likely have something more to say about that.

Part 6. My colleague from Penticton will be here. Now, when a government introduces legislative provisions bills…. As I said, in these misc bills, there are technical matters, there are housekeeping matters, and there are provisions that the opposition is opposed to. Then there are provisions that the opposition doesn’t really know what to think until it gets a proper explanation for what’s taking place here. I think the word I would use to characterize the opposition’s response to part 6 is “suspicion.”

I don’t know if this was by design, and I don’t say this in a critical way. But when the Attorney General read her second reading remarks…. I understand that these remarks are generally prepared for the minister, especially when it’s a misc bill that involves a lot of different areas of government and the Attorney is the shepherd that has to bring it all together and introduce it to the House. That’s why these remarks are prepared for her. It struck me that she didn’t make mention in her remarks about the specifics of clause 7 and road levies and road tolls.

[1:15 p.m.]

Now, I don’t know what the government is up to here, but the opposition and the minister responsible can be assured that the official opposition is going to want to pose some questions about what the government is up to here and why these provisions are necessary.

We know that the former mayor of Vancouver, with whom the Premier was very closely aligned, had some publicly stated intentions in this regard that the people of that city, of Vancouver, rejected soundly, along with a lot of other policies.

The fact that these provisions are here and that they speak to the issue and import an element of provincial oversight that heretofore has not existed suggests that the government had something in mind. If it does have something in mind, and if it is seeking approval from this House to move in a certain direction, it should be prepared to, in a forthright manner, explain what that direction is.

As I say, my colleague from Penticton will have some comments in that regard here today, and we’ll certainly be pursuing that matter with the minister responsible when the bill does move to committee stage.

I would say, then, that I’ve probably highlighted the two areas of the legislation that are going to engage the most attention at committee stage. I think the Attorney will appreciate I am using…. This is not meant to be a criticism of her, as the coordinator of the three-ring circus that is miscellaneous statutes bills.

This bill won’t come for committee stage until next week, by virtue of the rules of this House. I hope that the ministers and ministries with responsibility for these sections will go to the trouble of hearing our remarks today so they aren’t caught by surprise when the legislation comes before the House next week, or whenever the House Leaders bring it before the House, and are prepared to answer the questions that the opposition has.

Again, we’ll facilitate, obviously, movement through second reading to get to committee stage. But depending on the answers we get — particularly in the two areas of finance, strata; the amendments of the Strata Property Act and the Vancouver Charter — I cannot, nor will I, assure the government of support for those provisions. That will very much depend on what we hear through the committee stage debate.

Hon. M. Dean: This Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, amends the Child, Family and Community Service Act. What it’s doing is addressing critical gaps in government services for young adults with prior significant involvement in the child welfare system.

The legislation enables the implementation of expanded eligibility and services to support these young people in their transition to adulthood. Improving outcomes for this population is a priority for government that has intersections with housing, affordability, poverty reduction and advancing reconciliation with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

Young people from government care want to thrive, not just survive. That’s what they tell me. They have been telling ministers in this position for many years that previously, services or programs were not accessible. It had been termed the superhighway to homelessness, having been in government care.

For the very first time in the province of British Columbia, through these legislative amendments, young people from government care will be able to be supported. We, the government, will have the legal authority to be able to support young people past their 19th birthday — and not just a few.

[1:20 p.m.]

We are creating a comprehensive suite of supports and services and programs for these young people up to the age of 27, for them to be able to design their own package of supports and services, for them to be able to thrive.

We didn’t previously have the legal authority to be able to do it. So this miscellaneous bill is actually really significant to staff in my ministry who support young people, to the young people who have been in government care and who see their 19th birthday approaching as well. Young people told me that it was like a cliff. They dreaded turning 19. So it’s up to us to make sure that we can provide the services that they need so that they are able to thrive and so that they are able to have a dream and to fulfil their dream as well.

We’ve already started this work. In the spring of 2022, we made indefinite the extension to temporary housing and temporary support agreements. We increased flexibility to the agreements with young adults so that more young adults were actually accessing life skills, rehabilitative and mental health options.

In the summer of last year, we introduced a no-limit earnings exemption so that young people can still access benefits and services delivered by government and not lose any of those or be at risk of losing any of those because they have some earnings. We know how important it is for young people to be able to have extra money that they’ve earned, to be able to build a good quality of life and good work experience and build their résumé as well.

In the fall of 2022, we introduced the first-ever rent supplement for young people from government care, so young people living in market rentals were able to access $600 a month for two years, as long as they were still eligible. Here, now, in spring of 2023, we’re doing our second rental supplement intake, and at least 50 percent of those rents will be going to Indigenous children and youth as well.

We’ve hired new transition workers, and they’ve begun work on Vancouver Island and in the north. We heard from young people that they want help in navigating systems and programs, and we heard from young people that access to any of the programs was really inconsistent across the province. So we want to make sure that wherever young people are, if they’ve been in government care, they have access to support that is of the same quality and standard that helps connect them to the services and programs that they need.

Of course, their goals will change. As they get older, as they’re successful, as they mature, as they do more training, then those goals will change, and transition workers will be able to help young people make those transitions between different types of programming and services as well.

The duration of the support for agreements with young people has increased to 84 months and up to the age of 27. Enhanced medical benefits have been introduced, including expanded dental and optical coverage, and the temporary support and temporary housing agreements available between the ages of 19 and 21 have more flexibility to move between those agreements so that we’re not putting barriers in the way for young people, saying: “Well, if you choose this, then you can’t choose that.”

In the summer this year, there will be enhanced funding for life skills training and cultural programming. The provincial tuition waiver program becomes available for all ages. That is thousands more young people who have previously been in government care who will be able to access the tuition waiver program. I met a guy in his 40s who had been in government care and who is now training to be a social worker. We need them. This is one with lived experience, as well, and he’s going to be able to access the tuition waiver program, which he told me is absolutely life-changing.

We’re working with our youth advisory group, and they’re actually going to tell us what we’re going to be calling this suite of programs. Rather than youth transitions, they’re going to give it a name. So I’m looking forward to that.

In the fall of this year, we’ll see the rent supplement program, third intake. There will be enhanced medical benefits with access to counselling, and we’ll be continuing to recruit more transition workers around the province as well.

Then in the spring of 2024, there’ll be even further expanded eligibility for post-19 supports and services. The housing and supports agreements to remain in current homes will be up to the age of 21, and there will be an unconditional income supplement commencing at the age of 19 and lasting up until the 20th birthday of these young people of $1,250 a month.

[1:25 p.m.]

I talk to young people who have been in government care very, very often and hear their stories. I know that this is life-changing for many young people. I know that this is going to lift them, and it’s going to give them a very different journey when they leave government care, and different opportunities. It will mean that young people will be able to thrive and not just survive.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 24. I have to say that, as our shadow Finance Minister and after eight weeks of legislative session and almost six years as a legislator in this place, I’m thrilled to see that, at long last, in Bill 24, the burning piece of our time, has been dealt with in section 31 of the Societies Act, which is: “(a) in paragraph (b)(i) and (iii) by striking out ‘3rd day’ and substituting ‘third day,’ and (b) in paragraph (b)(ii) by striking out ‘5th day’ and substituting ‘fifth day.’”

It’s this type of legislation changes that really drove me to seek office and represent the fine people of Kamloops–North Thompson in this place. For those at home that are wondering, it’s because the first, third and fifth days are numerical, and now they will be in written form instead.

As we move through the other Societies Act changes, again, there’s just some housekeeping around what the word “student” means in relation to a university student, and also a definition of a “student society” in regards to university students and their societies, as well as a new definition of “university,” which will now mean any of the following: “(a) a university as defined in the University Act; (b) Royal Roads University;” and “(c) Thompson Rivers University,” from the part of the province that I represent.

I’m certainly glad we have this taken care of. I’m sure people will sleep much easier in my riding knowing that the third and fifth days have been corrected and that a university student is better defined in this act. I do look forward to committee stage, where we will further probe these hard-hitting things within this bill on the finance side.

I say that just because it is a housekeeping bill, and obviously, there are sections, as we’ve heard from my colleague from Abbotsford West, that will be much more in-depth in committee stage by us in terms of what the impacts to people are. Certainly, though, the finance amendments in this with the Societies Act do appear to be very minor in scope, and that is to be expected within a miscellaneous stats bill. Not everything can be the much more game-changing-type changes that might impact people.

With that, I thank you for the time, and I look forward to committee stage on this bill.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank my peer from Abbotsford West for his opening remarks, and also the Attorney General. I thank her for the introduction of the bill and also for her opening remarks.

As has been stated, there is some cause for concern by some of us that the government has an agenda and a mandate and are moving, and moving fast and furious in some places. In my opinion and some others, there is a check and a balance that I think needs to at least be brought forward.

I also would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and her, I’ll say, wonderful staff, because they are, for agreeing to having a briefing as of next week, which hopefully will answer some of the questions. When you look at the clauses, 13 through 36, there are some very minor amendments, but there is also — in an interpretation of the words — some more authority being given to the province.

Yes, the Vancouver Charter stands alone as compared to many municipalities — or all municipalities, actually — in the province, so it appears that there are some additional powers that are being relinquished from the Vancouver Charter at this point in time and being given to the province.

I have some clauses, specifically 17, 29, and also 21, but these are the issues that I will be taking up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and her staff. Also, I do look forward to having the opportunity to have this open discussion and this clarification during the committee stage. I think all of the citizens of British Columbia will probably enjoy seeing that government has an opportunity to proceed with this.

[1:30 p.m.]

Also, we have the opportunity to ensure that there are checks and balances and at least bringing to the attention of the people on the opposite of the side of the other House, i.e. the government, that there has been some concern addressed to us to ensure that it is brought up in the House.

Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you again to the Attorney General for bringing this forward. I look forward to committee stage as of next week.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m appreciative of the opportunity to be able to stand and speak to Bill 24, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, as the shadow minister for Housing. It is clause 11 that I am most interested and concerned about. Clause 11 appears to be dealing with some misunderstanding that came out of the wording from Bill 44, which was rushed through this House in the last sitting of the Legislature.

The opposition at the time had raised a number of concerns about the confusion that Bill 44 was going to be causing with respect to stratas and strata management. The fact that we now already have to come back and we have a miscellaneous change is quite concerning and, I think, supportive of what the opposition has said in terms of this being a poorly thought-out, poorly written and poorly implemented bill.

This government promised changes. The Minister of Housing promised changes over a year ago that were going to protect families who are having children from having extraordinary increases in their rent. That is something that hasn’t happened yet. There’s lots of opportunity for important, impactful legislation like that to come through in a miscellaneous statutes amendment. So it’s very disappointing that what I’m understanding this piece of legislation, this change, is to make is to just be more descriptive with respect to age limits in buildings.

Those buildings which still have the ability to have the 55-plus age restriction…. This is just rewording or trying to be more clear in the intention of the original Bill 44 that in those 55-plus buildings or in other buildings, they’re not able to have any other age restrictions. So the 19-plus age restriction is no longer there. This is just to add clarity to that.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this, and I will take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank all the members for their comments. As the steward of this bill and as Attorney General, I’m sure that the ministers will be ready to answer the questions at committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Dean: I call second reading of Bill 25, electoral boundaries act, 2023.

BILL 25 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

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

The purpose of this bill is to implement the proposals of the 2022 Electoral Boundaries Commission. The bill follows the adoption by this House of a resolution approving those proposals without amendment. Accordingly, the bill would make no changes to any of the commission’s proposals. It would create 93 electoral districts in the province, an increase of six districts from the current 87. Each district would have the area, boundary and name proposed by the commission.

If this bill is enacted, the new electoral districts would be in place for the next two provincial elections which, under our fixed election date provisions, are scheduled for 2024 and 2028.

The reasons for adopting the commission’s proposals were discussed during our recent debate on the resolution. I won’t go into details about that again. I will say that it is clear that the commission carried out its work diligently and with care.

[1:35 p.m.]

The commission had the flexibility to address population growth in the province by proposing up to six additional districts, and it has chosen to exercise that option by proposing new districts in Burnaby, Langley, Surrey, Vancouver, Langford and Kelowna. The population of each electoral district is ideally within plus or minus 25 percent of the electoral quotient, which is the population of B.C. divided by the number of electoral districts.

The addition of these six new districts means that only five districts in the province will exceed the acceptable deviation range, down from the current 17, to continue to ensure effective representation. The commission’s proposals retain the existing number of districts in the northern regions of the province. Boundary changes are recommended for 72 electoral districts, and the names of 41 districts will be changed.

The commission is careful to describe in its report the reasons for alterations they propose to existing electoral districts, either to balance population or to provide for better representation of community interests. I believe that, on the whole, the commission’s proposals will provide for effective representation in this assembly for all British Columbians, regardless of where they live in this province.

I would like to again thank the members of the commission: Justice Nitya Iyer; Linda Tynan, local government management consultant; and Anton Boegman, Chief Electoral Officer for British Columbia. I look forward to further comments and debate by other members of the House.

M. de Jong: I’ll pick up where the Attorney left off by articulating, on behalf of the official opposition — I’m sure all members of the House, actually — the gratitude we have for the work of the commission and the commissioners.

It is a difficult task. It is obviously a time-consuming task. It’s a great way to see the province, which I think the commissioners would say was probably a component of their work that they enjoyed, and a chance to meet with people.

It’s an interesting phenomenon. I wouldn’t pretend that politicians occupy the highest rung on the ladder of affection in the minds of the public, but try tampering with a community’s electoral districts or, God forbid, removing or eliminating an MLA — or an MP, for that matter — and governments, political parties, can discover just how importantly people view that notion of effective representation.

The commission. We have had this conversation partially when the Attorney led the discussion about the motion that adopted the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission. So this represents the final step in the exercise of redrawing our political map and our political boundaries.

