Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Motion 22 on the order paper.

In Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

In Section C, I call estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 22 — AMENDMENT TO STANDING
ORDERS TO ALLOW REMOTE PARTICIPATION

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 22 standing in my name on the order paper.

[That, as an exercise of the Legislative Assembly’s exclusive right to regulate its own internal affairs as they relate to its legislative and deliberative functions, including control over the conduct of its proceedings, the use of videoconferencing technology be authorized to enable all Members to be present in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly through remote participation, counting towards quorum, while other Members continue to be present physically in the Legislative Chamber, thereby enabling hybrid proceedings of the House.

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

That, recognizing the importance of responsible government and the fundamental role of the Legislative Assembly to scrutinize the executive, the House affirm the expectation for Members of the Executive Council to make every effort to be physically present for proceedings of the House, particularly for Oral Question Period and when a Minister is to answer questions on any assigned Votes within the Estimates in the Committee of Supply or answer questions on a Bill in a Committee of the Whole House, for Members of the Executive Council to fulfill their collective ministerial responsibility to the Legislative Assembly.

And that, consequently, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended by replacing Standing Order 8 as follows:

Attendance required. Remote participation.

8.  (1) Every Member is bound to attend the service of the House and is expected to make every effort to do so in person. The expectation of in-person attendance is higher for Members of the Executive Council, particularly for Oral Question Period and when a Minister is to answer questions on any assigned Votes within the Estimates in the Committee of Supply or answer questions on a Bill in a Committee of the Whole House.

(2) When a Member is unable to attend the service of the House in person, the Member may be authorized, in accordance with subsection (3) (b), to attend the service of the House through the approved videoconferencing technology, and will be counted as present for the purposes of quorum and for the purposes of deter­mining a majority of votes. A Member participating in the business of the House by such means must have the audio and video functions enabled with their face clearly visible in order to be counted towards quorum, to participate in debate, and to vote.

(3) In enabling remote participation of Members in proceedings of the House, the Speaker shall:

(a) approve the videoconferencing technology platform used to support hybrid proceedings of the House, and

(b) establish and publish rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity and participation by Members, and shall consult the House Leaders or Whips as required.

(4) When a Member is participating in proceedings of the House by remote means, the Speaker is empowered to:

(a) exercise discretion on the application of Standing Order 17A as it may relate to the facilitation of participation of Members in proceedings of the House remotely;

(b) exclude a Member from participating if the Member has failed to meet the rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity;

(c) intervene on any matter of decorum, including by muting a Member’s microphone and excluding a Member from sittings of the House in cases of serious misconduct;

(d) exercise discretion in the interpretation of the provisions of any Standing Order requiring Members to stand or speak in their assigned place and with respect to the transmission of documents, as these requirements may relate to Members participating via the approved videoconferencing technology; and

(e) exercise discretion, in consultation with the House Leaders or the Whips, in the interpretation of any provision of the Standing Orders that may require leniency or alteration in order to allow a Member to be able to fully exercise their duties.]

This motion seeks to amend Standing Order 8 to enable members of this House to participate in parliamentary proceedings remotely on a permanent basis. This recommendation, stemming from the Working Group on Parliamentary Culture, underscores the necessity of amending our standing orders to establish a permanent hybrid system.

I would like to take a moment and express my gratitude to the members of that committee for their outstanding and essential contributions to this report. This includes the MLA for Surrey South, the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington and, of course, the Leader of the Third Party.

It’s important to recognize the evolving landscape of legislative responsibility and the imperative to accommodate the diverse needs of our members. This motion is part of our commitment to adapt and evolve to the changing needs for Members of the Legislative Assembly. This change will be a significant step in making this place function better by allowing MLAs to participate remotely through video conferencing technology.

It’s no secret that our institutions have not been family-friendly for many MLAs. It has to acknowledge the challenges MLAs face in balancing work life and family and caregiver responsibilities. The COVID-19 pandemic required the introduction of virtual participation options for proceedings.

Since 2020 our Legislature has maintained a hybrid arrangement, providing members with the flexibility to participate remotely if needed. This arrangement has proven to be essential in supporting inclusion and accessibility when members may be faced with the situations that impact their ability to be present in person.

However, while remote participation offers flexibility, our institution works best when members are physically present in it. There is no denying there is an impact on engagement with members when they are remote. We must acknowledge that the character of institutions thrives on in-person interactions. There is a high onus on the Premier and the cabinet to be physically present to demonstrate accountability to the Legislature.

Although the motion emphasizes the expectations that members of executive council will physically attend House proceedings, particularly during crucial sessions such as question period and committee debates, there is an understanding that the hybrid system is being implemented to provide flexibility in unique circumstances for MLAs, including members of cabinet. Ultimately, these decisions are left up to the individual caucuses.

For clarity of the House, the motion before us seeks to authorize the use of video conferencing technology and enable all members to present in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly by remote participation, counting towards quorum, while other members continue to be present physically in the legislative chamber.

This motion is not just about integrating technology into our proceedings. It’s about making our institutions more accessible, more inclusive and more responsive to the needs of our members. It’s about ensuring that we can continue to effectively serve the people of British Columbia while maintaining a healthier work-life balance with family and honouring our caregiving responsibilities.

T. Stone: I very briefly would like to make a few remarks with respect to this motion that would amend Standing Order 8 with respect to the expectation of members being in the House.

The motion, as the Government House Leader has just indicated, would provide a significant change to this standing order, thus taking what has been a sessional order for a good number of years now…. It would make this a permanent feature within the Standing Orders in terms of how this place operates.

I make these remarks after a significant amount of discussion within the official opposition caucus. While at the end of the day, we will support this motion here today, I do want to make very, very clear the perspective that members of the official opposition have, that we want to make sure is articulated as we head down this path.

First is that the official opposition believes that British Columbians, as a default, expect their members to actually be here physically in this building. This motion does provide a top-level requirement or a top-level statement around that expectation.

[2:40 p.m.]

It is important to acknowledge that there are reasons why one may not be able to be here in person. Those reasons have tended to be managed by caucuses and by the whips and the leadership within those caucuses. There is a wide range of personal reasons. There is sickness and injury and deaths in families and a range of other personal reasons why a member may not be here to discharge their responsibilities.

But I cannot underscore enough the importance that, as a default, we believe that members should be in this place to undertake the business that we were sent here to do. Not every profession out there affords a complete and total luxury or the expectation of being wherever the member wants to be. The default is to be here.

The next point which the Government House Leader touched on in his remarks is the expectations around the executive council, the cabinet. This was a matter of significant back-and-forth with the Government House Leader and myself and the other House Leaders.

The bottom line, I think for all of us, is that there is a much higher standard required of cabinet ministers, required of executive council members, to be here in person when it comes to discharging their responsibilities to answer oral questions, when it comes to responding to questions in their ministry estimates and when it comes to answering questions in the committee stage of bills.

There is also a piece that we were pleased has been added into this motion, and that is articulating a concept of collective ministerial responsibility, which happens all the time, frankly. This is this notion that, as was the case today, I won’t name who I’m referring to, but if a minister is not in the House during question period but the subject matter pertains to that minister, a different minister can get up and actually answer the question.

We have seen cases over the years of a minister not being able to complete or even do all of their estimates for a particular range of reasons, and a different minister steps in on behalf of the executive council and that collective ministerial perspective and manages that process on behalf of the minister responsible.

The bottom line on this point is that we certainly hope that the executive council of this government is going to do everything that they possibly can to make sure that ministers are actually present in this building during oral question period, their particular estimates as well as bills that they’re responsible for. If that minister can’t be here to answer the questions in person, that minister should engage a different minister to undertake those responsibilities on their behalf, so that it is done in person here in this Legislature. This is a fundamental feature of how our entire system of government works.

I want to briefly touch on a companion piece to this motion, which is being finalized as we speak, and that is guidance for members participating in remote proceedings, a handbook that is being co-developed, I believe, within the Clerk’s office with input from the Speaker that would, basically, reflect all of the expectations around decorum, around where you can connect, around dress code, etc.

On this point, I think it’s worth saying that the way the members should view participating via a remote connection should be that that is an extension of this place in every way, shape and form, meaning there will be a clear statement in the companion guide that there will be no connecting into proceedings of this House in a hybrid manner when one is in a vehicle or in a public place or not dressed appropriately or doing things or talking on the phone and being on mute. These are distractions, and these are aspects of decorum that are unbecoming of this place.

[2:45 p.m.]

I am pleased that there is some good work that has gone into this companion policy that will reflect what is expected of members in terms of where they access the proceedings and how they access that and what those other decorum pieces look like.

So that’s all to say, Mr. Speaker, we’re prepared. Based on the good-faith discussions that have taken place and the changes that have been made to reflect, I think, more fully the perspectives of all members of the House, the official opposition is prepared to support this today.

However, it’s with the caveat that we’re going to watch very, very closely through this session, and we’re going to pay close attention to which ministers actually do show up in person to do their estimates. We certainly would hope that there would be no ministers answering questions in question period on the screen and that when it comes to bill debates, that line ministers will be present in this building to engage in that in-person interaction between the government and the opposition critic that is, again, such an important tenet and feature of how our system of government works.

That’s a major accountability aspect that we want to make sure is respected. We’ll be paying close attention to that. The respect by the executive council for the commitment that is being made here to be here in person in those instances that I’ve noted. Again, as a default, members will make this place their default location, unless there are reasons not to be here.

Last, but not least, the decorum that we expect in this chamber and in the other places that we undertake proceedings in this building, that same level of decorum, those same expectations will be applied to members that are accessing the proceedings via hybrid participation.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to have worked on this with the other House Leaders. We’re prepared to give it a try, and we’ll reserve judgment on whether this is something that may not need to be changed in a different way in some point in the future, if it doesn’t end up working as everyone is committing to how it should work moving forward.

A. Olsen: I thank the Government House Leader for bringing this motion forward.

I just want to start off by acknowledging the importance of ensuring that this House is responding to ensure that British Columbians who may want to consider running to take a seat in this House feel included and have access in an equitable way.

I note that when the COVID-19 pandemic started to shut down British Columbia in ways that I think many of us would never have considered would have been possible or would have happened in the past or at any time, our Clerk’s office and the staff here in the Legislative Assembly moved very quickly and very efficiently to provide us a space to be able to continue to do the work of this House. By session order, we have continued to have access to the tools.

In the chamber here, the TV screens remain, and some members continue to remain connected to their work through Zoom and through other video conferencing. I think it was the right approach from government to initially bring these forward as sessional orders. We’ve now…. I don’t know the exact number of sessions. There have been a number of sessions since the first time that we used Zoom. I think, to the point that was made by the Opposition House Leader, the members of this House have used the tools as they’ve needed to. There’s been no abuse of the tools.

There have been times when someone may join from the seat of their car or someone may join in a way that perhaps is inappropriate, but the behaviour has been corrected. I think that we as a group of MLAs have managed this tool and managed the access to this place in a very responsible and respectful way and, again, have had a way through our caucus structures to ensure that members are here and available.

I think it’s also to the point that the Opposition House Leader raised the responsibility of the executive council to be in person here and available to answer questions as much as their health and well-being allow them to be here.

[2:50 p.m.]

I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues in a different caucus about how challenging it was, following the 2020 election, where we were separated for the first number of months from each other and how this place operates based on relationships.

While the public often sees the relationships that happen here in question period, I can assure the members of the public here in British Columbia that that is not representative of the vast majority of the relationships that exist in this Legislature. If the members of the public watched budget estimates or if they watched any of our committees, they would recognize that there is good decorum and good relations that are built across party lines.

Indeed, that’s very much strengthened when the members are here in Victoria together, getting to know each other, having a relationship with each other that goes across the red carpet here and extends out across all parties. So my hope is — and I share both the concern and the hope that was expressed by the Opposition House Leader — that we continue to maintain the video conferencing, the hybrid access to this, only as needed and that as much as possible within our parties — and, the hope is, future parties — maintain this level of commitment to us being here.

Indeed, when we got together last week to discuss these issues, we saw the benefit of that, as we were able to work through any differences in person and in front of each other. I really benefit and feel that we benefit from that.

I want to emphasize the words that have been shared by the Opposition House Leader and by the Government House Leader, as a matter of fact, to ensure that this work is done in person and that we’re here to build relationships with each other and that the responsibility of the executive council, as much as possible, is to be here doing their work, recognizing that they’re away, I think, from time to time.

The other point is that I think that the scheduling of events and stuff that might bring an executive council member out of this room for question period…. There’s a lot of other time in a calendar year. We have an opportunity as opposition members to ask government questions in question period, and the time is very limited other than that. So if there are government announcements or ribbons to cut or placards to sign, perhaps that could be done outside of the question period time, as much as possible, and it could be scheduled that way.

Other than that, I think, I just want to raise my hands to all the members of this House who have had the opportunity to make this hybrid sitting work. I look forward to the extended direction from the Clerk’s office about how we can make it work even more efficiently.

I appreciate the Government House Leader and all the members within the government caucus that have made this a priority. I’m just acknowledging the committee that met over the last number of months.

I know that there are a lot of members in this House that this is a priority for, and this is really a tribute to the good functioning of this House that we are debating this motion today. I raise my hands to all of them and look forward to this being a successful permanent change in this Legislative Assembly.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

A. Walker: We are caretakers of this institution, each and every one of us, as MLAs. There’s a lot of tradition here. We only have to open the drawers of our desks to see the names of those who’ve come before us, and there will be many, many more names that come after us.

As we amend something as important as the standing orders of this place, it leaves a legacy on how the next session will be held, how the next government will be held, and it sets a precedent. I think that this House has proven the success of this hybrid model, for the most part. The idea that when life pulls us away, whether for health or serious issues, as MLA’s representing our community, we’re still able to participate in this place and the importance of this place.

