Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:20 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. We are on clause 12.

On clause 12 (continued).

Tony Luck: Yes, we’re still on clause 12. We’ve got just a couple more quick questions on that one. Like I said, this is more just making sure that we’re open and honest and see what’s happening here with these bills — and making sure we’ve got some transparency, which is really good.

Further to clause 12: are there any additional procedural steps required for acting trustees compared to elected ones?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s the same.

Tony Luck: Is there any specific duration for which an acting local trustee can serve before a by-election is mandated?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team informed me that it’s when a by-election is practical. Usually, it’s three to four months for that to happen.

Tony Luck: What limitations, if any, are placed on the authority of acting trustees compared to an elected counterpart?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Similar to my previous answer, it’s the same abilities.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Tony Luck: Now we’re onto clause 13, so just a few questions on that as well. What instigated or inspired these changes for this particular clause? Was there some consultation that drove this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just read into the record again, the working group, just so that members are aware.

[2:25 p.m.]

The ministry staff consulted with the technical advisory committee group, which is staff from UBCM, Local Government Management Association, B.C. School Trustees and Ministries of Education and Agriculture. We’ve got a pretty good technical group that looks at these. The recommendation came from there.

In particular, local election officials indicated they were working within the

Local Government Management Association B.C. School Trustees, Ministry of Education, Agriculture….

We’ve got a pretty good technical group that looks at these. So the recommendation came from there. In particular, local election officials indicated they were working within the constraints of the size of the ballot. Vancouver, in particular, noted that they have to work with the EOs to shorten the name on the ballot so that the font size is still legible and not too small so people can’t read it. Those are the reasons why some communities, they just have a lot of names on the ballots.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I think we saw that in the last federal election where it was a rather long ballot, so I sympathize with the group trying to find ways of limiting the size of those ballots because they can get rather onerous for the voters as well as the candidates or anything like that. So any way we can do that. We may bring an amendment forward later that may help solve some of that issue, but we’ll talk to that.

Basically, I think for all these amendments here then there was this technical group that was put together that pulled all these together moving forward on all these. I’ll try to avoid those questions moving forward. Every clause, I don’t want to ask the same question, I think. Is that fair to say? And if we can do that, I think that may work out well. I’ll have to be cognizant of that.

The third question for clause 13 here. Under what circumstances specifically would Elections B.C. opt to suspend electoral organizations’ registration for failure to file a timely notice under subsection (1.1) and in suspension the appropriate initial enforcement step or where else severe penalties considered?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: To the member’s question, the power already exists. This is a technical change to ensure that Elections B.C. is notified within 60 days so that the abbreviations that are with the local government align with what Elections B.C. has.

Tony Luck: What measures have been taken to anticipate or mitigate any confusion among voters resulting from changes to the electoral organization’s names on the ballots, of course, particularly if changes occur close to election periods and that? Or is there a new procedure in place?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s a lot of information shared. There’s a guidance document that’s shared. And Elections B.C. will do some work to ensure that the names are aligned with what they have so that there’s not a misuse of that process.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Tony Luck: We’ll move on to clause 14 now and a couple of questions around that piece there.

What deadlines will apply for an electoral organization that wishes to align its registration name with the shorter form chosen by a chief election officer. Will Elections B.C. impose a cutoff date before nomination date to prevent a last-minute confusion for the voters and for the group?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Everything has to be finalized before the ballots are issued. Once the ballots are issued, obviously, it becomes more challenging to make these changes. That’s usually the cut-off point.

Tony Luck: Does the ministry foresee any risks that electoral organizations could exploit this exemption to rebrand during a campaign, perhaps adopting a more appealing acronym under the guise of conforming to the ballot? What safeguards or guidelines will Elections B.C. issue to prevent such abuse?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: An example would be say someone was running as B.C. Liberals and then they decide that the Conservative name is better. That’s kidding. I tease. I tease.

But I think it’s a good question from the member, and it’s incumbent on the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to make sure they control it from the local government and the municipality.

Tony Luck: Good answer. Thank you.