The commission has undertaken its work. It has prepared a report. The House has endorsed those recommendations, and the government has taken that motion and the work and the recommendations of the commission and now enshrines it in this bill, which will become law. And absent the Attorney General suggesting otherwise, I think it has done so faithfully and accurately, insofar as replicating what was in the commission’s report, in their recommendations, including the number of ridings and the boundaries that they have recommended.

It’s the great conundrum that has confronted our province, confronts our country and will continue to do so as our population becomes more densified in a particular area of the province. Other parts of the province, so incredibly important from an economic point of view — and obviously important socially, insofar as the people and the families and the communities that reside there — find themselves under pressure in terms of maintaining the levels of representation that have historically existed and matching the principle that a vote should have roughly the same value, no matter where you are in the province, versus the reality that we have constituencies that are as large as a mid-sized European country.

[1:40 p.m.]

We tend, in here, to talk about the ability of the elected representative to do their work, but probably the flip side is even more important, the opportunity for the citizen to gain access to that elected representative. Yes, technology has evolved a great deal, but that is not a substitute for being able to sit down and look an MLA in the eye, or an MP for that matter, and say: “Here’s what’s going on in my life, and I need you to understand that.”

The measurement for the House, I would suggest, and certainly for the opposition is: has the commission undertaken its work in good faith? Has it prepared a report and recommendations that enshrine the principles of equality and effective representation? Has it been free from undue influence? I’m happy to say that I think this exercise passes muster in that regard, which is why the official opposition was content — well, I believe the whole House was content; I see my colleague, the Third Party House Leader, I think was content; we were all content — to hold hands and endorse the recommendations.

I don’t anticipate a lengthy debate today, but I think the House will hear from a couple of members, though, who will articulate the challenge that they have encountered. It is process-related when an interim report is presented that suggests the commission is heading in a certain direction. It’s presented for a reason. It’s presented so that members of communities, members of this House can say: “Okay. Well, that’s great, but we have some problems, and we have some ideas about how to produce a better product.” The interim report is designed to elicit that response, and that’s good.

What has happened, however, in several instances, is that communities, when they opened up the pages of the final report, found themselves shifted around on the basis of changes that they hadn’t anticipated. I don’t have the perfect solution for how to address that, but I think the House needs to hear from and will hear from several members of the House who are obliged, I think, to speak on behalf of communities who woke up on the morning the final report was tabled to discover that something had happened to them that they hadn’t anticipated, certainly hadn’t been forewarned about in the preliminary report.

Madam Speaker, the House is growing. I think that there is probably room to accommodate the additional seats that the commission and this bill will be adding. The Attorney may discover that she has at least one member within her caucus and at the cabinet table who has ideas about replacing these desks with benches. He’s a fairly senior member of the government caucus — in fact, the most senior member of the government caucus — who has some experience and some pronounced views on the preference for benches.

I, for my part, think the idea has merit. It troubles me that I won’t have the same kind of access to all of my electronic devices that I rely so heavily upon in the course of preparing for these addresses. In any event, that is a practical matter that at some point becomes an issue.

[1:45 p.m.]

Our task here today is not to necessarily worry about how the desks or benches are going to be aligned but whether or not people and communities and families have effective, fair representation. The commission has happily arrived at a series of recommendations, and the bill is reflective of those recommendations and, for that reason, will enjoy the support of the official opposition, subject to some of the comments that a few members, I think, are necessarily obliged to make during the course of this debate.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to stand up today to speak to Bill 25, the Electoral Districts Act.

This bill legislates changes that have been discussed for some time. As we know, after every second election cycle, the Electoral Boundaries Commission, with, really, a mandate from legislation that has come from this chamber, goes and looks at all the electoral boundaries and comes back with recommendations to the Legislature for changes to electoral boundaries in British Columbia.

I want to start with a little bit on that and then speak specifically to my own electoral district. I’m going to start with renaming. Many ridings are proposed to have renames.

There are going to be, according to the recommendations, six new electoral districts, including four in the Lower Mainland — in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey and Langley — one on Vancouver Island and another one in Kelowna, in the B.C. interior. New electoral districts come with new names or, sometimes, names that have been used before. I think this is a time for us, as legislators, to ask whether some of these names should really remain.

I’m going to speak specifically about Coquitlam-Maillardville. Maillardville is named after its French heritage, as Québécois foresters settled in the area at the turn of the century and built a community. At this time, as we know, from our history, there was rampant racism against Chinese, Japanese and South Asian workers, and the Canadian Western Lumber Company sought out an all-white workforce. They brought foresters in from Quebec to displace the Asian community.

Maillardville was named specifically after Edmond Maillard, the founder of the local Catholic Church. What isn’t often talked about in the history is…. Twenty years after coming to Coquitlam, Edmond Maillard later became the principal of the Sechelt Indian Residential School. Duncan Campbell Scott himself, the superintendent of Indian Affairs and a man associated with his distaste for what he called the “Indian problem,” wrote his letter of recommendation, saying: “I am satisfied that Father Maillard’s experience has fitted him for the work.”

We can do better. We can make choices. We have that ability in here. We change the names of electoral districts to reflect geographical boundaries and to represent our province effectively. We have chosen to ignore, in this round of changes, given what we know, given what has come to light since the last round of electoral boundary changes, at Tk’emlúps, in particular, the first example of gravesites of children who went to residential schools and never came home…. I think that ignoring our capacity and our ability to change the names of electoral boundaries at this time…. It is really not something that we want to ignore.

Maya Angelou wrote: “Do the best until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

[1:50 p.m.]

We know better now, and we can do better. We know about the devastating and traumatic impacts of residential schools on Indigenous peoples in Canada. In just the past two years, the unmarked burial sites at former residential schools has championed a new wave of action towards healing and, hopefully, reconciliation.

We know better than to continue the legacy of harm, even just in words and names. Names have meaning. They reflect a community’s values, their history and who they continue to uphold as leaders. Continuing to uphold the legacy of residential schools and the people who supported them is directly against the spirit of reconciliation that this government continues to call — and I believe that for them, it is — a priority.

For many, Maillardville is just a name, but for those who lived the intergenerational trauma of residential schools, it’s a reminder of just how pervasive this colonial mindset is. It’s a reminder that the province continues to celebrate the legacy of perpetrators’ harms. We have the opportunity before us as legislators to amend schedule 1 of this act and change the names that reflect colonial harm, including Coquitlam-Maillardville. I hope and believe that we can find consensus in this chamber to do just that.

I want to talk about the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s process and particularly about public input and about effective representation. Public input was sought, in multiple community meetings across the province, around the proposed changes to electoral boundaries. However, to hear the public input on the draft recommendations, one has to listen to the only source of that input available right now, which is an audio recording, and to be able to hear all of that, one has to go through the whole audio recording.

This is very limiting for somebody who is specifically interested in listening to the input specific to their region or their riding. Listening to hours and hours of files is something that, I would expect, not only those of us here in this chamber might find a significant challenge, but most people in their very busy lives. For the hearing-impaired, these changes are not offered in any other format, including not offered in written transcript. Final public submissions were put into an Excel spreadsheet and uploaded to the website. But again, for many British Columbians, this format is inaccessible and very hard to navigate.

In the future, public input should be represented in many different reader- and listener-friendly formats, recognizing the different abilities of British Columbians and the importance of participation in all aspects of the work of democracy — in particular, when we are talking about changes that people will feel and experience in their daily lives and in their communities: who represents them, what part of the community they are in an electoral district. Let’s make this as accessible and transparent as possible. Let’s take what we know now and do better.

Looking at the Excel spreadsheet, there were 780 people who submitted feedback. Of those submissions, 458, or 58 percent of them, disagreed with the changes that were proposed.

My current riding, Cowichan Valley — Cowichan named for the Cowichan people, who are wonderful to be partnering with and to be working with — is being split into two. My home community of Shawnigan Lake is now being joined to Sooke, Port Renfrew and the Malahat area.

That’s about 20,000 people being divided into a new community, separated away by representation from the community that they are still very much a part of, particularly as they are part of the Cowichan Valley regional district. Sections A, B and C of the district are being moved and attached to a different regional district and separated at provincial representation–level from the rest of the regional district that they are a part of.

[1:55 p.m.]

So 13 people provided feedback, through the survey, relevant to the new proposed Juan de Fuca–Malahat riding, and ten of those 13 were in vocal opposition, significant opposition, saying that this riding makes little sense in terms of community cohesion. Malahat, Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and Shawnigan Lake are all within, as I pointed out, the Cowichan Valley regional district, not within the Juan de Fuca region.

These people indicated that Sooke and Cowichan are two very different populations with very distinct issues and demographics. The new MLA office would need to be either located in two different places…. I know, Madam Speaker, that you have a particularly large riding, and you know the challenges, geographically, of representation.

When we’ve had, for so long, an electoral district that really does match the cohesive community that already exists, it’s jarring to now have to think of this as the future electoral boundary.

One of the comments that was submitted indicated that this change to making it the Cowichan Valley was made in the 1990s, previously. Another comment indicated: “The MLA will need to navigate more than one regional district and will be disconnected to one part of the riding by a big block of land that doesn’t have a road through it except the Malahat, part of which is outside of the riding. Is it normal for an MLA to leave their riding in order to enter another part of their riding? I’d say probably for many, that is not the case.”

I, too, voiced my concerns with these proposed changes, to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, outlining many of these shared worries about community cohesion, about the division of the Cowichan Valley regional district, about the geographical issues with travelling in and out of the riding and to get to another part of it.

What is our role here? We know that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is an independent body, and it operates based on the mandate that it is given from this Legislature.

The guiding principles of the Electoral Boundaries Commission are population representation, taking into account: “(i) geographic considerations, including the accessibility, size or physical configuration of any part of British Columbia; (ii) demographic considerations, including communities of interest and the sparsity, density or rate of growth of the population of any part of British Columbia; and (iii) the availability and means of communication and transportation between various parts of British Columbia.”

The other guiding principles of the Boundaries Commission include that the electoral quotient may not be deviated from by more than 25 percent — I’m going to talk about that in a moment — and that the principle of representation by population and effective representation is highlighted. “Representation by population in our democracy is…the right to a relatively equal voice in electing the representatives who govern us. Where a person lives, what they do for a living or how much they contribute to the economic well-being of the community does not make a difference to the weight of their vote. The principle of representation by population must be balanced with the equally important principle of effective representation.”

Effective representation recognizes that the difference between people in different parts of the province may affect their ability to communicate with and seek assistance from their elected representatives.

This was what I said to the Electoral Boundaries Commission when we had the opportunity to give input. One of the things that I am most proud of in my work in Cowichan Valley has been that we have come together, and there’s a little story of how this all happened.

There were incidents of racism, in the community, against members of Cowichan Tribes. We came together as elected leaders: the MLA, the MP, the mayors, the chair of the regional district, the chair of the school district, and Chief of Cowichan Tribes, evidently. We came together on a number of occasions to put all of our voices together into a shared statement saying: “We do not tolerate racism in our riding. This is not who we are.”

[2:00 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

We made an expression, as leaders, of who we are as a region. Out of that we created the Cowichan Leadership Group. And this leadership group has met regularly ever since 2018. When we come together, we have no actual authority. We aren’t a formal body, but we come together to share information and to support each other in the work that we do as elected representatives of our valley. We come together to support initiatives, to make joint statements, and to really demonstrate the cohesion of our electoral district and of our valley, the Cowichan Valley.

Unfortunately, my case to the Boundaries Commission did not succeed, nor did the ten of the 13 people who also made the same case to keep our electoral district intact as it was. So it is, really, with a heavy heart that I’ve had to contemplate where I will run next as the candidate. I’m going to read into the record, essentially, a letter I’ve written to the residents of Cowichan Valley, explaining how I’ve made that decision and what this decision means to me.

“Dear Cowichan Valley:

“This week the provincial government introduced Bill 25, the electoral boundaries act, which, if passed, will create six new ridings and make several riding boundary adjustments. The bill will work its way through the legislative process, and if passed, the changes will take effect when the Premier calls the next general election.

“One of the ridings that has been adjusted is the Cowichan Valley. The new boundary will no longer include my home community of Shawnigan Lake, Mill Bay and Cobble Hill or South Cowichan, which are now slated to be part of the new Juan de Fuca–Malahat riding. Shawnigan Lake is my home. It’s where I live. It’s where my children have grown up. The reason I got into politics in the first place was because of the work we did in Shawnigan Lake to stand up to protect our drinking water.

“If the legislation to change the electoral boundaries passes as is, I will run as the B.C. Greens candidate in the new Juan de Fuca–Malahat riding. While I’m clear on this decision, it has not been an easy one to make, and I am sad that I have to have made it. I’m sad that the Cowichan Valley riding has been broken up in this way. I’m sad that I do not have the opportunity after the next election to continue to represent the whole valley as I have since 2017.

“I will always remain a champion for the work that is underway in the Cowichan Valley: the ongoing watershed work, the need for affordable housing, the need for primary care, the need for mental health supports. As MLA, I have focused on bringing the people, the leaders and the values of this valley to the centre of my work.

“The current Cowichan Valley boundary makes sense. It captures the connectedness of the Cowichan Valley, the people in the regional district. And I made this case to the Electoral Boundaries Commission when they sought input after their draft report was released last fall. Since 2014, when I was first elected to the Cowichan Valley regional district as the area B director for Shawnigan Lake, I have deepened my understanding, my relationships and my attachment to the Cowichan Valley.

“I’m so proud of the work that so many people in this community have undertaken to take care of each other. It has been an honour to witness the efforts, to hear about the obstacles and to find ways to remove those obstacles in the B.C. Legislature. We should all be so incredibly proud of the things we can accomplish when we work together.

“We have a gorgeous new hospice, new supportive housing. In the next few years, we will have a new high school, a new police station and more supportive housing and a new hospital. And these are just the physical structures.

[2:05 p.m.]