The challenge I have with this motion, however, similar challenges that I’ve seen over the last few months, is that not every member is a part of every part of this process. I can just remember when I first became an independent member not even being able to vote in the committee rooms on amendments that I had brought forward.

[2:55 p.m.]

It took several weeks to get that resolved, and I thank the House Leader for addressing that. But here we are again talking about amending the standing orders, the rules of this place, something that — I’m not holding the book, Mr. Speaker, this prop — sets the rules of how we function.

Yet the rules that are being set only apply for feedback for the Speaker, as the Speaker sets these rules. We’re setting a framework where only the official parties are brought into consideration as these rules are set.

I feel that this is yet again this government not taking into account that our government is not made up of political parties. Our government is made up of individual MLAs that represent the constituencies that we have back home.

With that, I move that Motion 22 be amended as written in this long motion here.

[That Motion 22 be amended by adding the underlined text as follows:

8. (3) In enabling remote participation of Members in proceedings of the House, the Speaker shall:

(a) approve the videoconferencing technology platform used to support hybrid proceedings of the House, and

(b) establish and publish rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity and participation by Members, and shall consult the House Leaders or Whips and Independent Members as required.

(4) When a Member is participating in proceedings of the House by remote means, the Speaker is empowered to:

(a) exercise discretion on the application of Standing Order 17A as it may relate to the facilitation of participation of Members in proceedings of the House remotely;

(b) exclude a Member from participating if the Member has failed to meet the rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity;

(c) intervene on any matter of decorum, including by muting a Member’s microphone and excluding a Member from sittings of the House in cases of serious misconduct;

(d) exercise discretion in the interpretation of the provisions of any Standing Order requiring Members to stand or speak in their assigned place and with respect to the transmission of documents, as these requirements may relate to Members participating via the approved videoconferencing technology; and

(e) exercise discretion, in consultation with the House Leaders or the Whips and Independent Members, in the interpretation of any provision of the Standing Orders that may require leniency or alteration in order to allow a Member to be able to fully exercise their duties.]

The Speaker: Members, we are receiving that amendment, and we are going to circulate it to all members, including online members. We are going to have a short break while it’s being circulated.

The House recessed from 2:56 p.m. to 3 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: All right. Now it seems like everybody has received the proposed amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the independent member bringing this forward. I appreciate the sentiment that the member has shared. I will say that at this time we won’t be supporting this. This is a departure from the way parliamentary orders exist across all orders.

One of the recommendations from the special committee that just issued a report was to look at all of our standing orders and find ways to create more reforms to make this place a safer place for us. I think that may be a place where we look at this conversation and look at it not just as a one-off but as more of a collective.

At this point, this would be a departure, I’m informed by the Clerk as well, from the traditional orders that we do have existing.

T. Stone: I also, on behalf of the official opposition, appreciate the independent member for Parksville-Qualicum bringing this amendment forward, and I also understand the sentiment.

However, I also like to continue to be a stickler for the standing orders and how the standing orders evolve over time. The Clerk has informed me, as well, that there are many points of consultation and engagement that are reserved for officially recognized parties at the moment. It would seem a bit odd to make an amendment to this soon-to-be permanent standing order that would be a departure from how other standing orders deal with these types of required consultations.

That is not to say that as a matter of good practice, the Government House Leader couldn’t and shouldn’t reach out to independent members on an ongoing basis with respect to changes like this, but I don’t think it makes sense to make a one-off here.

The Working Group on Parliamentary Culture did bring forward a recommendation, on a go-forward basis, for there to be a committee struck of this place to look at any and all areas for evolving practice to better incorporate the participation and the perspectives of independent members, or private members for that matter. I would think that would be the much more appropriate place to address the intent of what is provided for here today.

For those reasons, the official opposition will not support this motion.

A. Walker: Hearing from the other two members that they appreciate the sentiment, the sentiment is that every one of the 87 MLAs in this place has the opportunity to ensure that when the Speaker sets rules, that they have been put on that.

When we talk about a departure from the norms, a departure from the norm is the fact that we’re able to participate remotely. This is not something, up until the COVID-19 pandemic, that other Houses had even considered. So that in and of itself was a departure from the norm.

I would hope that as the standing orders, the rules that govern this place, are set, that effort would be made to ensure that every member of this place has an opportunity to speak their voice, whether it’s through their House Leader or directly to the Speaker, to ensure that we capture the views and the importance from all members, regardless of where they’re from and which party they represent, if they do or do not.

The Speaker: The question is the amendment to Motion 22 proposed by the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

Amendment negatived.

On the main motion.

[3:05 p.m.]

H. Sandhu: I want to share my thoughts in support of Motion 22.

I want to share a personal story as well, however. I personally like to be here physically, and most of you see I spend more time and, for the first couple of years, on the Finance Committee too. I love every moment of it. For me, as the elected member for Vernon-Monashee, being in this place, even today, looking around and seeing you all as well, I learn lots from all members of the House. The benefit is that I can knock on ministers’ doors, and if there’s any case work, I can follow up further.

For me, it’s an honour that many before us from the South Asian community didn’t have even to enter into this building. So entering into this building is more than a privilege. It’s an honour.

However, historically I think this motion gives the flexibility to many, whether they’re single-parent mothers or with other obligations or unforeseen situations when they come. Historically, we know, those people didn’t have the voice at the decision-making table, because those thoughts and those responsibilities kept holding them back. They have so much potential. They want to give back, but being away for an extended period of time and the responsibility…. They were not able to contribute.

That means, of course, many people…. When we all get elected, no matter which side, I know we do accept the obligation, and we serve this. Being here is an honour. But this flexibility is important for two reasons. Again, it’s many people, like rural ridings…. Say if we had an event in our community or we had a minister visit, I’d go back on Tuesday for the Wednesday event and come back Thursday again.

It’s travel back and forth. Not only is it more carbon footprints; it’s also taxpayers’ money that we’re utilizing every time. It’s more than $1,000, easily, depending on where you’re travelling from. But also the time of travelling back and forth you do — those amounts of hours we can utilize to do the work we’re elected to do.

We’ve seen during the first few months of this new government, when we were doing the hybrid model…. Of course, nothing beats the personal connections, but this is very important to have flexibility as well. I don’t think a restriction can, again, put up further barriers if we put some parameters in place.

Now I’ll share my personal experience. My daughter in November was sick, and then she ended up being hospitalized, very ill. Rather than taking leave, I wanted to participate, and I wanted to know what was happening. Even though I was offered support from the Whip’s office that I could take leave, I wanted to participate. Having this flexibility allowed me to join the last week of the session from the hospital, with a blurred background, beside my daughter, who was really, really ill.

What happened, the incident in that moment: as she’s getting treated, she was getting an iron infusion. I think it was question period. The nurse came. They hung the iron infusion, and within seconds, my daughter was developing an anaphylactic reaction, unable to speak, unable to breathe.

Me participating virtually, when I looked back, I saw she’s turned red. Her heart — she’s trying to tell me that it’s going to explode. Immediately I knew that she’s red. Quickly I was able to turn off the camera and run. There was a saline syringe. I happened to be able to stop the pump or do whatever, and that saved her life.

Then we rang the bell, and by the time the nurse came…. They were immediate, but they didn’t expect that this serious emergency was happening. But I can tell you that if I wasn’t there…. Then I apologized to the nurse — I didn’t want to overstep — that I took the action. Whatever. She said: “No, this is amazing.” She said: “It was phenomenal to see not only that you saved her life; in those couple minutes, you switched from being an MLA to a mom to a nurse.”

It was that moment when I realized, my goodness, if I wasn’t there, if I was here, my daughter, who wasn’t able to press the call bell and wasn’t able to breathe…. The outcome would have been different. I did not realize until then that this could even save lives. So that’s why I thought I’d share my thoughts.

[3:10 p.m.]

That doesn’t mean that…. Again, I like personal connection. I’ve worked with people for more than half of my life, and I love everybody here and learn a lot more, but having this flexibility is peace of mind that we can do this. Therefore, I speak in favour of this motion.

I want to thank everybody for putting this forward. Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.

The Speaker: The question is adoption of Motion 22 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 23 standing in my name on the order paper.

MOTION 23 — AMENDMENT TO
STANDING ORDERS FOR DIVISIONS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 23 standing in my name on the order paper, which seeks to amend Standing Order 16 as it pertains to conduct of divisions to account for remote participation by members:

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended by replacing Standing Order 16 (2) as follows:

(2) When a division has been called, the division bells shall be rung forthwith. Not sooner than 5, nor longer than 10 minutes thereafter, the Speaker shall again state the question. No Member shall enter or leave the House or Committee of the Whole after the final statement of the question until the division has been fully taken, and every Member present shall vote. No Member partici­pating remotely shall connect to or disconnect from the approved videoconferencing technology after the final statement of the question until the division has been fully taken.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of Motion 23 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 21 on the order paper.

MOTION 21 — DISCHARGE OF SESSIONAL
ORDER ON HYBRID PROCEEDINGS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 21 standing in my name on the order paper, which discharges the sessional order adopted on February 20 enabling hybrid proceedings of the House.

[That the Sessional Order adopted by the House on February 20, 2024, enabling hybrid proceedings of the House, be discharged.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of Motion 21 on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, be read now a second time.

Bill 9 amends a number of statutes.

This bill will amend the Lobbyists Transparency Act. These amendments will address concerns about the administrative burden the act can have on smaller organizations who lobby. The Lobbyists Transparency Act aims to provide transparency into efforts by lobbyists to influence decision-making. Under this act, lobbyists must publicly report information about certain communications with provincial elected officials or senior public servants in the online lobbyist registry.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

My ministry heard from non-profit organizations who said that the administrative burden of complying with the act is significant, especially for smaller organizations. By reducing the administrative burden of reporting lobbying activities while maintaining transparency for the public, the government hopes to continue to encourage organizations to communicate their views, needs and concerns.

The amendments to the act will remove the requirement for lobbyists to report funding requests made to government to a government body, reduce the reporting fre­quency for funding received from a government body, clarify but not change reporting requirements for lobbyists who lobby with other organizations and make some housekeeping amendments.

The bill proposes amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. While travelling on public roadways through the province, sheriffs occasionally arrive first on the scene at serious traffic accidents. In these situations, sheriffs have a statutory duty to provide immediate life-saving assistance. Currently the Motor Vehicle Act only authorizes sheriffs to operate their vehicle as an emergency vehicle and use red and white flashing lights when they are transporting a person in their custody. An example may be where they are transporting a high-risk prisoner from a correctional centre to a courthouse.

By not allowing sheriffs to activate their flashing emergency lights in other situations, like an accident scene, the sheriffs and the public are being put at unnecessary risk. This was raised by sheriffs as a concern that has impacted their ability to respond safely to emergency situations as they come up. This amendment will improve safety for sheriffs and for the public by providing sheriffs with the authority to operate an emergency vehicle any time they are undertaking their statutory duties under the Sheriff Act.

Further proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act support continuous operational improvements to RoadSafetyBC’s vehicle impoundment and impaired driving programs. The proposed changes benefit people by supporting the removal of unsafe drivers from the road and meeting the public’s expectation for timely administrative driving prohibition reviews and support program modernization through the creation of streamlined administrative processes that benefit citizens and businesses.

Amendments to the Offence Act will provide certainty about which laws apply where a violation ticket is issued by a modern treaty Nation and disputed in the provincial court. The amendment specifically disapplies the sections of the Offence Act related to the issuance, service, form and content of a violation ticket from violation tickets issued by the Tsawwassen First Nation, Maa-nulth First Nation and the Tla’amin Nation, as the laws and forms of these Nations will govern these steps in the process.

This removes the risks to the Nation where a ticket is disputed that the court may find that the ticket is not in alignment with the Offence Act requirements. This amendment responds to the concerns raised by the Maa-nulth First Nation during the implementation of the modern treaty Nation violation ticket project.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Protected Areas of British Columbia Act amendments continue the legislative work needed to maintain and improve the British Columbia protected area system. This work includes adding lands to existing protected areas, updating and improving legal descriptions and completing administrative corrections.

The amendments add 189 hectares to six parks and one conservancy. They also remove five hectares of roads from two parks and one conservancy and rename an ecological reserve. Lastly, the proposed amendments make minor administrative corrections and improvements to the boundary descriptions.

This bill makes technical amendments to the Financial Institutions Act and the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act that ensure that the acts are accurate, up to date and allow for the robust regulation of British Columbia’s financial sector. While the changes are technical in nature, they are important to ensure the continued effectiveness of consumer protection initiatives, work aimed at protecting people buying and owning insurance.

Part 4 of this bill amends a number of acts. In 2022, the Parliament of Canada amended the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, which included updating the legal name of the Sechelt Indian Band to the traditional Indigenous name of the shíshálh Nation.

For consistency between the federal and provincial statutes, amendments to six acts are proposed in this miscellaneous statutes bill. The amendments primarily replace the words “Sechelt” with “shíshálh” and “Indian band” with “Nation.”

The six acts are the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, Environmental Management Act, Land Owner Transparency Act, Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act and speculation and vacancy tax.

This bill proposes to amend the Labour Relations Code. The right to strike, as part of collective bargaining, is of fundamental importance to unionized workers in British Columbia and across Canada. Exercising this right often involves picketing, where other workers can show their solidarity by refusing to cross the picket line.

However, if B.C. workers cross a picket line conducted by federally regulated workers or workers regulated by another province, this may be found to be an illegal strike under the Labour Relations Code. These amendments to the Labour Relations Code will ensure that it is not a strike when workers refuse to cross a picket line in these situations.