Clause 13 allows Elections B.C. to suspend an organization that fails to file notice of a shortened ballot name within 60 days. How will that suspension power interact with the new flexibility in clause 14? For example, if an organization files the change late, but before general voting day, could it still be suspended? Timeline stuff.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s better. It’s about shortening, so that it can be more efficient with time. I think that’s what we’re trying to get at here.

The scenario that the member’s raised is probably not realistic with this given that ballots need to be printed approximately 45 days before the election, and so then you’ve got 15 days, because of 60 days, so that would take it to

so that it can be more efficient with time. I think that’s what we’re trying to get at here.

The scenario that the member has raised is probably not realistic with this, given that ballots need to be printed approximately 45 days before the election. Then you’ve got 15 days, because it’s 60 days. That would take it to after the election. So it wouldn’t be…. That scenario wouldn’t play out.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Tony Luck: So clause 15. This one’s in regards to amendment duty that B.C. Chief Electoral Officer — to make documents publicly available. Obviously, we’ve got some concern around that in some respects.

How did the ministry weigh privacy concerns against the public’s right to scrutinize campaign finances?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This section, it’s really about protecting people’s privacy. Many of my colleagues have shared stories with me, in particular women who run, and the level of toxicity that they have to deal with when they run and their concerns about their address being publicized, their home phone number being publicized. So this is more of a safety measure so we can continue to have people run.

I can share with the members, just for the record, that this amendment will improve candidate privacy by requiring the candidate’s personal information, such as residential address of candidate, be redacted when certain election documents are published online, in the case of disclosure statements, also when they’re available for public inspection. The amendments limit the disclosure of candidate personal information but do not impose any additional disclosure requirements on candidates.

Information around the jurisdiction that the candidate lives in will still be publicly available. Essentially, the community will know if the person lives in the riding or not, just not what their house address is and what their phone number is, because we’re trying to make sure there are some protections in place for people. That’s what this section is about.

Tony Luck: Can the Attorney General or the minister compare these new redacted rules with the disclosure standards used in federal elections and B.C. provincial elections? Are we now more restricted, and if so, why?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is going to look up the provincial. I hope the members are okay with us not having the information about the federal process. It’s outside of our jurisdiction, but the team will just find that.

I do recall from our election just recently that there was a box that you can click to say: “I want my personal address private, etc.” I believe that already exists for us. The team will just get that information for you.

Again, this has been a call from many people who’ve put their name forward who see the environment is not necessarily as safe, in particular for women. And this request has come from local governments, saying: “Please make this change so that our electoral process will be more inclusive and create more space for women in particular to run, but a safe place for everybody to put their name forward.”

If the member wants to continue, I can just get that information for the member at a later point.

Tony Luck: Yeah, that’d be fine. I would just see if there’s an alignment there. We’ve gone too tight or not tight enough, maybe even, right? See how they compared there. It’s nice to stay in alignment with that level of government.

The amendment retains a minimum five-year public access window. Was any analysis done to determine whether five years remains appropriate, or whether it should be longer or shorter or anything like that? Seems fairly standard.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It wasn’t really in the scope of the work, because the five years always existed in there. So it was just more of the privacy piece that was brought to us by our partners and not: “Should we extend it beyond that?”

I can’t comment on one or another — just to say that’s existed there for a long time.

Tony Luck: Journalists and academics often rely on address fields to confirm contributor identity and detect straw donor schemes. How will Elections B.C. facilitate legitimate research requests when addresses are no longer published?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I should just be clear. Elections B.C. will still have access to the information. It just won’t be displayed publicly for the general public. But for the process of what Elections B.C. has to do, they still get access to this information.

Tony Luck: If we happen to have a request from a journalist or some group out there that would like to analyze some of the donors and that, would they have access to that information, then? That’s kind of what this previous question was asking. I think they’ve done tests in the past.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Our good friends in the media would, of course, be able to go to Elections B.C. to get information, but I’m informed also that journalists would be able to access it from the electoral office with a disclaimer that they wouldn’t make their information public.