“I have witnessed advocates in the business community and across the social services spectrum and the volunteer community work so hard to support all of the needs of all of the people of Cowichan Valley every day. I’m humbled and honoured to work with these groups and these individuals in advocating for change in provincial policies and programs for housing, health care, environmental protection, public safety, education, child care, sports, mental health and addictions, the child welfare system, and so much more.

“I’m dedicated to being the representative of the Cowichan Valley until the next election. My constituency office remains open. Our staff continue to be available to help anyone who needs support in a provincial matter. We will also continue to provide support to the Cowichan Leadership Group, comprised of the Chief of Cowichan Tribes, Duncan and North Cowichan mayors, our MP, me as the MLA, and Island Health, school district and RCMP representatives as we work collaboratively to solve problems across jurisdictions and party lines.

“I’ll continue to advocate for Cowichan with the same fierce determination that brought me into this Legislature when I was first elected in 2017. I’ve always respected and been grateful for the support that I have been shown by the people of Cowichan and in electing me to be the representative of the Cowichan Valley. I will always take the lessons that I have been taught, that we have learned together, and I will take those into the new riding and will continue to credit the work so many people do every day to make the Cowichan Valley a healthy and safe place to live.”

I want to thank everybody in Cowichan Valley for the work that has been done and for the relationships that we have built. While I know that we are debating this legislation, and it is not yet determined what the outcome of it will be, I think it was really important for me to express both my sadness and disappointment at the ultimate recommendations that have been made and the implications it has for the community of Cowichan Valley.

My deep gratitude for having been and continuing to be the MLA for this incredibly special and precious region that has shown such incredible leadership, not only in B.C. but across the country, with things like the Cowichan Watershed Board, a co-governance model between Cowichan Tribes and the regional district that really demonstrates reconciliation in action.

With that, I will close up my remarks, but I hope that we can get support, for the very least, to look at the potential to change the name of at least one riding in this province which I think is long overdue for a new name.

J. Tegart: I rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Electoral Districts Act.

It is no small task to conduct such an extensive and thorough review of B.C. electoral boundaries. As we see in the House today, people are very passionate about where they represent, and they’re very passionate about belonging to a riding. So when we look at electoral boundary reviews, a lot of feelings come out. A lot of people come out. You get a real sense of how important boundaries are in your riding.

The electoral boundary review had a very difficult task. To look at the province of British Columbia and take the mandate given by this House and review every electoral boundary in British Columbia is a tough job, and I’m sure they spent a lot of time on the road. I know I certainly do in my riding, which is a large rural riding.

The thing I want to talk about today is process and the fact that I have heard from many people in my riding that they felt the process could have been stronger. When the first draft report came out…. The first thing you do is look at your own riding, because you want to know how it affects your people. You want to know whether there are significant changes or just small tweaks, and you want to know how active you need to become in order to advocate for changes that perhaps areas of your riding don’t agree with.

[2:10 p.m.]

Well, certainly in my riding, when the draft report came out, the first sense was: “Oh, we’re okay.” I can tell you that Fraser-Nicola has been a riding that has changed with every boundary review. Hope has been in. Hope has been out. Princeton has been in. Princeton has been out. Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Clinton have been in, and then they’ve been out. We’ve had our name changed a number of times.

I think that in the past, when the first draft report came out, my experience and certainly the experience of people in my riding is that the second report came out often just doing small tweaks, listening to the input of people in constituencies and then doing small tweaks in their final report.

Well, I can tell you that it wasn’t a small tweak this time. I live in a riding that is large in rural land base but small in population. We felt quite relieved in the first draft that we were still there and that our name was still there. We were still named the same riding, and the area that was to be represented looked pretty similar. But what happened in the final report was significant for us.

We felt, in the process, that the people who had significant change in the first draft had the opportunity to make representation, but the people who were affected by the final report did not. There was no indication in the first draft that consideration was being given to significant change in our riding. We had had some areas added on, but there were no areas being taken away. In the final draft, there has been significant change.

I guess what I would say to all of us here in the Legislature is that as we encourage people to be a part of the democratic process, as we look at ways to get people more involved in the governance of their area and of their province, it is so important that people feel like they belong to something. We have worked really, really hard since the last boundary change to make Fraser-Nicola an entity that people feel very proud to be a part of. Again, here we find ourselves with significant change, significant loss of communities and significant change in who we are and what we look like.

I would ask the House to keep that in mind as we talk about future boundary changes, future boundary reviews, processes and how they work. I have a number of people in my riding who are feeling very disenfranchised. I think democracy is too important for us to ignore that.

To conclude, I want to reiterate my appreciation of the work of the commission. I can understand the difficulty they faced at times, to look at boundaries and how they could be adjusted.

In the final report, similar to the Leader of the Third Party, I find myself living in a community that’s been removed from my riding, but I’ve been very clear that Fraser-Nicola is in my heart and is the riding that I will run in, in the next election.

[2:15 p.m.]

I want the people of Fraser-Nicola to know that despite changes, we have strong representation. For those who have been added into the riding, looking forward to meeting new friends. For those who will find themselves in a different riding after the legislation becomes law, please know that the transition will be as smooth as we can possibly make it.

So again, thank you to the commission. Thank you for the opportunity to express some of the concerns that I’ve heard in my riding. Thank you for the opportunity to address the House today.

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity just to make a few brief comments in response to the electoral boundary review, Bill 25. I want to thank the member for Abbotsford West for doing such an able job of reflecting our views as the B.C. United.

I really appreciate the commissioner’s work and certainly recognize the complexities when we do the review and the challenges of looking at the population and the geographic area. The bill, having been tabled — I went back home into the constituency just to hear what the constituents were feeling and thinking. I had committed to them to bring this forward, I think to lay down a marker for the next time we go through this process as something to keep in mind. I’ve heard multiple members talk today about what effective representation looks like and what we need to keep in mind as we look at going forward in the future of this.

The one request that my constituents put forward for thoughtful review the next time is to look at the digital divide. We often, in this province, talk about rural-urban divide. But certainly, the constituents in my riding asked me to bring forward the real challenges of the digital divide. While almost all urban areas have access to high-speed Internet and cell service, 60 percent of rural remote communities and 62 percent rural remote Indigenous communities still lack adequate Internet. So the challenge becomes, really, inequity when you are trying to have access to your MLA. I think it’s something that we should pay attention to the next time.

The riding of Cariboo North is currently over 38,000 kilometres, larger than Vancouver Island. The new proposed riding of Prince George–North Cariboo is now larger than Vancouver Island. It creates a significant challenge for constituents of how they have access and are represented by their MLA.

The final thing they asked me to bring forward was the fact that, currently, the riding has 6,500 kilometres of roads and 102 bridges. So it’s pretty significant. It’s a very large riding. When we go down this process again in future years to look at the geographic expanse where constituents live and how they have to have access to an MLA, if they don’t have access to adequate connectivity — whether it’s cell service, whether it’s Internet to connect — I think it’s just something that we need to keep in mind.

I certainly look forward…. It is an exciting time to get to know new constituents. I’m very excited about meeting the people in Prince George and College Heights and get to understand their unique needs and concerns.

I think it’s critically important, as well, for all of us in this House to remember that we still have a large part of this beautiful province of British Columbia and people who live in those remote rural areas that still do not have access to some really basic connectivity. We should always remember to keep that top of mind.

A. Walker: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Walker: I can’t see the grade 10 class of Alistair King, but I hear the pitter-patter up there. Alistair has done an incredible job engaging youth in our community, whether it’s all-candidates meetings at school, bringing their MLA into the classroom or even encouraging their students to send letters to the Premier.

[2:20 p.m.]

I did ask Alistair to make sure I was copied on those. I haven’t seen any yet, so this is a good reminder. I just want to really thank the students for coming down here today. When I was last in the class, they asked some incredible questions.

I’m hoping that this whole chamber can make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Olsen: I have just a few comments to make with respect to Bill 25, the electoral boundaries act.

This is, indeed, a process that happens regularly, and it’s a bit of a boundary adjustments around the province to ensure that there is equity. It’s undertaken by, of course, the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission.

As we hear in the debates from the various members, the MLAs, the incumbents in here…. Because we do such hard work on behalf of our communities, advocating for them, we form a relationship with the communities that are within the riding boundaries that we got elected into and that relationship and those bonds become very strong. It’s often because the issues that we address and take care of alongside in our advocacy of our constituents, whether it be individuals, businesses or the local government bodies that are within our riding boundaries.

The work that we do is very close, and we form very strong bonds. As this report…. The date is coming to see the final report. It’s now passed, and we’ve all had a chance to take a look at it. Now we’re debating the legislation that is going to make those new riding boundaries and adopt them into law.

Recognizing that we’ve got six new electoral districts that are going to be proposed, including four in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey and Langley all get a new riding. One here on Vancouver Island, in Langford, and another one in Kelowna. Six new ridings. I’m assuming that, sometime in the very near future, we’re going to be having a discussion about how we can fit six more desks into this legislative chamber.

The member for Abbotsford West was noting that there was one vocal advocate for benches in the government caucus. And I would say that I’m also an advocate for the use of benches. I think that that it would be a good adoption and a better use of space in the House. Either that or we’re going to have to make these desks smaller. Anyway, that debate is going to be coming probably at a LAMC committee near you in the coming weeks as we get this bill through the legislative process that’s in front of us today.

Again, it’s important that the population of each electoral district…. Part of the reason why, of course, the Electoral Boundaries Commission does this work is because there’s growth in the communities. Some communities are growing very quickly in the province, and some are not. So we need to make sure that, as close as possible, the ridings across the province are generally similar.

So following the passing of this bill, when we get to that eventual stage, there will be 93 ridings. The population will be somewhere between 40,000 and 67,000. In this boundaries commission, 72 districts have had their boundaries adjusted, and 41 districts have had their names changed.

I think this goes to the comment that my colleague from the Cowichan Valley was raising with respect to a riding in, I believe, Coquitlam. There is a scenario here where riding names have changed. So I certainly encourage the government to take a close look at that riding name, and consider it to be maybe 42 districts that have their names changed.

[2:25 p.m.]

Eighteen hundred submissions were a part of this consultation process. That’s a robust consultation process. Unfortunately, it was not nearly as accessible as it should be. Hopefully, two election cycles from now, the Electoral Boundaries Commission can make their work more available to the public.

I’ll just wrap up my comments by saying that during that process, the initial proposal was to remove Brentwood Bay from the Saanich North and the Islands riding. There were, I think, quite a number of comments from the public with respect to that suggestion made in the preliminary report. Indeed, Brentwood Bay stays in Saanich North and the Islands. But unfortunately, the Keating neighbourhood is being moved to Saanich South. So Saanich South will have a wonderful new community added to it.

I recognize there was some need for the change to be made. So I just wanted to take this moment to reflect on the time I have had the opportunity to represent Keating in the Legislature. As someone who is a former municipal councillor in the district of Central Saanich, I’ve been, to one extent or another, representing and making decisions that have impacted that neighbourhood since 2008. That’s a number of years now. I can still remember the streetlight conversation that was happening on Robin Way, back when I was on municipal council. It’s been quite a while. I’ll be sad to see Keating move to Saanich South. Very thankful to be the member representing Saanich North and the Islands in this parliament.

Finally, I’ll just say this. I think that as we are, and as the Electoral Boundaries Commission is doing their work in the future, and reflecting on the correct or the proper names that might best represent the territories that are represented within the electoral boundaries, other than maybe Cowichan, there are very, very few electoral districts that have Indigenous place names as part of their name. I really hope that as we go forward, the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, indeed, this Legislature considers the use of the original names that were used by the Indigenous peoples in each of the territories across the province to reflect the names of the ridings that are represented by the seats in this chamber.

When I take a look at my riding, for example, while there is more diversity than just a single nation reflected in Saanich North and the Islands, vast parts of it are W̱SÁNEĆ. I think that it would be a wonderful day when we were able to come to riding names that also reflected the traditional and historical names that have been used on these landscapes in this province since time immemorial.

With that, I’ll take my seat and thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

T. Stone: I do appreciate the opportunity to speak very briefly about this Bill 25.

I really want to start by thanking the Boundaries Commission for the work that they’ve done. As was very eloquently spoken by my colleague from Abbotsford West, this is not an easy exercise. It is very, very complicated. This is a huge province. It’s very diverse. Very unique regions. Everyone has a view and an opinion, and rightfully so. That’s how it should work.

At the end of the day, a group of people have to come together and make some tough decisions: the number of ridings within, obviously, the maximum allowed; the boundaries of those ridings; the names of those ridings. None of this is easy. Do you follow a river as a boundary? Do you follow train tracks? Do you use the boundaries of traditional territories? Do you try to preserve as many existing names as possible as a principle, or not?

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s not an easy exercise. I do think that the three individuals on the Boundaries Commission that did this work…. I think they worked with all of the information at hand, and there certainly were lots of engagement opportunities, and so forth.

I did want to offer just a couple of observations. These are process-related.

I absolutely accept the boundaries that are being proposed here. I absolutely accept the number of ridings that are being proposed here.

In fact, I’m very grateful, as are my constituents, that the Boundaries Commission — I think quite wisely — decided not to reduce the number of seats in the Interior and the North, which could have been a very real possibility, going into this process. The Interior and the North come out of this process with an additional seat in Kelowna — obviously recognizing the significant growth that has taken place in that very vibrant city, in the Interior.

I’m pleased that there’s an additional seat here in greater Victoria. It’s warranted, based on the population growth in greater Victoria, particularly in Langford. Obviously, the four additional seats in the Lower Mainland make sense, based on the significant population growth that we see in the Fraser Valley, through Surrey, parts of the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. All of that makes a lot of sense.

I do believe that there is an opportunity to get the process even better next time around. When I say, “next time around,” there’s an asterisk on that. The next time that this exercise takes place is actually eight years from now. It’s two elections — the next one and the one after that — and then you trigger an electoral boundaries process to do this all over again. So it’s quite some ways off into the future.