Honouring the picket lines of other workers is a fundamental feature of B.C. labour relations. This change adheres to the core principles of labour solidarity, which are well established in this province. With this change, it won’t matter whether workers are part of a federal or provincial sector. There will be consistency.

Finally, the amendments to the Chartered Professional Accountants Act are in response to the Cullen commission report on anti–money laundering. Protection of the public interest is added as a legislative objective of the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia, confirming that protection of the public interest is a key purpose of the professional regulatory body.

The bill will also enable the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills to monitor and direct CPABC with respect to their legislated objectives, including protection of the public interest, and their implementation of the Cullen report recommendations through the use of guidelines, directives and information requests.

These amendments also better align the Chartered Professional Accountants Act with other legislated governing professional regulatory bodies, including the Professional Governance Act and the international credentials act.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to rise today and speak to Bill 9. I’m going to speak specifically just to the changes impacting the labour code.

I’m incredibly concerned that a change as significant as what the minister has just raised in this House is being bundled up and inserted inside a miscellaneous statutes bill. The government is pushing through with major changes to the Labour Relations Code under the guise of this miscellaneous stats bill. It’s glaringly and grossly inappropriate, and it is not a manner by which governments previously have undertaken significant changes.

This particular section of Bill 9 amends the definition of “strike” to allow provincially regulated workers in B.C. to honour picket lines by federal or other provinces’ employees without it constituting an illegal strike, a move that is unprecedented in Canada.

[3:20 p.m.]

No other jurisdiction across Canada has moved forward with a legislative change as significant as this. This government has chosen, without any consultation, zero consultation, to insert this significant legislative change in a misc stats bill. It’s highly offensive.

The timing of these amendments, revealed without warning in March of this year, blindsided stakeholders, who discovered them as they are currently preparing submissions for the ongoing section 3 Labour Relations Code Review Panel. This is undermining both the trust and the participation in this review process.

Public feedback is still being collected until May 7. Government is moving forward with the labour code review, and while this review is underway, government has decided to sidestep the entire process and to insert significant legislative change under the guise of this miscellaneous stats bill.

The scheduling of the in-person and virtual meetings across multiple cities continues to be ongoing from April through May of this year. This highlights government’s disregard for its own timelines and the expectations set for public consultation.

Implementing such consequential changes without thorough consultation and ahead of the Labour Relations Code Review Panel’s findings raises concerns about the integrity and the impartiality of the review process. This pre-emptive action by the government not only undermines the panel’s work but also casts significant doubt on the purpose and the effectiveness of future review processes, potentially deterring meaningful participation from labour, business and other interested parties.

I’m in receipt of a letter penned today and addressed to the Minister of Labour. In this letter, it sets out significant concerns. I think it’s important for this House to hear the letter in its entirety. So I’m very proud to read this into the record.

Now, this letter was submitted to the Minister of Labour by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. These are significant organizations that represent significant, if not the majority of, businesses operating across our province.

The letter states:

“Dear Minister,

“We are writing to express serious concern regarding the introduction of Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, which proposes to change the definition of ‘strike’ in the Labour Relations Code of B.C., with no engagement or consultation.”

I’ll repeat that: with no, zero, consultation.

“Of particular concern is that this change is being pursued outside a five-year mandated section 3 review of the Labour Relations Code, which the government recently announced, complete with a tripartite panel. To frame the significance of this work, the 2018 labour code review panel noted the importance of an independent review, which ‘enables the code to be responsive to changes in the workplace and facilitates necessary, periodic changes.’”

The letter goes on to state:

“The government recently echoed this sentiment in a press release dated February 1. This is government’s own press release, in which it cites…. Government’s intention was to appoint an independent panel ‘to review and provide recommendations for potential amendments’ to the code.

“Against this backdrop, there is no justification for proceeding with Bill 9 before this section 3 panel does its work and tables its final report. Frankly, this calls into question the government’s intentions for the panel’s forthcoming findings, including whether you will receive them in an even-handed manner.”

[3:25 p.m.]

The letter goes on to state:

“Several associations wrote seeking an extension of the consultation timeline for the recently announced section 3 panel. We noted that the communications of the launch of the panel and process were done under significantly compressed timelines and that the timeline for stakeholder submission was not included in government’s own communications.”

So much for forthright and transparent.

“In response, an extension was granted until March 22, which was appreciated. While we took this as a sign of good faith, the government chose to table substantive changes to the code outside of its own independent process.

“It is unclear what the urgency or public policy purpose is for the proposed legislative change in Bill 9. To our knowledge, the change proposed to the definition of ‘strike’ has no equivalent in legislation governing labour relations in any other province. This is historic and unprecedented.”

The letter goes on to state:

“While proposed and packaged as a minor change, it is not. The change is far-reaching, and we are concerned that it could have significant economic and financial implications. We are concerned that the change will lead to more labour strife, impacting more of our economic base in the province.

“A delicate balance is built into the code. This change should be considered alongside other measures that will be considered by the section 3 panel.

“The change to the definition of ‘strike’ would increase the collateral impacts and instability of strike action to other operations as it reduces the potential relief from picketing that is available to employers not directly part of the labour dispute. Provincially regulated employers dealing with common site or secondary picketing may now be left with no recourse when federally regulated employees picket a common site.

“Given the extent of federally regulated industries operating in British Columbia, the effect of Bill 9 would be substantial. The measure could, for example, make it possible for a single federally regulated postal worker to set up a picket line and shut down a large employer’s site, such as a pulp mill or refinery. Major sites where there are both provincially and federally regulated employees could be impacted.

“Another example is found with CN and CPKC, which have rail operations throughout British Columbia, with multiple points of intersection and interaction with provincially regulated employers, including major industrial operations.

“In 2022, a labour dispute between Seaspan ULC and the Canadian Merchant Service Guild resulted in the board finding a limited exception for the definition of ‘strike’ is contained in the code, where a refusal to work is due to picketing and is expressly permitted by the B.C. code. In this case, significant economic ramifications were at stake, affecting multi-billion dollar contracts.

“Meaningful change in the labour relations landscape in British Columbia must be grounded in transparency, inclusivity and respect for procedural fairness, including not proposing legislation prior to the current section 3 panel deliberations and final report. What is the urgency?

“The section 3 panel is currently engaging with businesses and workers across the province of B.C. as initiated by this government. But prior to receiving any findings or direction from this panel, this government has chosen to ram through a significant piece of legislation under the guise of a miscellaneous stats bill.”

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I will conclude with this portion of the letter:

“We urge the government and the Attorney General” — I won’t say the minister’s name — “to withdraw the proposed amendment to the code in Bill 9 and allow the section 3 panel to complete its work and a better understanding of the implications of the impact to occur.”

[3:30 p.m.]

These major changes raise significant economic concerns, especially after last summer’s ILWU port strike, which lasted 13 days and resulted in a $1.7 billion trade loss for British Columbia. Just a 13-day strike had a $1.7 billion impact on British Columbia.

The proposed amendments threaten to increase labour actions, potential shutdowns and negative impacts on critical infrastructure, including ports and railways, risking further exacerbation of the cost-of-living crisis. Considering the substantial economic impact of previous strikes, it’s crucial to thoroughly evaluate the potential economic effects of making it easier for workers to join in solidarity actions.

This is unprecedented. No other jurisdiction in Canada has undertaken this significant level of change to the labour code, with zero consultation. A change of this magnitude must be undertaken throughout the province, with an opportunity for all members of society here in B.C., both businesses and workers, to express their concerns, for government to give consideration to the unintended consequences of a significant move impacting the way strikes are performed in B.C.

Government’s decision to introduce the significant labour law amendments through a miscellaneous stats bill circumvents the established legislative process, denying stakeholders the opportunity for proper scrutiny and debate. The lack of transparency and the rushed nature of these amendments call into question the NDP’s commitment to a fair and balanced labour policy, clearly prioritizing political alliances over the economic well-being and rights of workers and businesses across B.C.

There was a labour board ruling last year on an issue specifically relative to this particular legislation. The issue was between Vancouver Shipyards and the employees, represented by Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers, Marine and Shipbuilders, Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Plumbers and Pipefitters, Professional Employees Union, all workers that were impacted by a strike notice undertaken by a federally regulated tugboat company, potentially shutting down this entire operation. Thankfully, the labour board ruled that it was an illegal strike.

In a strike that federally regulated workers may have in this province, they are certainly entitled to their ability to raise their concerns, to picket or to take job action in order to advance the issues. But to think that the actions of a federally regulated union could shut down such a wide swath of other provincially regulated unions in this province is definitely cause for concern.

In this particular application, the employer submitted that the original decision, initially undertaken by the labour review board, was “inconsistent with code principles” because it failed to consider section 2(f) of the code, “which requires the board to exercise its powers and to perform its duties so as to minimize the effects of labour disputes on uninvolved persons.”

[3:35 p.m.]

The employer’s interpretation was deemed to be correct. In a portion of the labour board’s decision, the labour board indicated: “The employer’s interpretation of the phrase promotes the board’s duty to minimize the effect of labour disputes on unrelated parties by limiting the exemption to only that picketing which the board has the constitutional authority to regulate. It is also consistent with the board’s duties under sections 2(e) and 2(f) of the code.”

What is government doing now, in an election year? This has an NDP political campaign written all over it. For them to be hammering this through, without any consultation, with the broader implications, is absolutely offensive.

Unequivocally, I certainly will not be supporting this particular piece of legislation on this section of Bill 9, and I believe that we are going to be hearing, loud and clear, from other business organizations and potentially impacted businesses across the province in the days ahead.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Langley East.

M. Dykeman: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and welcome to the chair.

It’s a privilege to be able to stand today and have the opportunity to speak to Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statues Act, specifically the part related to amendments to the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

I have the absolute privilege and honour of serving as the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-profits. Part of the work that I’ve had the pleasure of undertaking this year is meeting with non-profits and hearing about the challenges and the opportunities that are there for the non-profits — which, we know, do such important work in our communities throughout British Columbia, often with limited resources and often with limited capacity.

We’ve been able to support non-profits in that work, and we’ve seen the importance of the work that they do. They are trusted partners in so many areas, from housing to social programs to child care to organizations that often serve the most vulnerable folks in our communities.

In conversations related to challenges they face, we’ve heard that some of the changes that were previously made to the Lobbyists Transparency Act were creating obstacles and capacity challenges for non-profits. My predecessor, the now Attorney General, had started that work, and I would like to say that I’m grateful for the work that she’s done on this.

I’ve had the pleasure of continuing those conversations and undertaking consultations with non-profits in this area and being able to see it come here today in the miscellaneous statutes bill. I would like to thank everyone who made that happen, because I know we have a busy legislative agenda.

In our consultations, we heard about what many non-profits face: capacity challenges. Often there isn’t a full-time employee who is able to do specific work related to reporting. We heard about how some of the changes that could be made would continue to attain the goal that our government wants, which is increased transparency, while also addressing the challenges related to capacity with, say, frequency of reporting.

In those conversations, we heard that these burdens are a significant challenge for non-profits. By working together, as our government believes, with non-profits, we were able to come up with opportunities.

Now, it’s important to recognize that these changes will make an immediate difference for non-profits, but there is still another review, a statutory review, which is set to take place in 2025. There’s a mandatory review of the act that takes place, and there will be another review there, another opportunity to continue to receive feedback.

[3:40 p.m.]

What we, as the government, see is the opportunity to increase transparency in lobbyist activities while also working with our non-profits and other entities that are bound by this act to ensure that it’s not too onerous and that reporting can take place in such a way that transparency is achieved without creating an unnecessary burden.

I’d like to thank all of the non-profits that have taken the time to talk to me in my role, allowing me to communicate to my colleagues in government about these challenges, and the Attorney General’s office for working and facilitating the consultations in order to discuss possible potential opportunities to overcome these regulatory burdens and make changes that work for our trusted partners, while still maintaining transparency and achieve that balance.

I look forward to the submissions because I know there is other feedback that I have heard through non-profits. That feedback opportunity is coming up in 2025.

I am looking forward to hearing any other comments my colleagues in the House may have.

I want to thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity just to stand up and say that I am very excited about these changes coming forward in the Lobbyists Transparency Act and, once again, would like to thank the non-profits who shared their thoughts.

R. Merrifield: As we turn our attention to these amendments, I’m going to speak specifically to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy amendments, because I think that there are some changes that need to be looked at and I want to emphasize the importance of those. Perhaps not as important as my colleague on the labour section, but obviously these miscellaneous statutes bills have a varied sort within them.

This bill, which looks to adjust the boundaries of some of our parks and conservancies, really mirrors our collective endeavor to safeguard British Columbia’s exquisite natural settings, while meeting the necessary requirements of our growing province.

In my briefing with the ministry staff, it was acknowledged that it’s a total of 189 hectares which are being added. This is really a thoughtful gesture towards acknowledging just how important our parks are for us all.

The bill also really acknowledges our Indigenous heritage and acknowledges that through a very significant name change, which is a step forward, I believe, in our journey towards reconciliation.

But I do think that we need to address the differences found in the proposed and current acreages and sizes of the different park areas. So despite the good parts about this bill, I think that there are some things that we need to look at.

We were told that it does, overall, increase the protected areas, which is something that we would all applaud. But those numbers actually don’t correlate to the numbers that are in the bill.

So we have to look a little bit closer, through the course of committee stage, and question whether the numbers are truly accurate and whether or not they’re aligning with our goals for environmental preservation and make sure that there’s an understanding as such. It’s imperative that we take these amendments under a magnifying glass in committee stage.

We do need a clear understanding of the effects of these amendments on our conservation efforts and really to reflect the message that we’re sending about our dedication to protecting our environment.