As was mentioned by my good friend the member for Fraser-Nicola moments ago…. I do believe that the current process has worked really well in many regards. I look at the two Kamloops ridings. I represent Kamloops–South Thompson; my friend and colleague represents Kamloops–North Thompson. Coming out of this boundaries process, there will continue to be two seats in Kamloops, which makes a lot of sense. The Boundaries Commission has decided to go in a very different direction, going forward, in terms of where the boundaries are, and that’s fine. There are still two seats that will represent the Kamloops area.

There were significant concerns that were expressed, when the interim report and recommendations came out, on the part of Barriere, Clearwater and First Nations up the North Thompson Valley. In that preliminary report, the North Thompson Valley was, potentially, going to be moved out of a Kamloops riding. Currently, again, it’s in Kamloops–North Thompson. It was going to be moved out of the Kamloops riding and put into a Cariboo riding.

Because of the opportunity for input and the opportunity for engagement, those communities of Barriere and Clearwater and the First Nations…. There are other, even smaller, communities up the North Thompson Valley. The mayors, residents, Chiefs, with one voice, made a very compelling case to the Boundaries Commission, saying that everything they do, everything they’re about, everything from their medical appointments to jobs, to shopping, to education and access to services, is all done north-south, from the North Thompson Valley down to, and from, Kamloops.

The request of Barriere, Clearwater and the neighbouring communities to the commission was: “Please keep us in a Kamloops riding. The Kamloops riding may look different and have a different name and the rest of it, but please keep us in the Kamloops riding. Keep us in the orbit of Kamloops.”

I believe it was a wise decision by the Boundaries Commission to actually take that feedback from the preliminary report and incorporate it into the final report. Indeed, Barriere, Clearwater and the North Thompson Valley, including Wells Gray Park, are mostly continuing to be part of a Kamloops riding.

[2:35 p.m.]

That was a process that worked really well. That was where the communities-of-interest argument was compelling. It was, obviously, seriously considered by the commission and incorporated, and it was the right result for the residents of the North Thompson.

The unfortunate reality was…. There are other communities that were not afforded that opportunity to express their concern. It wasn’t on their radar screen that there was even any consideration that they would be relocated — moved into a different constituency, literally a different region of the province. I won’t name them all. There were more than a handful.

In my neck of the woods, Ashcroft and Cache Creek and Clinton…. There was no indication whatsoever in the preliminary report that those communities would be moved out of Fraser-Nicola and added into a Cariboo riding. So why would the mayors of those communities and the Chiefs in those areas make submissions to the Boundaries Commission to remain in a riding when there was not even a hint that they were going to be moved from their current riding?

Well, they were moved out. They were moved out of Fraser-Nicola and into Cariboo-Chilcotin. They will still maintain their strong connections with Kamloops and Merritt. They will be served, I believe, very well by whoever becomes the next MLA in that area. There was a lot of frustration — and I think, in their case, it was fair frustration — that they weren’t given a heads-up or any inkling or any indication that that was even on the table.

Very respectfully, very humbly, I wanted to put on the record…. I do hope that when the Electoral Boundaries Commission is constituted the next time — again, it would be two elections from now — there would be more consideration or some consideration given to ensuring…. If communities are to be moved out of one riding and into another riding, there would be some component in the process, which is equally available to all communities, for those communities to offer their perspective on whether they believe that fits with their communities of interest and that fits with how their communities are connected with the communities around them.

The same process that Barriere and Clearwater had available to them, which they were able to access and utilize and, by virtue of that, change the commission’s mind — it has resulted in Barriere and Clearwater remaining in a Kamloops riding — would be equally available to other communities like Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Clinton. They didn’t have the opportunity to raise their hands and say: “Wait a minute. We might have something to say about this possibility of being moved into a different riding.”

We’ve heard the same things from Coldstream. It has always been associated with Vernon. It’s now going to be added to the Kelowna–Lake Country riding. Fair enough. But again, in Coldstream’s case, they weren’t afforded an opportunity to really offer a perspective on that. The moment they found out about it, it was final. It was a done deal.

The last point that I wanted to make just involves names. It always baffles me, when there are processes like this…. I don’t just speak of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. This occurs all across government. I’ve been on both sides. So I’ve experienced it as a minister and as an opposition member. How often we get names wrong or we name something that’s not, maybe, as well named as it could be based on what the locals would actually think.

For example, my friend and colleague from Peace River North has been petitioning long and hard. He brought a private member’s bill in before the conclusion of the electoral boundaries process. He presented to the electoral boundaries process. He wrote letters. He has engaged.

In Peace River North…. This is such a massive riding. There are really two regions within the riding. They’re very distinct areas of the riding and the province, indeed.

[2:40 p.m.]

There’s the Peace River, a component around Fort St. John. People who live in Fort St. John say: “I’m in the Peace.” If you live in Fort Nelson and in the northern two-thirds of that riding, you live in what people there refer to as the Northern Rockies. They don’t call it the North.

It may seem like a really silly, subtle thing to those of us who don’t live there, but it’s actually important. It matters to people in Northern Rockies that the riding that is to represent their part of this beautiful province of ours actually represents them not just in geography but also in how it’s named.

I believe the same is the case with Maple Ridge–East as a new name. The east part of that riding is Mission, and there are people in Mission that are saying: “Why would you not call it Mission? We don’t live in a place called ‘East.’ We don’t say that we live east of Maple Ridge. We live in Mission.”

In our backyard, the two Kamloops ridings. One of the new ridings will be called Kamloops Centre, which is fine. It’s great — a postage stamp or densely populated urban riding in basically the downtown of Kamloops with a total area of 114 square kilometres. The other Kamloops riding will take in a geography of 17,024 square kilometres. So they’re two very different ridings from size.

Kamloops Centre makes sense in terms of the name, but the other one is being called Kamloops–North Thompson. A more appropriate name would have been Kamloops and Thompson Valleys. The South Thompson river valley and the North Thompson river valley are both features of this riding. There are more people, a lot more people, that live along the South Thompson Valley than the North Thompson Valley. So it would have been more appropriately named Kamloops-Thompson Valleys.

Anyway, I digress. These are minor points. Overall, again, I absolutely support the work that the boundaries commission has done. I appreciate very much how hard the job is to do this, will absolutely support what is in front of us and am thankful we don’t have to do this again for another two elections. The number of ridings will be set. The names will be set. The boundaries will be set. Again, I appreciate the work the boundary commission did to get us to this point.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 25, Electoral Districts Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consi­der­ation at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading of Bill 23, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

BILL 23 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 23, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. This legislation is an important initial step in supporting our government’s CleanBC strategy and, specifically, our forthcoming clean transportation action plan to be released later this year. These changes to the Motor Vehicle Act have been developed with the goal of achieving government’s CleanBC commitments to lower greenhouse gas emissions in transportation by 27 to 32 percent by 2030 and, more specifically, to meet the CleanBC targets to increase the share of trips made by active transportation to 30 percent by 2030.

Promoting safety in the active transportation environment on our roads is one key initiative supported by this bill. For the first time, changes are proposed that explicitly recognize and respond to the vulnerability of pedestrians, cyclists and other active transportation users.

Specifically, a one-metre minimum safe-passing distance that drivers must observe when passing pedestrians, cyclists and other prescribed road users is proposed in this bill. The bill also proposes a three-metre default distance to be maintained when drivers are following the same road users, prior to passing. Our government also proposes a new offence framework for drivers who interact unsafely with and do not take proper precautions in respect of vulnerable road users.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’ve heard from people who want to engage in different forms of active transportation in all communities right around our beautiful province, but many have conveyed that they do not do so because of real or perceived safety barriers. We have developed this legislation in close consultation with a number of key stakeholders who are part of the vulnerable road user community and who use our road networks more broadly.

I want to read a quote from one of these important stakeholders, and that is a provincewide organization called HUB Cycling, whose executive director, Erin O’Melinn, had this to say about the legislation after it was introduced at first reading. “HUB Cycling is pleased to see the introduction of a minimum safe-passing-distance law and other protections for vulnerable road users. The majority of local residents cycle regularly or want to cycle but are held back by safety concerns. This is an important step to making all road users safer and to providing comfortable options for people to get around using active, healthy, affordable, sustainable modes of transportation.”

We’ve also heard from drivers trying their best to drive defensively, as they were trained to do, to provide for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users. These changes to strengthen the safety of the active transportation environment are broadly supported by cycling associations, police, health authorities, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and many, many others. They will also position B.C. at the forefront in the country in terms of recognizing and protecting vulnerable road users.

Other key changes in this bill provide new tools to enable the use of new and emerging technologies to help transform and build a cleaner, future-ready, safe and sustainable multimodal transportation network on B.C. roads. The bill provides authority to require the use of speed limiters in heavy-duty commercial trucking, a change that is strongly supported by an industry voice, the B.C. Trucking Association.

I want to quote somebody that members of all sides of the House know quite well, Dave Earle, who is the president and the CEO of the B.C. Trucking Association. He had this to say about Bill 23. “We’ve advocated for speed limiters on heavy-duty commercial vehicles because the data shows they dramatically reduce the number of at-fault speed-related accidents. Additionally, speed limiters help green our sector by curbing fuel consumption and emissions generated by trucks travelling at high speeds. These amendments will benefit the trucking industry and British Columbians as a whole.”

Indeed, in proposing these amendments to the MVA, government did look at data available from the province of Ontario, where what Mr. Earle has just said can happen in British Columbia, in fact, did happen in that province, in terms of fuel consumption and the avoidance of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

The transportation sector, as members of this House will know, accounts for about 40 percent of the overall greenhouse gas inventory in the province of British Columbia. Of that 40 percent, half, or 20 percent of the province’s total emissions, are related to the operation of commercial vehicles. These and other initiatives in the clean transportation action plan are going to help us achieve dramatic reduction targets that we have set out in the CleanBC plan.

In capping speeds at which heavy-duty commercial vehicles can travel, speed limiters are going to do two key things. They’ll facilitate safety on our roads by reducing overall speed and capping them, and they will help to lower greenhouse gas emissions from these vehicles in the manner that I’ve mentioned. There are other initiatives that will also do this in that sector, but this is an important one that needed to be amended in the statutes in order to be achieved. That’s what this bill proposes to do.

This bill is also attempting to anticipate a number of changes in technology that are happening in this rapidly changing world of ours. The emergence of automated vehicles is also contemplated in this bill. While the province of British Columbia does not have regulatory approval for the trials and safety approval of automated vehicles — that work is being done on the national scale and across North America — there is new authority proposed for our province to enable a framework for the licensing, the insurance, the prohibition and the permitting of conditional highly and fully automated vehicles and their future safe deployment on our roads.

Our approach to be ready for the future of true, fully automated motor vehicles is strongly endorsed by, again, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the Automotive Retailers Association, police detachments, police forces and many others we consulted with during the development of this legislation.

[2:50 p.m.]

A future where many more clean and affordable transportation choices are available for the movement of people and goods on our roads is also contemplated in this bill. New enabling authority for emerging transportation technologies such as delivery robots and other designated motorized devices, as well as new and different classes of motor-assisted cycles or e-bikes are proposed in Bill 23.

We know that the safety of new and emerging technologies is also critical to supporting their availability and their uptake. We heard very clearly from representatives of cycling associations, from health authority leaders, from police, from ICBC and from our other road safety partners in this regard specifically. To this end, the bill enables new inspection and enforcement powers to address and intervene in situations where, for example, a device does not comply with or has been modified to surpass prescribed power output or speed thresholds.

Finally, the province’s current authority to pilot emerging technologies and policies, under part 13 of the act, is expanded, specifically enabling provincewide pilot projects, as opposed to just very localized local government pilots, as well as pilots of varying geographic scope, and broader regulation-making authority to enable a wider range of matters that could, potentially, be piloted.

We know that modernizing and transforming how we move on our roads will require more pilot-testing. These changes will ensure that a broad range of tools are in place so B.C. is open and can lead the way in partnering with universities, with businesses and with others to support research and the innovation of new and emerging clean transportation technologies.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude shortly.

I want to highlight, at this point in the second reading debate, that we have been attentive to our commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples, including modern treaty nations and the Nisg̱a’a, as we’ve developed this legislation. We have conducted an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This bill does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration.

I look forward to hearing from colleagues on all sides of the House, during second reading debate, on their thoughts on what we propose.

In the words of many of the stakeholders that we have been working with on this legislation over the previous months, beginning last year, they feel that this is a big deal. The surveys that I referenced for vulnerable road users — for cyclists, in particular…. It is a significant barrier to using that as a part of daily commuting.

Our government has, of course, tried to create a new generation of safe cyclists by promoting, through the education system, comprehensive grades 4 and 5 cycling road safety programs that have now, literally, touched the lives of tens of thousands of young students. They have developed competencies, safely getting to and from school, and know the rules of the road, perhaps better than previous generations of cyclists have, and how to be aware of the environment in which they’re cycling.

We know that a number of people who hold drivers’ licences — and it has been some time since they were formally trained and licensed to operate a vehicle — do their best to drive safely and to be mindful of the road conditions and all those who use the roads around them. This provides clarity about what drivers must do in terms of safely observing and conducting themselves in and around vulnerable road users.

The goal of our government in everything we do, in terms of highway improvements, in terms of amendments and projects to our road networks to make them safer, is to reduce the number of fatalities and collisions in British Columbia. This is part of our zero fatality commitment, which the province has been working towards for a number of years. It certainly informs these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that have been introduced and that are being debated this afternoon.

I would be remiss in not mentioning we have also used the existing authorities to conduct a number of pilot projects on new and emerging technologies in a number of communities around British Columbia. We will, of course, share the results of those pilots when they come good. We anticipate that the number of pilots and the scope of them need to be increased. But we also risked a successful challenge if we did not change the legislation to enable us to do so.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is a comprehensive set of amendments that I know are being welcomed. I know that members of the House on all sides would expect that we consulted broadly and engaged very deeply with those who are part of the transportation sector who use our roads. And that is what this legislation does.

The definitions around vulnerable road users are a first for the MVA, and those are very important as we try and shift people out of single-occupant vehicles, primarily, which are a significant source of greenhouse gas pollution.

This fits in with a number of initiatives that the province is doing, more broadly. I think I’m allowed to speak to that at second reading — around being first in the continent, in terms of electric vehicle adoption, in terms of rebate incentive programs that help install charging infrastructure. We’re working on 10,000 charging installations around the province. We have thousands that have been introduced already.

There is a dramatic increase in strata councils, public spaces that have charging infrastructure to decarbonize the transportation sector.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We’re working on new initiatives with the heavy-duty commercial truck sector to do that, as well, in specific environments where heavy-duty commercial vehicles are part of the industry, such as port authorities, to ensure that, again, having become the No. 1 EV jurisdiction for private vehicles, we’re positioned to become No. 1 in the heavy-duty electric vehicle space as well.

It takes a number of initiatives to get us towards the CleanBC targets we have. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the clean transportation action plan is a high-level strategy that features a number of initiatives that we will release later this year. I wished it had been available at this stage of debate, but we’re working very diligently with partners around the province to complete work on that plan, and it will inform us in our strategy to meet the CleanBC commitments we have made to 2030 and beyond.

It’s a rare privilege to be able to introduce a bill that will deliver significantly on safety for our citizens, as well as the environmental benefits and goals for our province as a whole to be a climate change leader not only here in North America but recognized around the world.

With that, I will take my place and look forward to hearing the comments from my colleagues.

T. Halford: Welcome, and thank you, Madam Chair — grateful for the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill 23, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023.

You know, when we look at several of the amendments — which are being put forward here — made to the Motor Vehicle Act, I think they are pragmatic. They’re inclusive of an ever-changing technology. We look at what transportation enthusiasts are embracing, whether it’s e-bikes, whether it’s scooters, and I’ll get to those in a little bit. The future is moving quick, and we need to be prepared for it.

On a side note, I always thought that what happened in the movies always happened and that it was going to be true. So when I watched Back to the Future II in 1989, I just assumed that in 2015, we’d be getting prepared for flying cars and hoverboards. And none of that stuff has happened. We do not have hoverboards, and we do not have flying cars, and I look forward to…. Because if we do, I don’t know about them.

Anyway, it is always important to think into the future, and I’m hoping we’ll canvass some of these amendments extensively in third reading.

I think the minister did speak…. And I’ll agree with him on a lot of things when we talk about pedestrians and cyclists. I know that the minister has done some recent media on this. I think a lot of people are surprised that some of this that’s contained in this bill doesn’t already exist. When we look at the importance of keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe, it’s absolutely paramount. And we need to encourage those other options — that being cycling.

[3:00 p.m.]

The minister spoke about some of the environmental factors, and we will continue to wait for that ever-elusive clean transportation action plan. There’s no doubt that this government needs help to meet and encourage more users to jump onto transportation and to help meet their CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 emission reduction targets.

The most recent accountability report confirms that emissions from transportation are up 12 percent compared to 2007 and that B.C. is on track to miss its 2030 emissions targets by 3 percent. There’s some work to do there. I think that when we look at some of the provisions…. I believe it is clause 20 that requires speed limiter equipment to be installed in all commercial vehicles that are over almost 12,000 kilograms, have an electronically controlled engine and are now newer than 1994.

It also provides for peace officers’ powers to enforce the section. That’s important, and we’ll canvass that extensively. But I want to know: who’s paying for that? You look at the struggle that a lot of these truckers are seeing right now, in terms of affordability with gas, things like that. I imagine that these devices, and we’ll canvass this extensively, aren’t cheap.

I’m glad to see that this government is finally tackling the grey area of auto-vehicles by prohibiting operation of certain types of such vehicles, but several years of driverless cars operating here in British Columbia doesn’t mean the NDP has taken a position of not having someone in the driver’s seat on such an important safety issue. We’ll canvass that extensively.

Just going back. I’m not going to speak very long on this. We will have significant questions and canvassing going into third reading, but when we look at e-bikes, scooters, they somehow have opened the door to future licensing and insurance requirements, so what does that mean? Does that mean that if you are purchasing an e-bike or a scooter, the minister is now going to force you to register that, take out insurance, pay for that? Those are other questions that we’ll canvass.

With that, Madam Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity to debate on third reading and hearing the other remarks from other speakers.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 23, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

As both of my colleagues the Minister of Transportation and also the official opposition’s critic have noted, this bill is an important bill, especially for anybody who’s not in a motor vehicle.

I think the way that our laws in this province have evolved over the years is very much reflective of the car-centric society that we have. I can’t stand and speak to this bill without recognizing a constituent of mine on Saltspring Island, Myna Lee Johnson. Every time I go to Saltspring, Myna Lee reminds me of our car-centric society. She reminds me of the noise that’s generated by cars. She reminds me of the pollution that’s generated by cars. She reminds me of the dangers that motor vehicles pose to anybody who’s not in a motor vehicle.

Just take a look at the name of this act as a very basic start: the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. We’re amending the Motor Vehicle Act. This is not an act that’s generally designed for safe transportation in all the different modes. This is about protecting and enhancing the use of motor vehicles. It’s a minor point with major impact, I think.

[3:05 p.m.]

If what we are designing the rules of our transportation rights-of-way around is just the motor vehicle, then the outcomes will be that that will be the centre of the decision-making.

I think that now, as we’re looking at active transportation options that are increasingly prominent in our communities, perhaps it might be time for us to change the name of the act, to change what the act is built around, and that would just be transportation through a variety of different modes. A lot of the time and a lot of the anxiety that’s created in communities when a municipality moves to build bike lanes, for an example, on roads is that that space is for cars. They’re not spaces for cyclists. That space that’s now being taken up and made just for cyclists previously was made just for cars. So I’ve had a number of conversations where people get quite anxious and quite frustrated about that.

As someone who is a cyclist and chooses to get to work here, mostly on the nicest days, by bike, and even by bus when I’m not on my bike, the reality is that oftentimes those motor vehicles, often the single-occupancy vehicles are…. The preference is given to that form of transportation rather than creating space for buses, creating spaces for rapid buses, creating spaces for cyclists and pedestrians.

Having that on the record and recognizing the important advocacy that Myna Lee offers every time I go to Saltspring, I want her to know and want all of my constituents and, indeed, anybody who’s paying attention to this to know that these are important changes in this bill. But there is also a philosophical discussion that needs to happen in this province — that if we continue to build our legislation around a single form of transportation, then those are the outcomes that we’re going to get.

But today I’m very happy to be debating, as my colleague in the official opposition from Surrey–White Rock and the Minister of Transportation have been talking about safe passing laws for cyclists, enabling innovation like speed limiters on heavy-duty vehicles to help reduce collisions and improve greenhouse gas emissions and to expand the province’s ability to permit technology like robot delivery services.

As the Minister of Transportation noted in his speech, this is a bill that has had a lot of support from third-party stakeholders, people and groups outside this Legislature, in acknowledging these important changes.

As someone who cycles to work, cycles down to the Legislature — I’m one of the seven MLAs that have the benefit of living and working in the city — most of my ride is on an old railbed, now a trail, off the road. But there are a couple of spots on my commute where I am directly exposed to vehicles. As much as a cyclist can create as big a presence as they can on their bike, using bright colours and a lot of light, the reality of it is that there is always a sense that the cyclist is an imposition on this road right-of-way.

I think that that’s part of the psychology that needs to change and is changing by requiring drivers to share the road and to create a substantive amount of space in passing cyclists and not trying to rush to get past the cyclist before the oncoming vehicle gets there, creating a really dangerous situation for the person on the bike. I’ve had a few of those incidents, but the incidents that I’ve had are scary.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think that the decision for me to divest of a vehicle, to move to a bicycle and to kind of commit, I guess, a portion of my commute on bike is that every day I get on that bike, I want to get home and see my family.

I guess just for the drivers out there, and as someone who also drives a vehicle, I often have to remind myself. It’s not difficult to get into the driver’s mindset when you’re behind the wheel of a vehicle and to kind of lose all of that memory of the close calls on a bicycle. So I’m very pleased that this is an initiative that is underway in creating 1 metre between vehicles and cyclists and a minimum of 3 metres of distance following.

The next important thing that will come after this law is passed, of course, is the education of drivers that this is indeed the new law. Many of us get our driver’s licence and then that’s the last time that we really think about it. We know the rules. We follow the rules. But we don’t ever have to go through a process to be reminded of what the rules are, to brush up, to have those constant touch-ins throughout our driving career. When we’re making changes to the rules of the road, how the government informs the public that this is their new responsibility — a metre of distance in passing, three metres of distance behind in following…. Making sure that the public knows of that will be very important.

It’s also just to say that with respect to this new change, we are joining a large number of legislative jurisdictions across North America that are making these changes and making the roads more safe for cyclists. Thirty-nine provinces and states have passed a similar law, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec.

I think it’s important just to put into context that 1,600 British Columbians on bicycles are injured in car crashes each year. Almost 80 percent of people say close-passing vehicles are their biggest threat while cycling, and those who bike regularly say that they are close-passed at least once a week. That’s slightly more than what my experience is, but certainly only one accident, just one incident, could be a life-changing experience for a cyclist.

The speed limiters on trucks. Some good questions being asked by the member of the official opposition. Just noting that putting speed limiters on trucks has been proven and shown to reduce at-fault accidents and to also reduce emissions. Ontario introduced this in 2008, capping speed limits at 105 kilometres an hour, with fines anywhere between $250 and $20,000. Quebec introduced it a year later with the same limit, at 105 kilometres an hour. But their fine structure is a much more narrow $305 to $1,050. It appears that British Columbia is expecting a similar 105-kilometre-an-hour limit.

I’m just going to end with this. I think that it’s incredibly important that we are creating the space and creating the legislative framework and the classes of vehicles for the future potential of self-driving vehicles. It feels like self-driving vehicles…. My colleague from Surrey–White Rock mentioned the Back to the Future reference from 1989. I also remember that movie, which also dates me. It seems like the self-driving car has always been just a couple of years away. It’s just a couple of years away.

Now that we see this renaissance for AI happening, perhaps we’ll find that yes, indeed — self-driving vehicles, little pods that move us from A to B, maybe a subscription service. They go and park or go and pick somebody else up, and then, when you need to come back from the grocery store, there’s a pod there to take you back to where you need to be. Perhaps we are just a few years away from that.

But it’s clearly more than just the vehicle that is going to be required for that technology to be in place. Certainly, a very robust network is going to need to be in place, access to I think the type of broadband capacity that we haven’t even imagined yet.

[3:15 p.m.]

We are working towards that. Certainly, the developers are ever working towards making that a reality. So it’s good to see British Columbia creating the classes of vehicles and creating the framework for that to exist in.

Finally, I think just a tip of the hat to InDro Robotics. With the regulations that are coming in place for emerging technologies like delivery robots, there are a few companies out there right now that are using this technology already. I can’t remember the company’s name, but I just saw a company in Africa delivering blood from a central blood location out to hospitals in more remote areas using airplanes and parachutes — deliveries going every 20 minutes. A really phenomenal system.

InDro Robotics is a company that I think started on Saltspring Island, or at least has offices on Saltspring Island. The first robotic — I think it’s called “out of line of sight” — delivery that has happened in this country happened on Saltspring Island, in my riding. It happened with a pickup from the London Drugsin Cowichan, in Duncan, with a delivery to a location on Saltspring.

I’m grateful that the government is working to regulate that area, because I know that there are innovators in my riding that are working on this technology, and perhaps it will limit the number of trips that I need to make on my bike.

With that, I just want to raise my hands in gratitude for the changes that are being made here. As someone who is going to be immediately and directly impacted by these laws, it will make my life safer. I think I appreciate that. My family appreciates that, and people who cycle in this province and who are pedestrians in this province will appreciate it as well.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Hon. D. Coulter: It’s always lovely to be able to speak in front of you. It’s my pleasure today to rise to speak about Bill 23, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I’d first like to just thank the Minister of Transportation for introducing this bill. It’s a good bill. I’d also like to thank my colleagues from around the House for their support of this bill.

The bill proposes many important changes to support the safety of vulnerable road users and to build a future-ready, cleaner transportation network on our roads here in British Columbia. It’s the continuation of our government’s commitment in support of the CleanBC plan to make active transportation an option for more people and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a better future for all British Columbians.

A first important step in this journey was the release in 2019 of Move, Commute, Connect, our government’s active transportation strategy. That strategy set out our commitments to double the percentage of trips taken with active transportation by 2030, build on the success of the B.C. bike program so that communities can build integrated and accessible active transportation systems that work for all active transportation users, and work together with communities to create policies and plans that enable and support complete transportation networks across the province.

The active transportation strategy set the course for our government’s commitment to support communities in investments in active transportation infrastructure. For example, in 2022-2023, the active transportation grants program provided nearly $25 million in cost-shared grants in Indigenous and local government communities.

The release of the active transportation strategy in 2019 also saw an initial phase of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act in that same year to enable, for the first time, pilot projects to test clean, new, emerging transportation technologies. These 2019 amendments were a first step to looking at how we can support expanding efficient, safe and affordable ways for British Columbians to get to work, school or other places in their communities.

With the onset of the pandemic, the desire for active transportation options — including e-bikes, e-scooters and other devices — increased significantly.

[3:20 p.m.]

It provided clear evidence that the active transportation environment is one of the key strategies in lowering GHG emissions in the transportation sector and helping to reduce trips by car in the community.