You know, if we look at some of the most dramatic ones, Muncho Lake Park, the hectares that are listed within the act are 88,420. But the hectares listed in the proposed amendments are 85,910, resulting in a 2,500-hectare difference. So we want to make sure and go through some of these numbers, just to ensure that we are, indeed, adding to our overall park capacity and space, rather than seeing a decrease.

Our parks, as we all know, are not just plots of land. They’re reflections of our values and our commitments to both nature and our communities. They’re part of our health and mental health aspects within our society. Therefore, I don’t really want to hurry this process.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’ve seen just recently the hurried amendments to the Land Act, which have led to division rather than unity, and really highlight the necessity for a thorough consultation and better management.

We’ve just heard from my colleague about how a hurried process can result in isolation of an entire business community and really not result in the intended process that we would all want.

Whether it’s the hurried process of the Land Act or the labour amendments within this miscellaneous statutes bill, these incidents underline the need for us to approach such matters with more caution and care, ensuring we engage in meaningful dialogue and consider all stakeholders. I’m only going to speak to this amount and hope that we hear from other colleagues around the House.

In closing, where this bill aims to enhance and protect our natural beauty, it is a reminder of the delicate balance that we must maintain. Our dedication to environmental stewardship requires careful scrutiny of any changes to ensure that they contribute positively to our legacy of conservation and community respect.

Let’s move forward with diligence, ensuring every decision we make today serves the best interest of British Columbia’s natural heritage and its people.

Hon. A. Mercier: I just want to speak in favour of this bill — in particular, in favour of the provisions to amend the Labour Relations Code to include a refusal to cross a picket line under a lawfully regulated strike under the Canada code. I think this is an incredibly important amendment. There is no right more fundamental or impor­tant to industrial relations and collective bargaining, in my view, than the right not to cross a picket line.

The picketing in Canada and in the province of British Columbia, because you have two systems of regulating collective bargaining depending on the industry, either the Canada labour relations code or the B.C. Labour Relations Code…. But picketing under those codes is highly regulated. It’s been highly litigated over the years, and it happens within a very distinct and limited set of rules and circumstances.

Some of the examples raised by the member for Shuswap are actually laughable in how absurd and how beyond the point they actually are. What this does is this means if you have an employee who is under a collective agreement in British Columbia?

Imagine a delivery driver, and they come across a lawfully regulated picket, and that picket is happening as a consequence of a strike that has been taken under a strike vote or a lockout by the B.C. Labour Relations Board. They can refuse to cross that picket line. They cannot be ordered to cross that picket line, and they can refuse to cross it without fear of reprisal because they are not involved in an illegal strike.

Through an absurdity of the code and the way the code has been interpreted, if that same employee comes to a similar picket line…. It could be in the same place, but it’s a picket occurring underneath the Canada code. They can be ordered to cross that picket line, and if they refuse to do so, they can be found to be in violation of the code and engaging in an illegal strike.

All things being equal, those two situations being exactly identical, it’s a clear absurdity. The member for Shuswap, I think, would do well to read some of those cases and familiarize himself with labour relations law in British Columbia and in Canada. The notion that a single postal worker, who is federally regulated, could then shut down a pulp mill is a laughable suggestion precisely because of how well-regulated picketing is.

That’s called whipsawing: when a small unit goes out on strike to shut down a larger unit in order to extract bigger gains. Anywhere where you see that happening, and the law of picketing constrains that very strongly, in this country, you will normally see a council of trade unions imposed so they bargain as a whole and that doesn’t happen. It is laughable to suggest that that would happen and to suggest that there be some kind of increase in industrial unrest across the country as a consequence of that. It’s not borne out in reality.

What this does, really, is it addresses what I said out in the beginning, which is a very minor amendment, but it addresses an absurdity that cuts fundamentally to who people are and the values that they hold in exercising their Charter rights to free association.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ll be fairly quick in my comments here, but furthermore, the member for Shuswap also went through the consultation that is going on under section 3 of the Labour Relations Code to review the code at least once every five years with a balanced tripartite panel that has been appointed.

While I applaud the member for endorsing that process and am glad to hear that he has endorsed that process, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone in this House that the last time that happened was 2018, after we formed government. Actually as part of that, where we said we would do those section 3 committees on an ongoing basis within at least every five years, they weren’t done prior to that except…. The last one previous to that was in the 1990s, when Vince Ready, John Baigent and Tom Roper formed a tripartite panel to review the code then.

When the B.C. United, then B.C. Liberals, came into government in 2001, they changed the code significantly without consulting in a thorough or engaged way with anyone. So the sudden love of consultation, which we’re doing and we’re doing very thoroughly, I would suggest, is highly questionable. We’ve seen their approach to labour relations. It’s ripping up collective agreements. It’s forcing people back to work.

This is a good bill. This is a good amendment. This is one that I am proud to stand for and to vote for.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is second reading of Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Coulter: 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 9, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, 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. D. Coulter: I call second reading, Bill 10, Commercial Transport Act.

BILL 10 — COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

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 10, the Commercial Transport Amendment Act. This legislation is a response to new data collection systems and very public incidents that have detailed and documented, since December 2021, 35 recorded crashes into highway infrastructure by overheight commercial vehicles unsafely traversing their loads and causing significant damage to public infrastructure, lengthy delays for all people who rely on highways and representing a serious threat to road safety. They impact the supply chain. They impede crucial response times by emergency service providers, and they cost the economy significantly.

Last fall the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure committed to taking tougher action against these crashes.

At that time, the actions included higher fines for overheight vehicles, a requirement for dump-style vehicles to have in-cab warning devices to warn drivers when the dump body is in a raised position and the adoption of what is called a new progressive enforcement framework and suspension policy that provides escalating penalties for carriers whose drivers commit repeat offences, adding longer suspensions while under investigation and including the possible loss of operating certificates and the ability to do business in British Columbia where serious safety concerns warrant that.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’ve also recently brought this matter forward at the federal level to the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. All of us, regardless of political stripe of provincial or territorial government, regardless of which part of the country we represent, have agreed to work collaboratively through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators to address loop­holes where extraprovincial carriers avoid enforcement consequences when operating unsafely across Canada.

This doesn’t happen often, but it happens enough to be an area of concern and require action for coordination nationally in this growing country of ours that now boasts 38 million people.

We looked to other jurisdictions for some ideas about how this might be accomplished, including the United States where a significantly greater role by the federal government in that jurisdiction regulates safety certificates for interstate commerce of goods carried by commercial trucks.

Violation ticket fines applicable to drivers for overheight-related contraventions were raised last year from $100 to $500. That is the maximum fine allowable under the CTA. Yet even with a fivefold increase of the fine to $500, this fine is still shockingly low given the potential for infrastructure crashes to threaten safety and cause significant damage to our highway infrastructure.

The current maximum penalty, which was established in 1971, limits enforcement and prevents officers from effectively pursuing more severe penalties against commercial trucking operators who commit egregious safety violations, even when drivers are involved in multiple bridge crashes or incidents where a driver’s negligence has been determined to have led to serious injuries or even death.

It’s important to realize the severity of these incidents. Three recent crashes have resulted in infrastructure repair costs ranging from $721,000 to $1.8 million. In the case of a recent severe crash, resulting in significant damage to our infrastructure, commercial vehicles have had to be detoured around the damaged infrastructure at night to allow for repairs to happen.

The estimated value of goods for that detour being carried is about $14 million each evening for a projected period of 84 days. That gives you an idea of the scale of some of the far-reaching impacts that a single infrastructure crash can have.

This is important nationally, as I mentioned. We’re seeing this in other jurisdictions as well. We hope that B.C.’s tougher laws and tougher actions will inspire other jurisdictions to follow our lead. We also hope to have coordination, as I’ve said, on national enforcement tools around safety certificates that are issued that are really the bond of trust with the people that are served by those companies on our highways.

We expect, given the reception that we’ve had recently at a national meeting, that we will have a positive set of actions and recommendations from the federal government. I am pleased that the Hon. Pablo Rodriguez, the Minister of Transport of Canada, has also agreed to take a leading role in reviewing what the federal government can do by way of coordination nationally.

People need to know that we are doing everything we can to prevent these crashes. To show how serious we are, I want to go through the amendments, before us today, to the Commercial Transport Act.

These include a proposed new maximum fine limit of $100,000 for offences under the act and a proposed new maximum term of imprisonment of 18 months for drivers who commit these offences, thereby enabling courts to impose fines, imprisonment or both upon conviction. These changes will provide additional tools to enforcement officers to address the most serious and egregious violations and contraventions by pursuing stiffer penalties through the court.

Working with a number of supportive organizations in drafting and reviewing this legislation, it is their opinion, the B.C. Trucking Association and others, that passage of this legislation will send a very powerful message to the very small, small percent of drivers who have been involved in overpass collisions to get that number down to zero.

The steps to laying charges I want to go through as well, because I don’t want anyone to have a perception that these higher fines and, perhaps, even imprisonment terms will be used without due process. They will be administered through a court process.

[4:00 p.m.]

The steps to laying charges and seeking a trial and prosecution through the courts will be as follows.

Step 1 would be, following a crash, enforcement would need to submit a report to Crown counsel recommending approval of specific charges. Step 2 would be Crown counsel determining to make their charge assessment, a decision based on the following two-part formula, which is standard for Crown council.

Test No. 1 would be: is there a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence presented in the report to Crown counsel? Of course, that would be informed by all the reports and documents conducted by investigations of RCMP or municipal police departments, the commercial vehicle safety enforcement unit and perhaps others in terms of witnesses or third parties involved in the incident.

The second test that would have to be met is the one that always must be met: is a prosecution required in the public interest?

I have to say, at this point in the debate, that I hope this legislation sets out the deterrent value that we hope it will. But I think it would be a tremendous success if it never has to be used or tested in court, because it will be effective in creating the recalcitrant, poor safety regimes in some…. And again, I want to stress it’s a very insignificant number of carriers. It will either incent them out of business or lead to the kinds of changes that we would expect them to have in return for holding a safety certificate and doing business in our province.

Back to the steps around the offences and how they could be involved in a prosecution. Crown counsel can decide that no charges could be laid as well or that charges should be laid, or an alternative to the court process may also be appropriate. That independent judgment will obviously play out as a result of the facts that are established through an investigation.

If Crown counsel decides to lay charges and the matter does proceed to trial, and the accused is found guilty, the court will decide what penalty to impose based on the range provided in the act and any other considerations that the court considers relevant for sentencing purposes. Again, the facts of the investigation will matter as to the severity of the judgment that is rendered and what the prosecution will see.

Public safety is paramount. We all know that. Our ministry committed a long time ago, and this flows from different administrations: the commitment to vision zero, to move British Columbia as a jurisdiction towards zero fatalities on our highways. There are no fatalities, I should say, related to the 35 crashes that I’ve mentioned that have been part of the data collection that was initiated in 2021.

We shouldn’t be complacent in any way. We should count that as a good bit of luck. It easily could’ve caused serious injury or even death. We’re thankful and grateful that it did not.

Back to public safety, the repeated infrastructure crashes have highlighted the need to be ready with the appropriate response if and when necessary. That is, in fact, what the public expects. These crashes also underscore the need to send the strongest message possible, again, to those few drivers in our professional workforce of about 40,000 commercial licence holders, who fail to take the basic steps required legally to check their loads before they move them.

I do believe this legislation sends that message. It will allow enforcement to pursue more severe penalties for those violations causing the worst possible outcomes.

In updating the current maximum penalty from 1971, in place for more than five decades, we look to precedents in other B.C. statutes. These amendments align with the maximum penalties in several more recent transportation and public safety related statutes, including the Railway Safety Act and the Safety Standards Act. These statutes provide a maximum fine and potential term of imprisonment identical to those contained in Bill 10.

These amendments modernize the deterrent value of penalties under the act. They support efforts of the ministry and industry associations to highlight the importance of compliance among drivers who recklessly disregard basic safety rules under the province’s commercial transport laws. These amendments also follow through on the commitments of this government that strong action be taken now to address public and industry concerns regarding continued infrastructure crashes, which includes our commitment to further increase penalties in support of commercial vehicle safety.

[4:05 p.m.]

I do want to go over some actions that preface the legislation that’s before this House that have sought the same end, which is a reduced number of collisions as we move toward the goal of zero overpass and infrastructure collisions on our highways.

In 2021, we sought and implemented higher standards and qualifications to hold a class 1 commercial trucker’s licence in this province by drastically increasing the competencies required through the mandatory entry-level training program. Now, that was something that our province worked collaboratively with other provinces to pursue. It came out of a national inquiry into the tragic deaths of a young hockey team, the Humboldt Broncos, in the prairies.

I met with some of the families who lost young boys in the prime of their life, who live in British Columbia and who were part of that team, whose thanks we owe to the attention they gave to that issue, the testimony they provided to that inquiry and the thoughtful suggestions they made to regulators — to increase the driving competencies and the comprehensiveness of training to have a class 1 licence and operate, with heavy machinery and heavy loads, on our highway system.

I’m proud to say that the MELT program, the mandatory entry-level training in British Columbia, is the strongest in the country, the longest in duration and the most comprehensive in terms of what types of training must be mastered and met — and taught by accredited driving schools, both public and private, from BCIT to the other approximately 70 driving schools in our province.

We did that in 2021, during the pandemic. It was a difficult change to make because of the difficulties in coordinating, meeting face to face and implementing that. ICBC and others should be thanked — again, the B.C. Trucking Association — for doing that. We’ve now licensed and trained thousands of drivers under the new training regime.

Another initiative that we recently undertook and implemented was the requirement to use electronic logging devices to track commercial truck drivers’ time behind the wheel. This is getting at the issue of driver fatigue, which can also be a contributing factor to some of the serious accidents that we have experienced in this province and across the country. It reduces the ability and opportunity to create fraudulent paper-based reports on operating hours of drivers, and it creates a real-time data submission that also protects drivers who are exploited by some unscrupulous employers as well. That is in place today.

I’m also very pleased that in just a few days’ time, really, effective April 5, 2024, British Columbia will require the use of speed limiters in heavy-duty commercial trucks, to prevent them from driving at speeds above 105 kilometres an hour. This change, it should be said, is not expensive. This is a factory OEM-installed device in every engine block of every heavy-duty truck in the province. It will literally be turning the switch in that electronic, factory-installed equipment.

It has the support, again, of the B.C. Trucking Association. We make it because excessive speeding has, time after time, been determined by RCMP and other police enforcement agencies as a contributing factor to serious accidents, including those that have taken lives.

It will not be without its critics, to be sure, but I felt, as minister, and our government felt, that there was compelling evidence that it would, again, help us get towards vision zero, our drive towards zero fatalities on our highways. We also looked at the experience of Ontario, which implemented it more recently than British Columbia and documented a 70 percent reduction in collisions in the Metro Toronto area, thanks to speed limiter technology. That will be the law and required as of April 5.

We’ve also been working with the B.C. Trucking Association and the motor carrier industry to develop training materials, which provides guidance on the proper measurement of vehicle and load heights.

[4:10 p.m.]

Now, again, the professional driving force in this province, by and large in its vast majority, knows how to do this, does it each and every day, is reminded of it in ministry-overseen permitting processes. Should be checking those boxes many times over when filling out an order with a customer, when working with dispatch in a carrier’s office, when working with a carrier management team, before that truck ever gets on the road with an approved route, a twice, at least, measured load.

There are digital tools that the province owns and offers freely to every single commercial truck driver and carrier in the province. They’re available on DriveBC, easily accessed in Metro Vancouver. That regional district also has a height measurement tool and a vehicle trip-planning tool that knows the height of every overpass on our highway system and plans a trip accordingly.

I am not in any way accepting of any excuses as to why a collision could happen, but I do want to point out, at this point in the debate, yes, we’re bringing in strong deterrents, which we hope we never have to use. But we also do need to have, apparently, for some, some additional training material. That will be multilingual, freely available. It already is available. It will be distributed using the licensing data of ICBC. We know who every class 1 licence holder is in the province. They will be contacted by mail.

The B.C. Trucking Association will work with its array of employers around B.C., and our ministry will as well, in producing additional training materials.

I do want to say, in conclusion, there has been a lot of hard work, thoughtful ideas. Some truckers wishing to testify or provide advice anonymously, having some fear that they may implicate others or their employer, perhaps. Some have felt that they’ve been under considerable time pressures and stress that causes them some concern about how they do their job each and every day. And that is why we are having a thorough, comprehensive response.

I know the bill details one specific aspect, which does seem, maybe on the surface, to be draconian and heavy-handed. It is out of step with every other province in terms of the fine amounts and the provision for imprisonment. But as I said at an earlier junction in this debate, I will be most satisfied, and I think every member of this House would be most satisfied, if it’s never used.

I think we have come to the point where, having done a number of things, including the progressive enforcement tools that we legalized last year…. This is a very serious economic incentive against being involved in infrastructure crashes because it allows the CVSE and the RCMP to ground an entire carrier’s fleet while under investigation for days, weeks, perhaps even months, costing them untold amounts in commercial activity and revenue. It allows us to, in fact, withdraw their ability to do business in B.C., which we have used now on one carrier that…. I think members might have an idea who I’m speaking of.

Even with those tools, we still saw an additional overpass collision.

We can use that tool, progressive enforcement, on carriers who have been discovered to have grossly inadequate safety cultures in their companies, and we will. We can also hold accountable, through these new measures that we hope will be adopted with the support of all sides of the House, the ability to hold drivers accountable who, despite all the training opportunities, all the tools available to them, just aren’t getting it.

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, we have 40,000 class 1 licence holders in B.C. that are active, working on our road networks each and every day; about three million moves of commercial goods and service every month; 36 million truck movements, approximately, per year. So that puts it into perspective. We’re discussing 35 infrastructure crashes since December 2021, when we started collecting data, and tens and tens of millions of deliveries made safely.

That’s what this legislation intends to do: to pinpoint, with laser precision, the few bad actors that remain in the industry that aren’t getting the signals — to be able to pursue them through the justice system instead of with just roadside fines and enforcement, because, clearly, that hasn’t been enough.

The last thing I want to say, in case it does come up today or in committee stage of the debate, is we have done the proper consultation in developing and drafting this legislation, including a review of its compliance with DRIPA legislation. We did consult and cooperate with Indigenous people, including modern treaty nations and the Nisg̱a’a, as we developed this legislation.

We’ve done an assessment as it relates to that bill, and I’m pleased to say that every community that we worked with provided very valuable advice, helped us think through these changes. And I think the province will be much safer and have much stronger deterrence tools, going forward, should the House approve — and I hope it is unanimously — the passage of Bill 10.

With that, I will take my place.

T. Halford: It’s an honour to be able to speak in this House and speak on Bill 10.

It’s a piece of legislation that obviously aims to enhance road safety accountability within our commercial transport sector. I said it before; I’ll say it again. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. And I think it’s important in this debate. It’s an important piece of legislation.

The minister referenced a couple things that I’ll cite. One is that we’ve had 35 strikes in the last number of years. Those strikes have happened in the entirety that this minister has held the office of Transportation, all within his watch — 35 strikes. So you would think after one strike, two strikes, three strikes, we might have to look at doing things differently in B.C.

I’ve done media, and the minister has done media. The minister has stated before that he was very frustrated by the inadequate penalties that exist in our legislation. Five hundred dollars — we all agree in this House that that is laughable.

Those conversations were taking place over a year ago. Again, this is an important, necessary piece of legislation. This is a one-page bill. And I’m not saying that it needs to be a ten-page bill, a 100-page bill. This is a one-page bill.

I think if we’re saying that we have 35 overpass strikes in the last number of years and on the last session before an election, we now get around to bringing this legislation in…. What would that number be? Would the number be…? Well, we don’t know, but would the number be 35 if the minister made this a priority last year, two years ago? And if we pass this legislation where the province had the tools, where, after the 24th or the 25th or the 30th strike, you didn’t have to go on radio and say, “Sorry, I’m handcuffed by the $500 maximum fine that I can give out….”

It’s one page. I appreciate the consultation necessary. That’s important. I’m not going to discredit that. That’s important work. One page. Again, I actually was surprised by the numbers the minister threw out in terms of the cost to repair, $1.8 million. I will find out in committee which overpass that was.

[4:20 p.m.]

I referenced the one on Highway 99 in my colleague’s riding. I would think that that’s in the multiple millions of dollars’ worth of damage. And not only that, and the minister referenced it, it’s the damage that it does to the economy when truckers have to find different routes, which is adding to their fuel costs. It’s adding to labour costs, which is adding to emissions.

That’s not to mention the fact, and we canvassed this yesterday, that we are way behind on our infrastructure. I talked about Highway 1 at length yesterday, and the delays that we’re seeing there. Now when we have important arteries in our system closed off because they’ve been struck by an oversized commercial vehicle, that puts strain on an already strained system.

There are Twitter accounts that exist for this, for how many days has B.C. gone with no overpass strike? The only reason that is at all funny: I don’t know how, in this province, we got away with not having a fatality involved in one of these overpass strikes. The minister referenced it, and I agree: you look at the damage that’s been caused there 35 times, with 35 strikes and not one fatality. I think that we’re not always going to be that lucky. I hope that this piece of legislation will reduce the number that we’ve seen.

We’ve also seen a scenario where, to be honest, the minister hasn’t done his homework. It has caused embarrassment. Going out and dealing with one company then figuring out they can register in another province and be on the road — that’s a loophole you can drive a truck through. How do you not know that? How do you not? The Ministry of Transportation has amazing staff. How is the minister not aware that that loophole exists, and how does he not advocate to close it for the safety of British Columbians? It’s a failure.

Again, it’s a failure in how he didn’t stand in this House two years ago…. He’s had the role of Minister of Transportation since 2020, with 35 strikes on his watch. It’s not a legacy I’d be very proud of. One strike or two strikes — we can understand it. But 35 under one minister, and now he gets around to tabling a one-page bill. It’s an important bill, but I think that there is skepticism.

He talks about the public. I think the majority of the public understand the severity here, because they’ve been stuck in traffic, dealing with this. My colleague will speak to that momentarily, but it has had a dramatic effect on people and on the local economy. It has had an effect on their quality of life. Like I said, it has had an effect on almost every industry that we have in B.C., particularly in the Lower Mainland, and particularly when we’re not keeping up with the infrastructure upgrades that we need to be doing.

A couple of things puzzle me with this. The minister talks about the changes that are coming into the system. I think those are important changes. We’ve sat in this House, and we’ve agreed on that. When you look at the fact that multiple times, we’ve had bad actors in the system — the minister is right; that is a miniscule number, but that number still exists — that number can do substantial damage, and it has done that.

I am puzzled by the fact that you have somebody that sits in cabinet and says the same thing over and over again. After every single overpass strike, he says: “Well, you know what? A frustrating part, for me, is that we’re handcuffed by the legislation.” Then change the legislation.

[4:25 p.m.]

We’re going to do that. We could have done that three years ago; we could have done that two years ago; we could have done it a year ago; or we could have done it last fall, right?

The NDP party actually data-mined off this issue. They did. They had paid ads on Facebook saying: “British Columbians are tired of this. Are you too?” Yeah. They’re actually getting information and email addresses from people on an issue they failed to deal with. That’s embar­rassing. It’s pretty opportunistic, as well, to say: “Hey, give us your information if you agree that maybe we should make this a priority.”

Now we’re doing it. Great, but we’ll never know: what would that number have been if we’d actually done this when, maybe, we hit three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten overpasses, not 35? What would that number have been if we’d done this? Why didn’t we do this? Was it different priorities? It probably wasn’t B.C. Ferries, right?

The challenge that we’ve got here is a credibility issue. It’s not like the minister just came in and was appointed last month and said: “Okay. I need to deal with this. We’ve got to make this a priority.” He has been there for almost four years. Under his watch, we’ve had 35 strikes. I would say it’s tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure damage, not even counting the cost to the economy. It could almost pay for our contribution to the FIFA games, if you look at it that way. It won’t be that much.

The challenge that we have here: again, the minister is late on an issue that is of utmost importance to British Columbians, and it’s a pattern. Late on B.C. Ferries. Late on Highway 1. He’s late on an issue where we are so lucky that it has not caused a fatality in our province. And there’s no excuse. There’s none.

We’ve asked this question in every single estimates. I think the public should be asking: “What have you been doing? What are you doing? How can you not realize that this is a seismic issue that you’ve completely failed on?”

The bill does need…. I think it can send a very direct message to the industry. Like I said, it’s a small percentage of the industry that needs to hear that message, but it’s an important one. It’s one where we look at…. You know, $100,000, to anybody in this House, is a lot of money. We’re talking about the fact of multiple millions of dollars of damage to the infrastructure that taxpayers are responsible for. I think that’s the disconnect.

We’re going from $500 to, potentially, $100,000. I’m not arguing with that. I’m arguing with the timing. I’m arguing with the fact that we’ve seen this happen time and time again. You know what? We’ve almost become numb to it. That’s not a good place to be.

It’s not a good place to be, where you’re seeing paid advertisements from a political party saying: “Hey, we agree that this is an issue. Give us your information. Oh, by the way, we’re the ones that can actually deal with the issue.”

[4:30 p.m.]

Is that why we’re dealing with it today? Is that why we’re dealing with it in the last few weeks of a session prior to an election? Is that why we didn’t deal with it in October of 2023, the spring of 2023, the fall of 2022 or the spring of 2022? I don’t know. I won’t get that answer in committee, but I think the public can come up with it themselves.

With that, I will take my seat. I look forward to the other speakers, and I look forward to canvassing this in committee.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Transit.

Hon. D. Coulter: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to see you again and get the immense privilege of getting to speak in this chamber and actually speak in front of you as well.

This is an incredibly important bill. Like the minister and the member opposite said, since December 2021, we’ve had 35 recorded crashes into highway infrastructure by overheight vehicles. It’s completely unacceptable. I think both sides spoke on that. The reason this is unacceptable is that it’s causing significant damage to our infrastructure — infrastructure that the people of B.C. have paid for and are rightly quite upset that these crashes are happening.

Besides that, it causes horrific traffic snarls when there is a crash. It basically will shut down pieces of infrastructure or highways, and people can’t get to and from work when that’s happening. They can’t take their children to soccer or hockey. I, as a young man, played hockey, so that’s where my parents would have been driving me.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It also causes a severe disruption to our supply chain and hurts our economy, as the member opposite was pointing out.

I will say one thing. Since December 2023, the ministry committed to taking tougher action against these crashes, That action included higher fines for overheight vehicles, a requirement for dump-style vehicles to have the in-cab warning devices to warn drivers when the dump body is raised and the adoption of a new progressive enforcement framework and suspension policy that provides escalating penalties for carriers whose drivers commit repeat offences, adding longer suspensions and the possible loss of operating certificates.

I will point out to the member opposite…. He went through quite the recitation, I guess, and was saying that the minister hasn’t taken action. He has taken action. If you’ve read the news, and I’m sure we all do because we’re up on public affairs, the minister has suspended the licence of a trucking company that we all know, Chohan trucking. The minister has taken action on this file and taken action against repeat offenders.