This was highlighted in the fall of 2021, with the release of our government’s CleanBC Roadmap to 2030. The roadmap commits to lowering greenhouse gas emissions in transportation by 27 to 32 percent by 2030, and, more specifically, to meet the CleanBC targets to increase the share of trips made by walking, cycling and transit to 30 percent by 2030. The roadmap signalled that more needs to be done to support the use of clean transportation and to get us to our 2030 targets.

This bill is one of the most important steps to build on our efforts to date by further modernizing the Motor Vehicle Act to increase the safety of the active transportation environment, which is critical to efforts to increase the share of trips made by walking, cycling and other forms of active transportation; enable the use of clean emerging transportation technologies across multiple modes, everything from active transportation to commercial trucking; and enhance the framework for researching, testing and evaluating new technologies and policies through expansion of the pilot project framework in the act.

This bill is an important step in supporting our government’s clean transportation action plan, which will be released later this year. These changes will help sustain and drive improvements in support of lowering GHGs in the transportation sector by 2030 and to our commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.

I want to highlight some of the specifics of the proposed legislation, starting with proposed changes to the definition of pedestrian. One important change here is to clarify and address recent ambiguities raised in some case law about who can be considered a pedestrian. While it may seem obvious that, for example, a person sitting or lying on a grassy median is a pedestrian, the current definition does not make that clear. This bill addresses these kinds of ambiguities.

It also, at the same time, provides flexibility to enable users of motorized medical mobility devices as pedestrians under the act to have equal access to both the pedestrian and cycling parts of the infrastructure.

The bill provides authority for the council of the municipality to make decisions, for example, on whether motorized assistive mobility devices and medical scooters can access the cycling parts of the infrastructure. This clarity provides options to communities to support changing expectations about how people move as transportation technology evolves.

When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility, I was often approached by groups that really wanted this change to be able to use mobility devices in bike lanes. Often, on mobility devices, it’s a little bit dangerous going down the sidewalk, both for other pedestrians and also the people using the mobility devices, because often the sidewalks are a little rougher. You can get your front wheels caught and go head over tea kettle, or whatever they call it, and hurt yourself.

I, myself, just recently got this thing called a SmartDrive that clicks to the back of my chair. It’s really increased my range around Victoria. I’m able to get around with it much better. I’ll tell you that the sidewalks worry me a little bit, especially a dark sidewalk when I’m headed back to my hotel alone. So this change to allow me to use a bike lane is a change that I welcome and has also been requested by folks in the disability community.

As the movement of people changes, it falls to government to ensure the safe deployment of devices and their users. In this regard, Bill 23 proposes, for the first time, amendments that require drivers of motor vehicles to give a minimum of three metres of safe following space and a minimum of one metre of safe lateral passing distance to pedestrians, cyclists and other active transportation users.

[3:25 p.m.]

Our government also proposes a new offence framework for drivers who interact unsafely with and do not take proper precautions in respect of these vulnerable road users.

These changes will position B.C. at the forefront in the country in terms of recognizing and protecting vulnerable road users. In my role as Minister of State for Infrastructure, I often talk with active transportation groups, cycling groups and such. I won’t read the quote from Erin O’Melinn, the executive director of HUB Cycling, because the minister has already put that into the record. But I will just say that more people are likely to use active transportation if they feel safe on the roads. I think this is a great and welcome change to be able to get new cyclists on the road.

Other changes, already mentioned but worth highlighting again…. The proposed authority to require the use of speed limiters in heavy-duty commercial trucking to facilitate safety on our roads and to help lower greenhouse gas emissions from these vehicles. New authority is also proposed to enable framework for the future of true, fully automated vehicles and sidewalk delivery robots, as well as new and different classes of motor-assisted cycles or e-bikes.

Finally, the province’s current authority to pilot emerging technologies and policies under part 13 of the act is expanded, specifically enabling provincewide pilot projects as well as other pilots of varying geographic scope and broader regulation, making authority to enable a wider range of matters that could potentially be piloted.

Under the 2019 amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act to allow for pilot projects, our government established the electric kick scooter pilot, authorizing use of these devices in 12 communities across the province. The project continues to April of next year, and thus far, has shown the potential to assess clean emerging transportation technologies on a pilot basis to support the changing ways people expect to and want to move in this province.

With these changes, we’re broadening the authority to, for example, pilot autonomous vehicles, sidewalk delivery robots, classes of motor-assisted cycles, rules of the road and new and different designated personal mobility devices. These changes will put B.C. at the forefront in this country in our ability to research, test and evaluate emerging transportation technologies.

With this enhanced framework, our province will be well placed to support research with our partners such as Transport Canada, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, the Transportation Association of Canada, ICBC, police, the Automotive Retailers Association, cycling associations, health authorities, universities, technology businesses and many others to test the safe deployment of clean new transportation technologies and policies.

In conclusion, I want to highlight that Bill 23 continues the work of our government to address the climate crisis. I’m sure you’re happy to hear me say “in conclusion.” It is a future-focused piece of legislation that looks to support British Columbians through the changes in how we will move, commute and connect in our communities in the years ahead.

With that, I’d like to thank my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for bringing this bill to the chamber. I’d also like to thank all the members that have spoken to this bill and have supported this bill, because these are great changes. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the time.

D. Routley: I love standing up in the House to speak about my constituents and focus on them. At this moment, I’m taking just a brief few minutes to include myself in my comments, and that’s because I’m a lifelong cyclist.

[3:30 p.m.]

This piece of legislation, Bill 23, brought forward by my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and thanks to him for this, is life-changing and will make for much safer and much more friendly and civil roads.

In my cycling career, I estimate I’ve ridden around the circumference of the earth at least six times. In that time, I’ve been hit seven times by cars, and I’ve hit two human beings myself on the road. So I clearly didn’t give a metre to those human beings on the road. Some of those times have been pretty terrifying, and I’d just like to speak about one of them. It would have been affected by this piece of legislation. That was in 1986, after riding down from the Malahat — hills on which you achieve speeds of 80 to 90 kilometres per hour.

I was hit by a motorhome in Goldstream Park. As I was riding along, I looked down and saw the front wheel of the motorhome beside my ankle as it passed me, and I knew I was about to be hit. Indeed, the side mirror of the motorhome hit me in the back of the head, and I tumbled.

I wasn’t seriously injured, but that was an instance where a metre would have made all the difference. In fact, I was lying on the road, and the driver of the motorhome, who had just rented it and was unfamiliar with the width of the vehicle, jumped out, ran back and, rather than asking how I was, started screaming at me for being in his way.

I think my hope is that we, as parents, can have more confidence that our kids will be safer on the road and that we, as cyclists, can have more confidence that the onus is on drivers to avoid the cyclists. I think that’s the most important part of the one-metre passing rule. If a car has struck a cyclist, clearly they were less than a metre away, and it will be up to that driver to justify why that happened.

For my own sake, I think that that’s a really pivotal difference, and this is a pivotal moment for cyclists in British Columbia. We all have a responsibility to make the roads safer, but this clearly puts the onus on drivers to avoid cyclists.

I’ve been irritated by cyclists on the road as a driver, but I always remember that to me, it’s an irritation, and that’s about the worst potential from the circumstance, whereas for the cyclist, it’s a potentially life-altering or life-ending circumstance. I’ve been hit from behind, and clearly, the car that hit me from behind was not three metres away when it hit me.

All of these changes will make life better for cyclists, make it easier for us to achieve our targets and make a healthier British Columbia, if more people are cycling. As a cyclist, I just had to stand up and thank the Minister of Transportation, all the members in the House who have spoken on the bill, all those who will support it and you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me this moment of perhaps selfish reflection on the issue.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll be very brief in closing debate. I appreciate the comments from members on all sides of the House this afternoon. I appreciate the comments of my colleague the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Transit, in particular, and the member for Nanaimo–​North Cowichan, who just spoke on his experience as a commuter and as a cyclist.

I think what we have heard very clearly is that the rules of the road need to be much more clear and that they must be much more legally enforceable. That’s what Bill 23 attempts to do. Most of us are not just commuters in a private motor vehicle. We’re cyclists, and we’re pedestrians, and we share the roads in that manner.

[3:35 p.m.]

There’s not too much to correct in terms of what we heard at second reading here, but perhaps I could have expanded, at second reading, on the definition of “vulnerable road user.” I expect we’ll get into more detail at committee stage.

I think it’s important to just say that the definition of “pedestrian” in the legislation is being expanded to cover a number of omissions, in my view, from the standing statute, to include things like wheelchairs and strollers. The changes will also enable persons who use such devices as motorized assistive mobility aids to be included as pedestrians under the law.

There was a comment, too, from the member for Surrey–​White Rock about a potential imposition on the cost of owner-operators or those otherwise engaged in the trucking industry about the use of speed limiter technology. I quoted the enthusiastic support of the B.C. Trucking Association’s CEO and president in my earlier remarks. I did want to clarify that this is but one of a number of initiatives that we have implemented to make the roads safer for everyone as it relates to the commercial trucking industry.

One of the initiatives we undertook some months ago was to require the use of electronic logging devices. This is really something that will empower drivers where they have disputes with companies about how many hours they’ve worked. Where the issue of driver fatigue has been identified in police reports and investigations as potentially a contributing factor to crashes, the use of this technology will leave no discrepancy and doubt about the hours, in fact, worked.

The entire bill speaks to looking at new and emerging technologies but also those that exist. Our government has worked to utilize existing technologies like electronic logging devices. We worked with the industry during the pandemic to make sure that there was a variety of ELDs available in the marketplace, as choice for the trucking industry, that would comply with Transport Canada regulations, and we’ve done that.

In regards to speed limiters, I do wish to assure the Member for Surrey–White Rock that speed limiters are devices that are fitted to a vehicle’s engine to regulate speed. All heavy-duty commercial trucks manufactured after 1995 are already equipped with speed-limiting technology. So there is no cost to be borne by the industry on vehicles that were manufactured after 1995 with a GVWR, gross vehicle weight rating, that is greater than 11,793 kilograms. Industry has supported the initiative of government, the legislation that’s before this House. We’ve worked with the trucking industry. There is no additional cost there.

I would say that there’s one other safety initiative that our government implemented with the assistance of police, the Trucking Association and the Insurance Corporation of B.C., and that was the mandatory entry-level training for new commercial truck drivers seeking that class of licence. It was a gap that was identified by the tragic inquiry into the Humboldt Broncos accident that cost so many young people their lives. Government worked very diligently to make sure that B.C. not only had mandatory entry-level training but had the best in the country, which we do.

The 140 hours of training take into account the unique topography of British Columbia — more air brake training, for example. Recognizing that there are so many different climatic zones in British Columbia, drivers need to be experienced on chaining up, and they need to be experienced on driving in mountainous terrain, for example. We needed a made-in-B.C. MELT program, mandatory entry-level training program, that was its own and suitable for a province that is perhaps different than the straightaways and the flat prairie circumstances of Saskatchewan or Alberta or Manitoba. That’s what we’ve done.

ELDs combined with MELT and now combined with speed limiter technology are going to all help the province of British Columbia move forward on its zero-fatality goals on the highway.

[3:40 p.m.]

I again will say, in conclusion, that I look forward to committee stage of debate. I want to thank everybody in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure who has undertaken significant consultation with all of our stakeholders, both those in the cyclist community, the Trucking Association and those that represent vulnerable road users, police, ICBC.

I want to thank, specifically, the unsung heroes that are our legislative drafters, who made sure that Bill 23 was drafted in a way that will strengthen the Motor Vehicle Act. This is the most significant amendment to the MVA, which is an old piece of legislation, in our province, in about three decades.

We recognize there’s more work to be done, but there were some areas that the government wanted to improve upon to provide further onus on all of us to be aware of one another, no matter how we travel, and to be mindful of each other’s safety.

There will be a combination of education initiatives, which will be performed by police, by ICBC and by others, on what drivers need to know in terms of safe passing distances and safe following distances. We will do that work when this becomes law and the law of the province changes. We will continue to work with those groups on other amendments that could be part of further modernizations of the MVA.

I want to thank the Speaker for the time this afternoon. I will close debate on that note.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you again, Madam Speaker.

I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: Now, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

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

Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading of Bill 19, Money Services Businesses Act.

BILL 19 — MONEY SERVICES
BUSINESSES ACT

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

The Money Services Businesses Act will establish the B.C. Financial Services Authority as the provincial regulator for money services businesses, or MSBs. This bill will require MSBs to register with the B.C. Financial Services Authority, which I will just call the BCFSA, and will provide for broad background checks, reporting requirements, investigation powers and enforcement powers.

The new regulatory system will help keep bad actors out of the industry. It will also help the BCFSA to get a clearer picture of the local industry, while keeping regulatory costs low for money services businesses and their consumers. This work will improve the industry’s reputation and help with some of their challenges, including access to the banking system and the operation of unregistered businesses.

Under the proposed legislation, MSBs are businesses that deal in foreign exchanges, wire transfers, issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or similar instruments outside of traditional financial institutions. The scope of the act can be expanded in the future to include other money services such as virtual currency trading platforms.

MSBs are not traditional financial institutions. They do not accept deposits or make loans like banks, credit unions or trusts. However, banks and other financial institutions often provide services that are similar to MSBs.

MSBs play an important role in B.C.’s financial system. They are often the more affordable and accessible option for some of B.C.’s more vulnerable populations. Right now there are over 2,000 MSBs registered with FINTRAC, Canada’s financial intelligence unit, which handles billions of dollars annually.

Many MSBs provide convenient and affordable financial services to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups such as low-income people and migrants who may be sending money home to low- and middle-income countries. These types of transactions have reached record highs in recent years and continue to grow rapidly.

Currently MSBs are regulated federally for anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing purposes. They are required to register with FINTRAC, which requires them to have a comprehensive compliance program which includes reporting, recordkeeping, client identification and know-your-client requirements.

[3:45 p.m.]

Quebec is currently the only other province that regulates money services businesses. It has done so, since 2012, out of concerns that MSBs were being used for or involved in money laundering and tax evasion.