Now, this bill is important because it gives the ministry more tools in order to combat these infrastructure crashes from overheight vehicles. I will say….

The member opposite went through a litany of projects that he says are late. Well, I’ll focus on one here, Highway 1. We canvassed that extensively yesterday. The member for Abbotsford West seemed quite satisfied with the answers and said it was a great project for the people of the Fraser Valley.

The scope of the project has changed. We had an atmospheric river, or as the member from Abbotsford West pointed out, we call it the flood in the valley. So that delayed the project, as well as COVID.

[4:35 p.m.]

The members on that side of the House never delivered on their commitments on Highway 1. They didn’t work to solve the increasing traffic problem in that region as our population grew. But we’re doing that work, and we’re doing this work on this bill.

Bill 10….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Coulter: Look, I will occasionally give credit to the members opposite, but I won’t do that today.

As we’ve been discussing, there are no excuses for these overpass strikes. I went through the impact that they have. They delay commuters and affect the movement of goods. It’s really a far-reaching impact. Families, businesses and the economy suffer from these strikes.

We know professional drivers are required to know their load height. They are required to buy permits when they have an overheight load. This gives them a map for them to follow.

I’d also like to add here that most of our commercial truck drivers in British Columbia are amazing professionals, and they move goods around British Columbia in a safe, efficient manner. We have the largest port in Canada, the Port of Vancouver, and most of the goods that come in and out of that port do it by a commercial truck on our highways. I just want to say that I am impressed with the professionalism of the truck drivers in this province. It’s a very small few that are causing these crashes.

That’s why this bill, Bill 10, is important, adding more penalties to drivers that are negligent and aren’t following the rules and aren’t professional. These infrastructure strikes need to stop. That’s why we’re making these changes to the Commercial Transport Act to introduce higher penalties for drivers involved in infrastructure crashes.

I’ll just say that infrastructure crashes have been happening for a long time. Yes, they’ve escalated in recent years, but I will say we’re doing the work on this. The other side could have done work on infrastructure crashes, because it definitely happened while they were in government, and they didn’t. I mean, once again, I’m not going to give the opposition credit today.

These changes will enable courts to impose fines of up to $100,000 on drivers — that’s very significant, and I think it’ll be an immense deterrent — or maximum imprisonment of up to 18 months’ jail time upon conviction or both, even. This is going to be an amazing deterrent, and I am thankful to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for bringing this bill forward.

I am also grateful for being allowed to have the privilege to speak in this chamber about this bill. It is a good bill. I hope the members on the other side vote for it. I’m sure they will, because we really need to stop these infrastructure strikes. They’re completely unacceptable.

I. Paton: I’m going to get to Bill 10, and I’m going to get to overpass strikes by overheight truckloads.

First I want to talk about the George Massey Tunnel replacement and what’s happening right now, or what’s not happening right now. In 2017, we have….

Deputy Speaker: If the member can make sure that his comments relate to the bill, that would be appropriate.

I. Paton: Absolutely.

In 2017, the bridge was about to be built, and everything was ready to go. It’s a disaster right now. We’re talking infrastructure. We’re talking highways. I want to briefly bring up an issue with the George Massey Tunnel. It’s all over Facebook and social media in my area of Ladner-​Tsawwassen, Delta South right now.

[4:40 p.m.]

Going through the George Massey Tunnel just recently, within about a week ago, there were no bollards or lane markers. Suddenly, literally within 48 hours, we’ve got lane markers going through the George Massey Tunnel. People, it’s total chaos. Suddenly it’s taking an hour and a half to get through the tunnel, morning and night, to get to work, to get to medical appointments.

These bollards can bend over if a car were to touch them, but what’s happening is the Ministry of Transportation, the highways department people, have put these bollards so that you actually have to stay in your lane. There are exits into Ladner and Steveston that you can’t even take right now if you happen to be in the left lane and not the right lane. So I just want to bring that forward to ministry staff.

Deputy Speaker: Is the member able to relate his comments to the legislation? Those kinds of comments would normally be related in an estimates process, so if you can make sure it relates to Bill 10, I’m more than happy to hear it.

I. Paton: Absolutely. Certainly, Mr. Speaker. This relates to Highway 17 and Highway 99 and the closure of the overpass, exactly where I’m talking about, entering into the George Massey Tunnel and coming out of the George Massey Tunnel.

I would like to begin by talking about Bill 10, the Commercial Transport Amendment Act. There have been 35 overpass crashes, as we’ve discussed, since late 2021. I don’t know of too many overheight crashes before this government started looking into this issue of overheight truck crashes into our overpasses.

This includes two in my riding of Delta South — Highway 99 and one at 112th Street overpass on Highway 99 in east Delta, heading towards White Rock and the Blaine border crossing. In addition to grinding traffic to a stop and severely inconveniencing the lives of more than 80,000 daily commuters on Highway 99, these strikes have also had a devastating impact on the local and regional economy.

Highway 99 is the gateway to the Blaine border crossing; the Tsawwassen B.C. Ferries terminal; the YVR airport; Deltaport container terminal, the largest container terminal in western Canada. Imagine the inconvenience to the trucking industry, in moving containers to and from Deltaport container terminal, with the overpass strike that happened not too long ago. These strikes have delayed the ability for goods movements to and from these critical destinations.

There has also been an adverse effect on local residents and businesses in my riding. When the Highway 17A overpass was struck, residents on the north side of Highway 99 were separated from critical services like the Delta Hospital, doctor’s offices, pharmacies and grocery stores. Their only alternative was to drive through the aging and seismically unsafe Massey Tunnel, wait in line at the Steveston overpass, which is also undergoing substantial upgrades, and to double back through the tunnel into Ladner.

If I can explain this, when the overpass was struck, everyone to the east or north of the George Massey Tunnel — the RiverHouse Restaurant and Pub, the new casino that has been built, farmers with dairy farms, equestrian centres, Barnside Brewing…. All of these were affected when people couldn’t get across the overpass anymore. They had to go into Steveston through the George Massey Tunnel, turn around and come back if they wanted to get back to Ladner or Tsawwassen. They actually had to go to Richmond and turn around to be able to get back to Ladner or Tsawwassen.

I want to talk about the 112th Street overpass heading on Highway 99 towards White Rock. That was hit a few months ago, and this still hasn’t been repaired. It’s going to severely hamper farmers, who have come to me because this is a very active overpass, on 112th Street, for farm vehicles, wide loads, disc plows and harvesters that have to go across. Right now it’s down to only single-lane alternating traffic to get over that overpass. They absolutely need both lanes. I’ve talked to the ministry about how soon we can get going on the repairs to the 112th Street overpass in east Ladner.

[4:45 p.m.]

In addition, local businesses in my riding have been impacted by the repair work, which has necessitated evening and weekend closures. Restaurants, breweries and other businesses have been forced to reduce hours to try and stop the bleeding from the lack of customers when these repairs have taken place. As I mentioned, the overhead strike at Highway 17 and at 99 affected, of course, the Primerose restaurant, the RiverHouse, the Barnside and, as I said, farmers and equestrian centres as well.

Don’t get me wrong. The repairs certainly are necessary, and we need to move quickly on them. They should never have been needed in the first place. In December, the government increased fines for overpass strikes from $115 — can you imagine? — to $575. So a trucking company would be fined $575 for, likely, $1 million worth of repairs to an overpass. Frankly, the previous increase was an embarrassment; $575 is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of repair for these overpasses. For the companies responsible, a $575 fine is nothing more than the cost of doing business.

That is why the public has been calling for stricter penalties for negligent drivers. Why has it taken so long to get to this legislation and get serious with fines and punishment when there have been 35 overpass strikes by overheight trucks since 2021? Is it really fair that the trucking company should only be fined $100,000? Now, that sounds like a big figure, $100,000 and 18 months, possibly, in jail. But when you hit an overpass and there’s easily $1 million worth of repairs to repair an overpass, even $100,000 is almost part of the cost of doing business if you’re a big trucking company.

These changes are long overdue. It has been 50 years, since the 1970s, since this legislation was amended. In the last 50 years, trucks have gotten a lot bigger, and oversized loads have continued to grow in size and frequency. The reality is that many of our highways and overpasses were not built to accommodate the size of the trucks and the loads we are seeing in our region today.

Many overpasses are built to previous standards, commonly 4.7 metres, when today’s standard is closer to 5.2 metres or higher. I must say that over the years, under different governments, including our government, I’m almost surprised…. As we drive the highways and we come to an overpass, we’ve all seen where we look up and there’s a little yellow sign that says: 4.7 metres, 4.9 metres, 5.2 metres. They’re all over the map.

I keep thinking: why isn’t it that over the years we’ve come to a standardized height so that everybody building a new overpass in this province has to adhere to a proper height of 5.8 or six metres, so that we can guarantee that these overpasses are not going to be too low for trucks going by? The reality is many of our highways and overpasses were not built to accommodate the size of the trucks and the loads we’re seeing in our region today.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. The responsibility for these strikes always rests primarily with the drivers and the companies they work for. There is simply no excuse for this type of negligence on B.C. highways. But moving forward, we need to have a conversation about the size and height of our overpasses and ensure that we are building to modern standards to accommodate modern needs. To the best of our ability, we need to standardize the heights of our overpasses, provide clear and adequate signage on highways and look at creative early warning solutions.

The B.C. Trucking Association has called on the government to look to an example in Alberta, a province that is leading western Canada in installing warning systems and designing highways to accommodate overheight truckloads. The province began installing early warning systems more than a decade ago, as Alberta has large equipment and installations trucked in for wind farms, construction, oilfields and forestry. Early warning systems can be installed inexpensively at a massive scale. Every accident avoided through education, enforcement and detection saves millions of dollars in repairs and impact to the local and regional economy.

While I support these new, stricter measures, I am calling on the government to explore additional creative measures that can be taken to dramatically reduce the number of overpass strikes in this province. With over 35 strikes since 2021, we simply cannot allow this pattern of behaviour to continue.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to move second reading?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the members who took part in the debate this afternoon.

This is action that was taken in Bill 10 that follows up on a number of steps that we’ve talked about before to make the trucking industry safer. It was not government acting alone. There are a number of people that deserve our thanks, not only for the clauses contained in Bill 10 but in the development of something unique to British Columbia, which is the progressive enforcement system that we put into place last year.

We have also, outside of this bill, taken a number of other steps to request that, with Canada’s growth and the volume of interprovincial trade and movement of goods between different jurisdictions, we have a national enforcement regime that prevents so-called chameleon carriers who are suspended or prohibited from doing business in one jurisdiction from opening up shop in a virtually identical corporate structure in another province. I hope to have some news on that in the near future.

We have secured buy-in from all of the provinces and territories and the minister responsible for Transport Canada to do that, to take a more active role and perhaps to replicate some of the features that we see in the United States in their safety certificate regime for interstate commerce.

Some of the people that I wish to thank for the focus that they provided over the last 18 months on overpass crashes include Dave Earle, the president and CEO of the B.C. Trucking Association.

I also want to thank the West Coast Trucking Association for their comments. I mentioned a number of drivers who came before the ministry anonymously to provide their feedback and concerns, including drivers who have lost significant time and income by the carelessness of others in their industry, wanting them to be singled out so the reputational damage of truck drivers overall in B.C. does not suffer.

As it has been mentioned, I think thoughtfully, in the debate this afternoon, we are trying to make this a very surgical, laser-focused bill to bring into effect the ability to prosecute in a court of law erratic, dangerous, reckless behaviour that leads to crashes of significance and, perhaps, even worse circumstances for other individuals that happen to be using a highway at the time of a crash.

Our goal is to enhance the deterrent value that Bill 10 will provide. It will send out a message. It already is. It will support all of the safety measures that government, with industry, has taken in recent years. I’ve mentioned some of them, around speed limiter technology coming into effect April 4 to reduce crashes related to excessive speeding on our highways. I’ve mentioned the legal requirement to have functioning in-cab warning devices for dump-style vehicles if they’re in a raised position.

These steps, all taken together, have been and will make a difference, but Bill 10, most significantly, I think, will provide additional tools.

I think it would be appropriate, before we close second reading debate, to also recognize the commercial vehicle safety enforcement staff who work on our highways, work at truck weigh stations, work in mobile units to enforce safe practices each and every day in all manners of weather across the regions of this province and do an incredible job. They’ve dedicated their lives, their careers, and utilized the resources of government to keep our highways safe each and every day, and they deserve our thanks.

There are also many ministry staff who work behind the scenes to support the changes we’re considering today and the ones that have already been put in effect, who also deserve our thanks, including legal counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General, to make sure that Bill 10 is proper legislation that can be utilized and supported should it ever be brought before a court of law. Those members of legal counsel have done a good job to do that.

[4:55 p.m.]

A couple of things worth correcting, I think, in debate, and one of them is from the member for Delta South, who I think should compare what B.C. is doing today and, when we get through the royal assent, with other jurisdictions, because overpass crashes are not unique to British Columbia. And they’re not unique to 2021 forward. These have been happening for a long time. What happened in 2021 is we started collecting data on them. They most certainly occurred in previous decades. There is no question about that.

We take any and all manner of steps to provide enforce­ment, including the recovery of costs for damage-related bills that come due to repair our infrastructure. We do that through the ministry’s claims unit. The recovery rate is generally good. The responsible party, once identified and is in province through the process…. It is a lengthy process, or can be. The recovery rate can be significant.

That will continue to be pursued in addition to fines that could now go from what was $100 raised to $500 in a roadside violation to a court-enforced $100,000 fine, which is a massive economic message to any carrier that safety pays huge dividends now in B.C., and unsafe practices could bring upon them significant economic costs.