Here in British Columbia, both the independent review of money laundering in Lower Mainland casinos and the Expert Panel on Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate recommended that the B.C. government consider regulating MSBs.

In addition, the Cullen commission heard evidence that MSBs posed money-laundering risks. By implementing the act, we are acting on a recommendation in the Cullen commission final report to expand the mandate of the BCFSA to include the regulation of MSBs.

The Money Services Businesses Act is consistent with the Cullen commission’s recommendation by aligning the definition of money services with the federal definition, not including dealing in virtual currency or white-label ATMs, which will be considered at a later time; enabling the superintendent to conduct broad background checks to determine whether an applicant or registrant is unsuitable or unfit to be registered at the time of application, renewal or at any other time; providing the superintendent with significant enforcement and investigation powers; allowing the BCFSA and superintendent to enter into agreements with MSB regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions for the administration or enforcement of this act; ensuring that significant maximum administrative penalties and offence fines are available for contravention, such as the operation of an unregistered MSB, and requiring that registrants must immediately notify the superintendent if the registrant believes that there is unregistered activity happening.

The Money Services Businesses Act does not duplicate the comprehensive compliance program requirements administered by FINTRAC. Instead, it focuses on conducting broad background checks of MSBs, their agents and associates to ensure that only suitable businesses and individuals participate in the industry. The new system will also ensure that the regulator will have the necessary enforcement and investigative powers that it needs to keep bad actors out of the MSB industry. The legislation allows for more extensive requirements in the future if desirable or necessary.

In developing this legislation, we have been mindful of the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The commitment to align laws with the UN declaration will not affect every provincial law. While many provincial laws relate to the rights set out in the UN declaration, other laws don’t have a unique or specific effect on Indigenous rights. The Money Services Businesses Act does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration.

This bill ensures that bad actors are kept out of the B.C. MSB industry. It will also enable a B.C. regulator to monitor and learn more about the local industry and work with other regulators, as well as law enforcement, to help to ensure that the industry is owned and operated by suitable individuals for the benefit of all law-abiding British Columbians.

P. Milobar: I’m glad to take my place on the floor here to speak to Bill 19, the Money Services Businesses Act. Certainly, as the minister outlined, the opposition doesn’t take any issue with her characterization of this bill or what this bill is striving to achieve. In fact, I think it demonstrates, maybe, the complexities out there in this day and age of trying to balance ever-evolving technologies.

People want to try to lend and borrow money in ways that maybe aren’t as traditional, as a bank or a credit union might traditionally have been, while still making sure that bad actors are weeded out and dealt with appropriately and to make sure that the industry itself is conducted in a safe and reputable manner so that those accessing those services are not being taken advantage of and that the criminal element is not using money service businesses for illegal purposes as well. It’s always that fine balance.

I think we will find that as a society, moving forward here, we have more and more technology integrated into our daily lives that legislation will always struggle to keep up with. Certainly, Bill 19 takes some steps forward to try to address those, as the minister acknowledged. Things like white-label ATMs and that are not impacted yet by this type of legislation.

[3:50 p.m.]

At second reading, we don’t have a lot of comments to make as an opposition in terms of this bill. We certainly have a lot of questions in terms of the functionality of this bill, as we get to committee stage, to get a better understanding.

Again, I say this quite often in this place, but a lot of times committee stage really does help inform the general public with those questions of exactly how this will work in the real world, in their daily lives, what they can reasonably expect to see change or not — or if they’ll even notice an impact, except for the fact that in the background, there’ll be more oversight and checks on people that are operating these businesses, to make sure that they are being done in a lawful manner.

Now, there are other concerns that we’ve heard, and certainly, we’ll probe this more as we get into committee stage as well. When you look at B.C.’s fintech sector, it’s an ever-growing sector. It’s a big part of technology companies, as a subset of that, in that growth. How this bill will or won’t impact that particular sector in British Columbia is one area that we are going to definitely want to canvass to figure out, given that that sector in B.C. is continually evolving and growing, as we see.

That said, as I say, we do want to make sure that we are suppressing any money laundering or other illegal activities as best as possible, moving forward, to make sure that laws stay at pace with technological changes in how people are moving forward in their daily lives, trying to access credit and the cash that comes with that credit accessibility.

With that, I think I’ll wrap up my second reading comments on Bill 19. As I say, given that this is much more of a technical-nature bill, we’ll reserve most of our comments and questions for committee stage and move forward at that stage with that further dissection of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for his comments. I, too, look forward to committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Money Services Business Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading Bill 20, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023.

BILL 20 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 20 be read a second time now.

The Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023, will establish a centralized, publicly accessible, beneficial ownership registry that will help curtail the use of private B.C. companies in money laundering and other criminal schemes.

Corporate structures create anonymity. This anonymity can be exploited and abused by money launderers, tax evaders and others wanting to hide proceeds of crime. Sophisticated criminals create intricate and secretive webs using corporate vehicles, which often span across multiple jurisdictions, to achieve their goals. These amendments will make it harder for private companies incorporated in British Columbia to be involved in money-laundering schemes.

These changes follow extensive consultations with civil society organizations, the business community and the public, and they respond to recommendations in key reports, such as the Expert Panel on Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate in 2019 and the Cullen commission in 2022.

Recommendation 52 of the Cullen commission called for the creation of a publicly accessible pan-Canadian registry of beneficial ownership. Ministry staff have had ongoing discussions with federal, provincial and territorial counterparts, even before this recommendation surfaced, and have worked towards the goal of a pan-Canadian registry. As such, the bill enables registry information-sharing with other jurisdictions inside and outside of Canada when Canadian and other jurisdictions have established their own corporate beneficial ownership registries, and provided that robust information-sharing agreements are in place.

[3:55 p.m.]

Beneficial owners are those individuals that ultimately control a company and that may not necessarily be the registered owners of the shares of a company. Since October 2020, the Business Corporations Act has required private B.C. companies to keep an internal transparency registry that lists all beneficial owners. Among other elements, information found in the transparency registry includes the individual beneficial owner’s name, date of birth, citizenship, a brief description of how they meet the criteria to be a beneficial owner, the date their beneficial ownership interest began and the date it ceased, if applicable.

With these amendments, the information will be required for a centralized government-maintained beneficial ownership registry. The registry will be housed at the corporate registry at the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. This is a crucial first step in responding to the Cullen commission recommendation 52. Today the corporate registry’s role is to store information on corporate entities. However, through these amendments, the corporate registry will take on a more active role of verifying beneficial ownership information.

Consultation submissions were unanimously and strongly in favour of information verification to ensure that the regime is a useful tool in deterring and combatting money laundering, tax evasion and other unlawful activity harmful to British Columbians and others.

A centralized registry of beneficial owners will not only provide law enforcement, relevant regulators and other authorities with timely information but will also remove the necessity to attend a company’s records office to review information on beneficial owners. It will strengthen investigative and administrative efficiency and ensure that bad actors are not made prematurely aware that they are being investigated by authorities.

Should the vision of a pan-Canadian registry be realized in the future, law enforcement, regulators and authorities will also be efficiently provided a clearer picture of the ownership structures held by beneficial owners, who create an intricate web over multiple jurisdictions. The amendments provide access to beneficial ownership information through a tiered system. Inspecting officials, such as law enforcement, tax authorities and certain regulators, will have full access, while the public will be able to access beneficial owners’ names, citizenship and year of birth.

Safeguards are put into place to ensure that individuals with legitimate health and safety concerns can have their information concealed from public view. Information relating to minors and people deemed by the courts or health authorities as incapable of managing their own affairs will be automatically concealed.

The amendments also provide for enforcement of the act’s provisions by the enforcement officer, whose role will be to ensure that information is being filed as required and that it is accurate. As was made clear by consultations in 2020, a regime of this scope and importance requires information to be valid and dependable for it to be useful as intended.

In developing this legislation, we have been mindful of the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Nothing in this bill uniquely affects the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration.

This bill’s major goal will be to support B.C.’s commitment to end money laundering in our province. It will send a clear message to those wishing to use private B.C. companies for their illegal activities that these will not be tolerated in our province.

P. Milobar: If it wasn’t so late in the spring, people might think this was Groundhog Day, as I rise to speak to Bill 20, the Business Corporations Amendment Act.

Similar to my Bill 19 comments, very much in line of the opposition’s thinking with this bill when we read through it and when we had the briefing from the minister’s staff, as well as the minister’s opening comments there on the bill — which, I think appropriately, gave an overview of what this bill is intended to do and what it’s seeking to do.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Any time you can shine a light on things and try to make sure that there’s an open and transparent way that people know what is going on within the beneficial ownership of corporations — while at the same time balancing out their privacy concerns, which are understandable — making sure that it’s not being done in a way that will shield criminal elements in our society, I think, is a good step forward.

Certainly, tying in with technology, as databases and information is much easier to collate, store and transfer between various agencies, like the CRA or the police agencies, it only makes sense that you would want to modernize and try to collect that information.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, at committee stage, we will certainly have several more questions with the various clauses of this bill, especially in relation to when you think of the first iteration of the Land Owner Transparency Act and some of the hiccups we saw with that — some of the angst we saw from some non-profits and others that found the process of trying to track down a lawyer and then pay for a lawyer to be able to file the paperwork cumbersome and problematic.

Frankly, a lot of them felt somewhat offended. They felt like they were being treated like a criminal. It’s always how do you balance out the rights of people that are lawfully going about their business, always have been good taxpaying, hard-working British Columbians and their ability to still feel that way without feeling like they’re being overwhelmed with paperwork and red tape through government entities moving forward? Again, on the premise of this bill, the concept of what it’s trying to achieve, certainly, that’s understandable and supportable.

In reading through the bill, it appears those concerns will be met in terms of not an overreach. Again, that’s where those questions and answers at committee stage, delving into making sure that things were well thought through, that we won’t see unintended consequences with this piece of legislation, is certainly an area that we will focus in on.

I know people at home may think: “Well, it’s a piece of legislation. Certainly, all of that has been delved through and thought through.” But as we’ve seen within this legislative window of time, we’ve already seen the Strata Act have to come back with changes made to it because a lot of unintended consequences kicked in, despite warnings by the opposition through committee stage on something like the Strata Act changes. That can happen. It does happen. It happens to all governments of any political stripe at any level in this country.

It’s an important part, I think, as we move through the committee stage on Bill 20, just to make sure we try to minimize those as best as possible and make sure, moving forward, that, as I say, the bad actors out there, those that are trying to use British Columbia as a safe haven for illicit funds or illegal actions, have ways that they can have a light shone on them, that law enforcement has a way to strengthen their cases as they try to move forward through very complex prosecutions, sometimes to be able to track what can be very complicated — I agree with the minister — corporate structures.

Various numbered companies and things of that nature can be very complicated and, in very short order, moving around through various jurisdictions. Anytime we can provide that bit more transparency, I think, is a good thing. We look forward to moving forward on committee stage sometime in the next three weeks’ worth of sitting time that we have here.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Minister, do you wish to make some closing remarks?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for his comments and hope we can continue to have a collaborative exchange of debate when it comes to committee stage. I look forward to that as well.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call us moving into Committee of the Whole, Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023.

Deputy Speaker: I’ll just call a short recess so we can get arranged.

The House recessed at 4:04 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 4:11 p.m.

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole to order.

We are on Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023.

Recognizing the minister to make some opening remarks and introductions.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to the debate we’re going to have at committee stage.

With me, I’m going to have a number of staff coming and going, depending on what clause we’re on. I’ll just give the member a heads-up. With me right now, I have Doug Foster, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, and Fisnik Preniqi, the executive director.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: Maybe in the interests of time — hopefully, the minister will be agreeable — there are a few kind of broader-based questions I have that seem to permeate through this particular bill, especially related to a lot of the information-gathering and sharing provisions on all the various acts.

I was thinking of just asking some broader questions around those concepts versus clause by clause and re-asking the same question every time we get into the Mineral Tenure Act or the logging act or all of those, if that’s…. I’ll start off with one and see where we get from there, I guess, on clause 1.

First off, in the spirit of that, I do notice that several of these areas — in fact, almost half the pages in this bill at least — seem to be related to changes and adjustments to information-gathering, information-sharing, and who can actually have access to that information or not.

I’m just wondering why there needs to be such a substantive and wide-ranging change across the board this year, in particular, in terms of the volume of those changes.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify with the member, a couple of the staff that are here are just here for the first few clauses. We’re wondering if we can just deal with those clauses.

That general question that you have asked that refer to a number of the other clauses, not to the first three clauses. So those staff are here. But can we deal with the first three clauses that the staff that are here can deal with and then they can leave and we can carry on with those general questions for the rest of the bill?

P. Milobar: Sure. I actually have no questions on clauses 1 through 4, actually, and clause 5 has the information-sharing in it anyway.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

[4:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Again, I’ll go back and maybe just put a little meat on the bone. I will have actual carbon tax questions, as well, given that this is the Carbon Tax Act, clause 5. But then clause 6, clause 7 and going on to clause 8 or 9 or 10 is all carbon tax as well.

The information-gathering on the Carbon Tax Act is very similar to when we get into the Forest Act and others, but there are about six pages’ worth of language around information-gathering and sharing changes, whereas the other causes within the act itself here we’re talking about, maybe, the grand total would be two pages. It seems to be a heavy focus on information-gathering and sharing and U.S. authorities and things of that nature, and it permeates through this bill. That’s where I’m trying to get a better broader understanding of why that seems to be the case this year. It seems to be very heavily focused on information-gathering by the government.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to introduce the staff who are with us, Steve Hawkshaw is the executive director here, Dave Sinton is a strategic adviser, and Alex Nagelbach is another strategic adviser.

The member refers to information-gathering. There’s actually only one clause in the Income Tax Act that’s being changed in relation to information-gathering. It has been changed to modernize the language.