I will also go back to the progressive enforcement tool, because I think this was, prior to Bill 10, one of the most significant things done for decades in B.C. — the ability to ground a carrier’s entire fleet when the investigation uncovers unsafe practices that is beyond just the vehicle and driver involved in an overpass crash, that is fleet-wide. We have used that to suspend businesses from operating until they come up with a safety plan. We have had some carriers that come up with a safety plan and don’t abide by it.

I mentioned earlier in debate that operating a large vehicle, commercial truck, and transporting goods that are part of our supply chain, the lifeblood of our economy…. We should thank those truckers each and every day. They have urged us to go forward. We’re doing that, but we also want, in fairness, to go after the bad actors. And Bill 10 does exactly that.

With that, I will close debate and look forward to committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the minister just closed the second reading of Bill 10, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 2024.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that we consider a third reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: Moving that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Fleming: That’s correct, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: All right, I understand that. Members, was that clear?

Bill 10, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 2024, 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. G. Lore: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess to ensure the appropriate parties are here.

For everyone watching at home, Bill 8, Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act. We are moving into committee on that act.

The House recessed at 4:59 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — ATHLII GWAII
LEGACY TRUST (WINDING UP) ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:01 p.m.

The Chair: Okay, Members. I’d like to call the committee back to order. We are here to look at Bill 8, Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act.

Would the minister like to make an introduction and introduce the staff, or…? We’ll just dive right in. Okay.

On clause 1.

M. Bernier: I’ll welcome the minister’s staff that’s here. I’m sure he’ll acknowledge them when he gets up. But I do appreciate their time, and it won’t be a lot of time.

Maybe first we’ll all acknowledge and thank the ministers responsible for the briefing that I got. It’s a pretty straightforward bill. I think the minister would have heard through commentary through second reading on that as well. But just a few clarifications. With some of the questions I asked through the briefing, I think it’ll just be important to get a few things on the record just for Hansard, I guess, more or less, as we go through the process.

It’s my understanding, as we went through this, that $24 million was the original investment back in 1988, if I remember. Yeah, I think it was ’88. Through the original trust that was set up…. It is my understanding, if I understood correctly through the briefing, that that original money that was set up in the trust was equally shared and contributed from the provincial government and federal government. Quick math on 24. It would be $12 million each. Can we just get that confirmation, please?

Hon. A. Mercier: I’d like to thank the member and just briefly introduce the staff here.

I’ve got Ariel Taylor and Brendan Hodge as well as Jeff Sheldrake from the Ministry of Forests with me. They’re an excellent team.

To answer the member’s question, yes.

M. Bernier: Can we just say what the trust valuation is at now, then? If it was originally at 24, we’re talking 40 years ago. I believe I was given a number, but I’ll let the minister answer what we’re at now.

Hon. A. Mercier: As of the September 2023 financial statement, it’s valued at $59.2 million.

M. Bernier: Do we have any recollection or, I guess, documentation showing how much of the original $24 million was let out in grants? I do understand that there were some challenges, I guess, in dispersing a lot of the money through the original terms of reference, which is why we’re looking at changing that and looking for opportunities. But do we have…? Of the original $24 million, how much of that actually went out in grants or opportunities through that trust?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Just conferring with the team here, there doesn’t appear to be…. It doesn’t appear to have been funds spent definitely within the last decade, potentially at all.

Financial statements for the trust are available online, going back to the beginning. But I’m also happy to have the team follow up with the member on this later if he wishes.

M. Bernier: I don’t need to spend too much time on that one. It was more of a curiosity.

I sat on the northern development board for quite a few years, so I understand how some of these trusts were set up and how the disbursement of funds works. It was more of a curiosity of how…. Through the commentary I’ve heard — not only through the briefing, but through the minister’s comments as well — the original terms and the original setup were not working under the goals that were intended. This is why we’re looking at that piece of legislation here, to try to make it more suitable.

I don’t want to take away from the staff’s busy time for my morbid curiosity, if nothing else. But from what I understand, though, going forward, the whole intent, obviously, is to try to — as we talked about in second reading, and I’ve heard some of the commentary — get to a place where we have an opportunity to disburse funds, to have economic opportunity, to look at some projects that would be suitable for the funds.

Maybe the minister can just spend a few moments for the House, for the record, to talk about that and say: “What kind of projects do we see as viable projects?” I understand it will be in the hands of the trust. But I’ll ask another question on that in a minute.

What kind of projects are we looking at that will be benefiting? What kind of jobs will be created? Through that, to ask a continuation question on this…. With the funds, if we have almost $60 million, I believe the intent will be to operate on the annual interest generated rather than dipping into the capital.

Maybe we can just confirm some of those comments at the same time.

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question.

On the question of whether or not it’s intended to be operated as an endowment, the answer is yes. There’s been significant engagement with the community by the trust on the uses of the funds.

The types of investments they would be looking at and have indicated they’d be looking at would be things like renewable energy, skills training investments and transportation.

M. Bernier: Have we already seen examples, then, of some opportunities that have come forward? I’m assuming, through the discussion of moving into this new model, it’s not just because the funds weren’t being spent. It was because there’s obviously a need out there.

We don’t want to see this money sitting there if there are opportunities to help. But I’m assuming there were already some possible projects, some possible ideas that maybe have been brought forward that would fit into this.

If so, through that…. Maybe through the minister’s commentary, he can also explain, just for the record, how the decision-making process will be done, what projects or ideas brought forward will be approved, or maybe somehow they won’t be approved. There must be terms of reference around how those projects will be looked at by the new committee that will be set up for this trust.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question.

The use of funds will be governed by the board, and there will be determinations by the board on particular projects and particular applications of the projects.

M. Bernier: With that, is there any, in the interim…? Never ask a question you already don’t know the answer to. Is there, in the interim, then, some oversight from government on determining that?

Of course, it’s great. I’m assuming we’re going to have some very well-intentioned and professional people that will be involved with this, going forward, on those determination projects. In the short term, though, is there government oversight — I believe the term is “protector” — in order to determine and kind of watch how that process is taking place for the use of these funds?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member.

The answer to that is…. There is a tripartite agreement between Canada, the province of British Columbia and the Gwaii Trust Society setting out governance for the use of the funds. It includes provisions for transparency in the compliance process, although the disposition itself is properly with the trust.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Bernier: Just a very quick question here. What I’m reading in clause 3…. It’s talking about the remaining debts and liabilities.

Through the briefing, I didn’t get the information, nor did I ask, in all fairness. But are there a lot of concerns around this? Are there a lot of debts and liability of the legacy trust that are going to be transferred, or is this more of a technical portion that needed to be added to the bill, from a liability perspective, to the original trust?

I’m curious. The way it’s worded…. We do talk about all the debts and the liabilities. Obviously, there’s money in the bank accounts. There are funds being transferred from the legacy trust to the new trust through this act.

We talk about liabilities. I’m just curious what kinds of liabilities there may be.

Hon. A. Mercier: The government doesn’t have specific knowledge of particular debts and liabilities of the trust. The intent of this provision is to ensure that any outstanding debts and liabilities are transferred and recoverable from the same property.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Mercier: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — ATHLII GWAII
LEGACY TRUST (WINDING UP) ACT

Bill 8, Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Lore: I call Committee of Supply, Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND CLIMATE READINESS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:17 p.m.

The Chair: All right. Is the minister ready to go?

We can wait. I see you online, so I’m not sure. I’ll inquire.

Hon. B. Ma: We are ready to go, Chair. Thank you.

The Chair: Excellent. Glad to hear it. Our critic is here as well.

Are there any opening remarks the minister would like to make?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, Chair.

I want to start by acknowledging that I am coming to you live today from the territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ.

This is not a usual way for ministers to participate in debates and estimates. Acknowledging the comments of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson earlier today in response to Motion 22 regarding the adoption of a hybrid house, I want to emphasize that my preference would certainly be to be, as minister, participating in person in Victoria, if not for the needs of my infant and for me to limit travel while she is still very young.

I want to thank my colleagues and staff for accommo­dating this virtual participation, with special mention to my critic, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, for his understanding and support of my continued participation not just right now but also through my late pregnancy and now with a young child.

That, of course, speaks to the incredible value and importance of the virtual option for enabling greater democratic participation from elected representatives from a wide variety of life circumstances, including mothers of young children. Thank you so much to my colleagues and the critic for that.

I am joined here, with me, by staff from the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. I’m grateful to them and all the people in the ministry for their expertise and dedication to this work.

Here in the Vancouver cabinet offices, I am joined by Tara Richards, deputy minister; Madeline Maley, assistant deputy minister for regional operations; Jennifer McGuire, assistant deputy minister for disaster recovery.

We’re also joined by staff who are supporting from Victoria: Alex Chandler, assistant deputy minister and execu­tive financial officer; Kathryn Forge, assistant deputy minister for disaster risk reduction; Monica Cox, assistant deputy minister, partnerships, engagement and legislation; Keith Preston, executive director for policy and legislation; Peter Brock, executive director for regional operations. I don’t see her on the screen, but I believe Chrissy Oliver, executive director for provincial response programs, is here as well.

[5:20 p.m.]

As members will know, this has been a challenging year. I really want to emphasize the immense contributions of the people here today as well as many other public servants in EMCR and also across government who have stepped up in the face of incredibly challenging circumstances. Their expertise, knowledge, compassion and tireless work have served British Columbians well, and I know we all owe a world of thanks.

Since the creation of EMCR, we’ve been working flat out to improve the way that emergency management is delivered in this province. I’m glad to see that this work has been recognized as a priority in Budget 2024. Budget 2024 takes on the big challenges that people are facing today by making investments to secure a bright future for people and their families. We know that people are worried about the escalating impacts of climate emergencies, including longer, more severe wildfire seasons, more frequent flooding events, extreme temperatures and more.

Our government is spending $405 million, over four years, to bolster the province’s capacity to prepare for and better respond to climate emergencies. This includes better supporting of evacuees, improving wildfire prevention and response, enhancing drought resiliency and reducing the risk of flooding — for instance, by providing $77 million to Abbotsford for upgrades to the Barrowtown pump station, so that the Sumas Prairie is better protected from future flood events.

This is our ministry’s second budget as a new ministry, and it demonstrates our government’s commitment and the province’s commitment to climate readiness and all phases of emergency management. My ministry and the Ministry of Forests have been working closely with the Premier’s Expert Task Force on Emergencies to apply lessons learned from previous emergencies and to understand how we can, collectively, better support evacuees and those on the front lines, ahead of the 2024 wildfire season.

As people will notice, we’ve already begun to turn feedback from the task force into action. As an example, B.C. Wildfire Service has expanded First Nations training boot camps and extended the hiring period for new recruits.

I know that questions related to the B.C. Wildfire Service have likely already been canvassed through the esti­mates debate for the Ministry of Forests. We know, though, there’s more to do, and we’ll be taking action so that people and communities are better protected and supported in future emergencies. Our focus is, and always will be, on keeping people and communities safe from emergencies. That includes improving our work across all four phases of emergency management — mitigation, pre­pared­ness, response and recovery.

I know that there will likely be a lot of questions. There’s lots more to say, but I do want to keep my opening remarks briefer than they might otherwise be if I went on and on.

Thank you in advance, to the critics and members for your interest and your questions.

Thank you to all the staff who will be supporting the debate today, and to the Hansard team for making this hybrid model possible.

I’m looking forward to the process of diving into the estimates debate on the budget for the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

The Chair: Thanks to the Minister for Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

I will need you to move Vote 21, before we get into the committee stage, where we ask questions about those votes.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $79,047,000.

L. Doerkson: Minister, I appreciate the comments that you’ve just made and, certainly, have just a couple of comments to make myself before we get underway here.

I do want to thank you and your staff, of course, for the work that they do throughout the year, particularly for the briefing that we had last week. I think it’s probably a great way to inform both sides of what the conversation might look like for the next few hours in this chamber.

[5:25 p.m.]

I want to start, I think, with some general questions about our preparedness as a province. Certainly, I want to get a bit of a sense of what insight the minister may have with respect to our situation, which I’ll clear up in a second, with respect to a number of different emergencies that we may face in the coming months.

Also, I do want to spend a fair amount of time talking about DFA and just better understanding that process. The minister and I have had a number of conversations about this, and I think that there are so many areas throughout our province that really are reeling from disasters that have happened over the last number of years.

I think this is a real important cog in our wheel, I guess, in EMCR. And I really think that residents of British Columbia need a little bit more clarity on this and, I think, communities too. I do have a number of questions, as I alluded to in the briefing, around that.

I do expect that a number of my colleagues probably will ask some questions in the latter part of our conversation, which will likely happen tomorrow. But we’ll save that for today. We don’t have a lot of time today, as I’ve been told by the Chair.

I’d like to start with that exact spot, Minister, through the Chair, if we could talk just about what you know that we may face. Now, I know that’s a difficult question, and I’ve been told in the Cariboo that only fools and newcomers will try to protect those kinds of things. I know it’s a big order, but I do know that our snowpacks are low. I’m very concerned in many areas throughout our province with respect to that.

Actually, we heard earlier today in Forests estimates that there are some fires already burning or held over from last year. I’m just wondering if I could get a bit of an understanding of where the minister feels we might be this year.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much to the critic for that question. That is a question that I know that everybody is interested in. Certainly, we are very interested in that question as well.

[5:30 p.m.]

It is too early for us to be able to accurately predict what the summer will look like, but we do know that there are a number of factors that will impact the kind of wildfire season that we will have. And one of those factors is how much precipitation we have throughout the summer and also the drought outlook.

Unfortunately, we also cannot predict drought into the summer right now, because much of it depends on snow and rain conditions now through spring and summer, but certainly there are early indicators coming from experts within the Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship.

That’s the river forecast centre, working with information from Environment Canada, and so forth, that shows us that the average provincial snowpack for this time of year is well below normal. It is about 66 percent of normal, tied for the second lowest on record. So that gives us a lot of reason to be on heightened alert for what we might see in the summer.

I will say, as well, that we are beginning updates and beginning our seasonal preparedness updates not only for media and the public but for mayors and chairs, Chiefs and leaders of First Nations and MLAs as well. We will be beginning those press conferences and updates to partners well in advance of the timing that we would normally have.

We’re actually beginning these updates over a month early with the first one sometime next week. Certainly, like we did in the previous year, in 2023, we will be providing those kinds of technical updates to MLAs, as well, from all sides of the House.

L. Doerkson: My question, I guess…. Again, I can appre­ciate that this is difficult. I guess I was hoping to get a sense of the minister’s level of preparedness with respect to any sort of catastrophe that we might have, noting that it’s difficult to predict the weather, noting that it’s difficult to predict what may be around the corner. I’m wondering if the minister could convey to me our level of preparedness and how the minister does manage to be ready for what might be coming.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We’ve been building our preparedness posture since last year’s season and really working on our ability to be ready for whatever may come.

Certainly, the province made the decision, with the creation of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, to grow our year-round capacity to be able to support communities in preparing for disasters and mitigating the impacts of disasters before they happen.

We’ve already been shifting from a response-focused approach, which existed when the province was served by EMBC, emergency management B.C., within the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, to a four-phase approach, which includes a significant focus on preparedness for disasters ahead of the season. You can see that in the budgets; 2023 and 2024 invest in that year-round capacity. That enables us to do work off-season in preparation for that season.

We’ve also been working very closely with the B.C. Wildfire Service, through the Ministry of Forests, to im­prove their preparedness posture and improve their year-​round capacity to be able to do the work that has to be done during the off-season to reduce the risk of potential disasters during the season.

We’ve been working with ministry partners in the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, particularly around the issue of drought. They’ve done a significant amount of work there, and I know that there will likely be valuable questions raised during their estimates debate as well.

This is the second year for the ministry. We have divisions that we have been growing since its creation about 15 months ago around not just response, like I said, but preparedness and planning, working with communities on that preparedness and understanding the risks ahead.

We will be hosting hazard prep calls with emergency management practitioners from local governments like municipalities, regional districts and First Nations right across the entire province. We will be beginning those hazard season prep calls earlier than normal, as well, to make sure that as we are receiving information from the experts, as we are developing forecasts and have a better idea of what to anticipate, that information is being immediately shared with partners so that they can also improve their readiness.

L. Doerkson: The minister just mentioned some valuable work that’s being done with respect to drought. I just wondered if the minister could clarify what that work is.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is the lead ministry on drought response. I understand that their estimates debate will be coming up afterwards. If there are further questions about the work that they are doing there, that would be the best place for those questions. However, I’m happy to provide a preliminary response and to provide a response on the role that EMCR plays in this area.

EMCR has been working closely with Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and other partner ministries, to ensure that communities and the public are aware of current drought conditions and that efforts will be required to conserve water. There will be communications with communities to encourage them to really take very seriously, even more seriously than we asked them to take it last year, the possibility of water conservation measures earlier in the season, if drought conditions are going to be likely there.

Of course, drought conditions are not consistent and the same throughout the entire province. It really depends very much on the region that the community exists in, the type of water basin that they rely on, the system, how their aquifers work, whether they’re on well water, whether they depend on a…. The word is escaping me; I apologize. It does depend on the community very much.

That said, the province also can assist communities with their water scarcity response planning. Our ministry is including drought as a key topic for seasonal hazard preparedness sessions that we are having. In the hazard prep sessions that I referred to earlier, drought will be a significant topic there.

If a community would like to discuss drought preparedness planning or requires assistance, EMCR regional offices are available to work with them to talk about eligibility for livestock feed and to support drinking water plans. We also work with them to transport alternative drinking water or coordinate local-authority mutual aid if a drought situation gets to the very extreme level that access to potable water becomes a concern for a community. I will say that that is a very acute state of drought for a community.

There continue to be broader drought concerns, even if a community doesn’t make it to that place, because widespread drought can have an impact on communities, economy, businesses, industry, and certainly wildlife and ecology as well. Watersheds can be impacted at a much broader level than can be supported by the transportation of potable water, as an example.

Our ministry’s drought mandate is outlined in the British Columbia drought and water scarcity response plan. From that, our ministry’s responsibility includes the provision of advice in historical context and response activities in regions related to the loss of supply, like potable water or impacts on firefighting.

[5:45 p.m.]

We provide support for local authorities and First Nations during an emergency response activity. That could include critical loss of access to potable water for people. We also support provincial emergency response coordination, including the activation of provincial and regional emergency operation centres. For more detailed questions on the work that government is doing on drought beyond that, we’ll have to refer the member to Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

L. Doerkson: With respect to potable water — I’m glad that the minister touched on that, Chair — I’m just wondering: is the ministry involved right now anywhere in British Columbia where we do have communities that are without potable water?

Hon. B. Ma: Certainly through the last year, we have had communities that have required support from EMCR, from my ministry, to transport potable water or import potable water from other areas of the region or transfer them within their region, including some communities on the Sunshine Coast, some communities up north, some communities within Vancouver Island.

I will also note, however, that even outside of the drought conditions that we have seen over the last year, it isn’t uncommon for communities to require that kind of support on occasion. There haven’t been a lot of communities, but it does certainly happen.

L. Doerkson: Maybe I’ll just try one more time on that. I just wondered if there are any communities currently facing that water shortage.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We are not currently aware of any communities that are being supported with potable water, the transportation of potable water, through my ministry, although we are engaged with communities — for instance, like McBride — to ensure that we’re on top of their needs.

That being said, the provision of these kinds of supports is handled at an operational level, and communities do intermittently require that kind of support. So if the member would allow us, we’d like to actually take a bit of time to validate that there aren’t any current communities on potable water supports and get back to the member.

At this time, we’re not aware of it, but we want to be able to check with some operational-level staff throughout the province to see if anything has changed in recent hours or days.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I think more than anything, I was just very interested in knowing, because I have talked to a number of communities that are close. There’s certainly concern that they may be facing those water shortages, so it’s great to know that the ministry is ready to respond in that case.

Back to our level of preparedness, I wanted to talk a little bit about ESS and just get a better understanding of operations that may be active right now. We did talk a little bit about this in the briefing last week.

ESS is an amazing group of people, certainly in my riding — Dave Dickson, Eva Navrot, Liz Jones. I mean, I’m sure that there are hundreds of people that could be named, but there are certainly amazing folks in Cariboo-Chilcotin that do this work.

I’m just wondering: do we have ESS operational right now? What does that look like for the coming year? And I wondered if I could get a sense of how many people are involved in that organization throughout the province and also a rough cost.

I know there are a few questions in there, but a rough cost as to what might be projected for the coming year with respect to that cost. But I would settle for what it cost last year, knowing that it’s hard to predict.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Emergency support services are actually active 365 days a year. We activate it as required. I know that emergency support services is a program that is most often associated with wildfire evacuations and floods and large natural disasters. But they’re actually also used for other emergencies experienced by communities. For instance, when there is an apartment fire and people are evacuated from a building for a few nights or maybe even weeks, we actually do activate emergency support services for that as well.

To provide a bit of context…. Oh, I thought that I had that number. Emergency support services are actually activated hundreds of times every year. In 2023, there were, by our count, 17,684 emergency support service recipients that received supports through the digitized tool. That number doesn’t include paper registrations and referrals, which would be on top of that.

In 2022, however, the number of emergency support services recipients was just over 6,000. In 2021, it was almost 35,000. So it does vary significantly each year, depending on what is happening. The amount of what it cost in 2023 was about $2.6 million. That’s how much money was e-transferred to recipients. It wouldn’t be the total cost of delivering the program, but rather that is how much cash was e-transferred to recipients through the program.

It is difficult to provide a number of personnel that is involved in delivering the program because emergency support services volunteers are recruited and retained by local governments. We don’t have the consolidated numbers from every single local government that delivers emergency support services.

[6:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

However, I can share that we have been expanding the number of emergency support services specialists within the ministry. We now have 16 people who are emergency support services specialists. Those are people who we can actually deploy into communities to support local governments and their delivery of those services. Part of the reason why we’ve expanded the number of specialists is from our learnings from the 2023 wildfire season.

Also, based on what we learned through the 2023 wildfire season, we are making improvements to emergency support services training. We’re streamlining it so that more volunteers can get involved and removing some of the barriers that prevent communities from being able to surge up on volunteers. We’re also intending to make process improvements, based on what happened in 2023, so that we’re in a better position to serve communities in 2024.

Now, Chair, I regret having to ask this. We started a little bit late. Would it be possible to have a break so that I can feed Azalea? I can hear her screaming for food.

The Chair: Could the minister indicate how many minutes she thinks the break would be?

Hon. B. Ma: I think 15 minutes, if that would be all right.

The Chair: Okay. We’ll take a 15-minute break.

The committee recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:14 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

L. Doerkson: I want to follow up on a couple of the comments that the minister made prior to the break, and that was that the minister referred to 16 people and $2.6 million, roughly, transferred in, I guess, support funds.

[6:15 p.m.]

One, I wanted to confirm where, roughly, those 16 people are placed throughout the province, if they’re all here or Vancouver or if they are actually scattered through­out the province.

The other thing that I wanted to confirm was…. Under financial assistance, we have a budget number of $6.4 million. I’m wondering if that’s where we would find that $2.6 million, and if so, what would be the balance of that number?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I want to provide greater clarity on the figure that I provided earlier.

The $2.6 million that I cited was only for cash transferred through e-transfers to emergency support services recipients. The reason why that’s available to us right now, for the 2023 to 2024 fiscal year, is because that amount is…. Because it’s done electronically, it’s automatic for us.

The rest of the supports that we provide through emergency support services will be through vouchers, the paper system. It can take a while for it to actually be reconciled. Communities will also submit for reimbursement for other costs, like hotel costs, and so forth. Those costs are not included in the $2.6 million.

The aggregated costs for the delivery of the emergency support services program for 2023-2024 are not yet available. For the purposes of responding to the member’s question, I can provide previous years, which have been consolidated.

In the 2021 to 2022 fiscal year, emergency support services…. It cost $29 million to deliver. That year was the year that we had nearly 35,000 people receive emergency support services. It doesn’t quite align with the fiscal year. That’s counting calendar year versus fiscal year.

Then in 2022, we saw just over 6,100 emergency support services recipients. The cost to the province in fiscal year 2022 to 2023 was $7.5 million.

To the member’s question about the $6.4 million shown in 2022 to 2023 under the estimates document, it’s described as financial assistance. That’s actually for disaster financial assistance. It is the base cost that is included in the ministry budget for the delivery of financial assistance. Of course, disaster financial assistance often costs more than $6.4 million.

Emergency support services. The delivery of that program is built into the line item above it. It is $30 million, which is the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Now, in a year when the cost for the delivery of disaster financial assistance or emergency support services exceeds what is provided in this vote…. That is where the statutory spending authority comes in. It is safe to say we have exceeded what is provided for in here. That’s why we have the stat vote. It allows us to provide those services above and beyond what is budgeted for through these base costs.

To the member’s question about the 16 emergency support services specialists that exist within the Ministry of EMCR, they are distributed throughout the province. There are members in the North, in the Interior, on the Island and in the Lower Mainland. They are, of course, deployed to whatever community they are needed in.

L. Doerkson: The minister likely can’t see that there are a number of people that are going to probably bring our conversation to an abrupt end here. So I will just ask one quick question, potentially two.

With respect to the number of $6.4 million…. If I understood correctly, that was DFA. Was that paid out to municipalities and residents? Is that a combination of both of those parties?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I have a response and a correction to make, a correction on myself.

The $6.42 million is for DFA payments to both communities and individuals. So that’s both the public and the private program.

However, the correction that I have to make on the statement I said earlier is…. If a DFA program cost exceeds this amount, it is not paid for through a stat appropriation. That is only for emergency support services and response costs, whereas the legislation is actually quite clear for disaster financial assistance. If it exceeds the amount in the budget, it must be paid for through a voted appropriation.

My apologies there. I lumped both of them together in the stat vote. The stat vote is actually limited to emergency support services and response costs, not the DFA program.

I understand that we are likely out of time. There is probably a motion that I have to make to end.

The Chair: I think we have time for one more question.

Hon. B. Ma: Oh, thank goodness. Let’s continue on, then.

L. Doerkson: If the minister could clear up that $6.4 million number. Now I understand it to be just DFA. I wonder how much of those funds went to municipalities rather than residents.

I wanted to just clarify my question for the minister. I can appreciate that this is, obviously, a budgeted number. I guess what I’m trying, really, to understand is how much of this DFA funding is, I guess…. I’m not sure what the number was last year, and I can appreciate that this is a budgeted number. I’m trying to understand what percentage, I suppose, is actually making its way to our residents, rather than just municipalities.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: If the member would allow us, we’d like to take on notice the question about the split between how much money goes to the community versus residents. What I can provide today is how much the aggregate expenditure for disaster financial assistance has been for this year and previous fiscal years.

For the year 2021-2022, the disaster financial assistance program cost the province $3.6 million. In ’22-23, it cost the province $34.6 million. And in ’23-24, it will cost the province $8.5 million. We will have an additional response for the member on his specific question about the split between private and public streams when we resume.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I do believe you have the motion.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much. And thank you to the Clerk’s table for assisting with providing the motion.

I move that Committee of Supply, Section B, report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:32 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.