The rest of the changes are about protecting taxpayers’ information. This was the result of a multi-year project in the Ministry of Finance to standardize the statutes across all tax and revenue acts. It provides consistent protection for information as well.

It’s not about new policy, so to speak, on how people’s information is being used. It’s about modernizing the language. They pointed out to me that, in some of these statutes, this language is from the ’50s and has not been changed. So it’s time that we modernize the act.

P. Milobar: Chair, I’m pretty much going to be asking questions about clause 7. If you want, we can vote on 5 and 6. Then I’ll focus on 7.

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

On clause 7.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that.

Yes, perhaps the gathering piece I oversold, and undersold the sharing. But really, my questions will be much more on the sharing side.

I agree with the minister once again today. Someone should mark down this date in history. I’m agreeing so much today. It did seem to be a standardization. That’s why I’m saying….

I’ll ask these questions once. I’m not going to do it in the Forest Act. It’s similar language.

[4:25 p.m.]

In 71.1, which is on page 7, of clause 7, it says: “The minister may enter into an information-sharing agreement with (a) a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, (b) the government of Canada or an agency of that government, (c) the government of a province or other jurisdiction in Canada or an agency of that government, or (d) the government of a state of the United States of America or an agency of that government.”

Just a two-part question, I guess. In (d), it doesn’t actually say the “United States.” It just says “a state.” It doesn’t say the actual nation. Is it a nation as well? How does that language square? Would those agreements…? Is there any mechanism in this — if the minister of revenue for that particular time frame makes an agreement, especially with an American state or government — that that agreement is made public?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is an existing power that already exists in the Carbon Tax Act. Currently there are three agreements that already exist with Washington, Montana and Idaho. So the jurisdictions that are…. They’re recognized as states, when the member was talking about: “Is it the U.S. or its states?” So we actually have existing agreements with those three states. And the purpose is to help with existing obligations under the international fuel tax agreement.

P. Milobar: Then on (k) of…. Sorry, the numbering gets a little confusing here. It’s on page 6, on (k). It’s to “provide confidential information to a police officer, solely for the purposes of an investigation into whether an offence has been committed under the Criminal Code, or the laying of information or the preferring of an indictment, if….” And that goes on.

Do these changes…? Again, the language is pretty much the same all the way through the bill. Are these meaning that police agencies do not need to seek any type of judicial search or any documentation like that? It’s strictly a request made through to the Finance Ministry, and that information is provided based on either an officer thinking something may or may not be happening that’s illegal or the ministry but not an actual overview of needing to provide that evidence by a judge or a typical search warrant type of scenario?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This rule, (k), is about a police officer investigating a Ministry of Finance official. What the rule does is it allows the ministry to share information with the police about the official.

Without the rule, the ministry wouldn’t be allowed to disclose any information. But this doesn’t override any other rules that police have to follow — search warrants or anything like that. It doesn’t override that.

Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

P. Milobar: This is clause 10: “Section 84.3 (n) is amended by adding ‘, including emissions that are captured, stored or sequestered,’ after ‘greenhouse gas emissions’.”

I’m just wondering if the minister can put a little meat on that bone for the general public, as well, in terms of how this would play out in practice, in terms of where we’re seeing things like emission storage and sequestration that’s starting to take place.

Hon. K. Conroy: I have two new staff joining — Adria Fradley, the executive director, and Ali Chow, the strategic adviser.

This is just clarifying regulation, the power to make it clear that operators that actually capture carbon and sequestration are exempted. So this just makes that clear.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

P. Milobar: This is the schedule 1. It’s just the carbon tax rate hikes from the end of fiscal, I guess, March 31 of this year through every year up to 2030.

Just confirming with the minister that I’m reading it correctly that aviation fuel is projected to go from 12.44 cents a litre up to 41.63 cents a litre; gasoline from 11.05 cents a litre up to 37.43 cents a litre; natural gas, which I’m assuming would be for home heating, from 9.79 cents a cubic metre to 32.40 cents a cubic metre. Those other…. There are a lot of other fuels in there, but that’s the general gist of this chart, moving forward.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

Clauses 11 to 17 inclusive approved

On clause 18.

P. Milobar: Carbon capture and storage that can reduce the amount of deemed excess greenhouse gas emissions…. The excess emissions, then, will be taxed in accordance with that schedule that was laid out previously that I discussed?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We have a new person joining us, Matt Krzepkowski, a director.

This is an accounting measure to let government count emissions that will be stored underground. Under the old system, emissions weren’t tracked, so this is a tracking mechanism to make sure that we can count those emissions.

P. Milobar: I guess a general question then. With all of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act sections in this, are these also sections that will be setting the stage for the shift to the OBPS and that system, enabling that new way of calculating and collecting carbon tax off of industrial emitters to take effect? Or is this strictly amending language of existing situations?

When I was talking with the Environment Minister in estimates, he was saying that they were still working through measures, so I’m just trying to get a sense of if these are the measures that will help guide the final piece of the OBPS or not.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

P. Milobar: I guess we can move on from 18. Probably 19 is more relevant to what I’ll be asking about.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

P. Milobar: When I was asking the Environment Minister around on the new structure, I was using LNG Canada as an example. Now, I recognize that it might not be 100 percent specific to clause 19, but there are several different sections. Again, the minister will have to take me at my word, but I won’t double-back at subsequent clauses. I just need to get a better understanding.

The minister indicated that under the new system that will be rolled out, a project like an LNG Canada that was already supposed to have developed world-leading emission standards as part of their operations, when they come on stream, under the current agreement signed by this government…. The current Environment Minister is a signatory on that. I recognize this Finance Minister is not, but the predecessor or two predecessors before was, so I would think it continues on with the ministry itself as a signatory to that agreement between the government and LNG Canada.

[4:50 p.m.]

Now, this is a $40 billion investment decision that would have been made, predicated on some certainty, I would think, around something as potentially substantial as carbon tax being paid. At the time, we had a $50 carbon tax. That was what was envisioned. It was a 40-year plan that was going to see about $800 million a year forgiven in carbon taxation — or $80 million. It would have been about a $3.2 billion subsidy of carbon taxation fees not paid by LNG Canada to the government, because they would be paying net-30 carbon tax.

Now, my understanding, and according to the Minister of Environment, under the new OBPS system, is that if they meet or are below the standard, they will pay zero, which puts another $30 a tonne on 400 megatonnes at play, times 40 years. It starts to be a very large number, let alone when you consider we’re now up to $170 a tonne by the time that starts to take effect. So we’re going, and instead of paying $30 a tonne, they’d be paying zero, when homeowners with their home heating bill are going to be paying $32.40, from $9.79 currently.

Can the minister confirm that that’s what this does? Does this set the stage for those industry emitters, as the intention of the government is through this legislation, to set up the framework that under the OBPS, the carbon tax structure will be such that when you hit your emissions standard, you pay zero in carbon tax — not even the current $30 a tonne that industry is required to pay if they meet their standard?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is accurate. Someone like LNG Canada will have to stay within the stringency thresholds. If they don’t stay within the stringency thresholds, they will have to buy offsets. They will have to reduce emissions. They will have to use credits, if they have accrued any of those credits. If you emit beneath the stringency threshold, you can accrue credits. Or they will have to pay the carbon price.

P. Milobar: I do appreciate that. It took four questions repeated to the Environment Minister to get that answer. So I do truly appreciate the speed and the accuracy of that. At least it reaffirms what the Environment Minister finally acknowledged.

I guess the question is…. With all of these, it’s subject to regulations. The Environment Minister said those standards haven’t been met yet, haven’t been developed with regulation.

Now, the original system with heavy industry emitters, which was just created over the last couple of years — and it was touted by the government as this great step forward — was that each industry would come up with an industry-specific emission profile that was to be considered world leading. It got signed off by the provincial government and agreed to with industry. Then they would only be subject to a $30-a-tonne carbon tax, despite the $50-a-tonne price, if they hit that standard or were lower. They could buy offsets to get lower, if need be, and all that.

I don’t take issue with that. Again, I don’t take issue with us trying to keep our industry competitive on world markets, especially trade-exposed industries. But the Premier has made it very clear that he wasn’t going to have any more oil and gas subsidies, and here we are talking about a change to carbon pricing that will remove even a $30-a-tonne charge.

Now, when I asked the Environment Minister about the fact that LNG Canada would, then, be able to go from paying $30 a tonne on their emissions to zero, if they met their threshold, he seemed to indicate that the thresholds haven’t been set yet. However, I find it very hard to believe that a corporation making a final investment decision of $40 billion would have left enough of a loophole in it that the government can just unilaterally change an agreed-upon emission profile, especially since it was already tagged to a tax subsidy if they hit that emission profile.

Can the minister say if they have the ability, with these regulations in Bill 10, to actually start changing emission profiles on LNG Canada or other agreements that have been signed with industry on the new OBPS system that this is forming the basis of?

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: These are paramount changes. They are being made to comply with federal regulations that are being brought in. Also, regulations that will come — they will address the starting stringency. They’ll say what the stringencies will be and also how they will change.

The minister was right. These will be determined in the coming year.

P. Milobar: But this is the enabling legislation that’s going to help create that framework of a totally different way of collecting carbon taxation from large emitters, and on a day where the Sierra Club is tweeting out about ever-increasing emissions from British Columbia, not declining emissions. I think the public is fairly interested in how exactly that is meshing with this new structure.

Now, my understanding of the federal carbon tax agreement is you have to do the bare minimum of what the government is doing. It doesn’t mean you can’t do more than. I would be shocked if the federal government said that you could not charge carbon tax higher than what the federal system is. It’s the reverse. You can’t charge less. So this structure that’s being laid out in Bill 10 appears to be a structure that is going to remove the existing payment of carbon taxation for large emitters.

Again, I’m not saying I’m necessarily opposed to keeping industry competitive in British Columbia. But I think it’s important for the public to understand where this government stands on this, given the repeated contradictory messaging around emissions, around a Premier saying that there won’t be oil and gas subsidies any longer under his watch, at the same time as we’re dealing with a piece of legislation that very clearly will take what would have been a $3.2 billion carbon tax payback to LNG, if we just use LNG as an example.

[5:10 p.m.]

I use that because at a $40 billion investment decision, with a contract signed off by the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Energy and Mines — and the Minister of Environment, who is a signatory, still is the Minister of Environment — I would again find it very hard to believe that a complex, sophisticated investment organization like LNG Canada, which has locations around the world competing for that same $40 billion capital, would have gone: “Well, you know what? Don’t worry about it. They can change the emission profile on us, and we can start paying carbon tax. It’s not a big deal.” That wouldn’t have happened.

The emission profile they agreed to…. I would be shocked if this government thinks that they’re able to change that in any substantive way, which means that they will be able to go from paying a net 30 right now on carbon tax, which would have been bad enough at the $170 a tonne that everyone else will be marching to in their home heating bills.

That would have added about an extra $27 billion. That would have been the total payout then, at that point, over the 40-year period. It’s about an extra $5 billion — that $30 — over that agreement. The $30 a tonne times what their mission profile is going to be times 40 years is about $4.8 billion. That’s the difference between what the agreement the government signed and what this new OBPS system will create, where they will pay zero.

In fact, as the minister addressed in her first answer and as the Environment Minister finally addressed in his fourth time running around the question, if they’re below their emission standard, they can actually sell credits back to the system and make money, which they currently can’t do.

Again, if this is the enabling legislation to create those regulations, when will the public, when will the taxpayers of this province, actually know what those standards are going to be for the various industries out there? They had already set them. They were supposed to be world-leading emission profiles, and the agreement with the government and the taxpayers was that it meant they could pay $30 a tonne in carbon tax.

By this legislation, which will lead to the regulations, the minister is either going to have to go back on all of those commitments with industry that are all of a year old, year and a half old, where the government is going to have to acknowledge that their new system is, actually, at a time of raising carbon tax cost to every household in British Columbia, going to significantly reduce it for all the large industrial players in this province.

Is that not an accurate statement?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The stringency levels will be determined later this year. The member asked when exactly it was going to be done. It will be determined later this year.

What I need to remind the member is that the federal government will bring in changes to the regulations whether we do anything or not, so we’re getting ahead of it. We’re bringing in B.C. regulations that will work for British Columbia.

I want to remind the member that this is about lowering emissions. Do you do it with a carrot or a stick? What do you do it with? Well, this is about lowering emissions, and that has to be all of our hope, that this will lower emissions.

[5:20 p.m.]

I mean, the industries will be paying. We’re going to incentivize them to lower their emissions. If they can’t do that, they will obviously be paying, if they can’t get below the stringency level. Again, the goal of the legislation and of the regulations is to reduce emissions in this province. That’s what we’re moving towards, and those stringencies will be developed later this year.

P. Milobar: I wasn’t sure if they were reporting out. So thank you for that.

In clause 19, it says: “(3) Subject to the regulations, the amount required to meet the compliance obligation under subsection (2) of a regulated operation for a compliance period is calculated” at one of the following rates: “(a) one compliance unit for each tonne of excess greenhouse gas emissions in the compliance period….”

Now, I’m assuming that a “compliance unit” is what was referred to previously as carbon credits. Is there a minimum rate, set somewhere in this bill and that I haven’t been able to find, on what that compliance credit has to be costing an industrial operation? Or can it be what an open market trading system is? In other words, will industry be able to buy a $15 carbon credit to offset $170 of carbon tax?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Compliance units can be either offset units or earned credits. We don’t set the price, because they are bought and sold on the market. It’s done by the market. We set the rate for compliance charges as per the carbon tax credit. All of these can then be used towards their bill if they’re over the limit. So if the company is over the limit, they can use those towards their bill. And the actual schedule that the member is looking for is in clause 46. That’s a ways away. It’s in clause 46, and it aligns with compliance fees in the Carbon Tax Act.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members, for your support this week for my work here on your behalf.

This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, April 24.

Safe travels, everyone.

The House adjourned at 5:27 p.m.