Tony Luck: So there might be an NDA or something they would have to sign to be able to do that process. Perfect. That would be really good, because we do need to maintain it. But yet, we have to have some accountability in there as well. Thank you.

Could the ministry commit to reviewing the impact of these redactions after the 2026 general election to assess whether transparency has been materially reduced, or whether future privacy safeguards are required?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Just to confirm to the member, every electoral cycle, the technical advisory committee looks at what happened, where the challenges were, and recommendations come. This set of recommendations is from the last electoral cycle, so it’s part of the ongoing work that the committee does.

[2:45 p.m.]

Clauses 15 and 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Tony Luck: Yeah, we’re on 17

Clauses 15 and 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Tony Luck: Clause 17 “expands the authority of a minister to make orders the minister considers necessary to achieve the purposes of the act.”

Minister, how does the bill define or limit the phrase “special circumstances,” respecting an election or assenting voting? Can you provide concrete examples of situations that would or would not justify ministerial intervention under the new 99?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is just a technical change. The special circumstances ability was there, but we were advised that we have to make it specifically clear.

An example would be in the Fraser Valley regional district. There were special circumstances due to flooding and infrastructure damage, and there was a need for an assent vote postponement. That’s one example of one that was.

But again, this is a technical change just to make sure that it is clear that this power exists, because we were advised that it would be important to clearly specify that.

Tony Luck: What threshold of evidence or documentation will the ministry require before determining an irregularity or procedural error exists under S 99(1)(b)? Will Elections B.C. be the sole source of this information, or can complaints from candidates or third-party sponsors trigger an order?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This measure would be started by a

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This measure would be started by the Chief Electoral Officer. So it wouldn’t be the minister deciding that there was an irregularity. It would be the Chief Electoral Officer raising that concern and would go to staff. Staff would confer with the Chief Electoral Officer to confirm that there is, in fact, an issue, and then it would come forward.

I will read this into the record. “There are limitations and protections against ministerial overreach under the order-making authority. An order is not automatic. It is at the minister’s discretion to make an order if the minister considers that the special circumstances or procedural error or irregularity exists in the administration of election or assent vote and an order as necessary.”

Tony Luck: I think that clarifies it a little bit, but let me just ask this question. It might just clarify a little bit more than on that.

Given the broad phrase, “any order the minister considers appropriate,” what internal or external oversight mechanisms will prevent the misuse or perceived politicalization of this power? Is it a requirement to consult the Chief Electoral Officer before issuing that order?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll start by saying this power already exists. This is not a new power we’re creating, just to be clear. What we were asked to do was just to clearly put in the term “special circumstances,” which I gave you an example of, which is flooding, etc.

This is not something that I’m creating because I want to take over elections. I have no interest in that. It’s something that already exists, but we just want to be clear on that information. You know, perhaps if the member…. Maybe the member might want to ask the question again, and then I’ll try to give an answer, maybe a specific case.

But I did already read into the record that the Chief Electoral Officer starts the process and says: “We believe there’s an issue.” They confer with government staff, people I work with in the ministry. They validate whether that’s an issue. Then this allows us the ability to take appropriate steps if needed.

Tony Luck: I think I’ve kind of got this. It looks like the B.C. electoral officer is the one that would initiate most of these complaints. The minister would then be brought in. Should it confuse the B.C. election — and I use that word loosely, of course — there’s a question of where it needs to go from that.

So mostly it’s in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer. Is that what I’m understanding? Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct. Before making a regulation under this authority, a proportionality and necessity test must be met. This means the minister must be satisfied that the effect of enacting this order is reasonably equivalent to the effect of the modified provision and that the order is necessary to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of a special circumstance.

Tony Luck: Will every order made under section 99 be published in full and without delay? If so, where and how will voters, candidates and sponsors be notified, particularly when the order is issued close to voting day?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is correct. All ministerial orders are made public, so this would be similar to that.

Tony Luck: Some of these questions are kind of tedious. But we’re just confirming with the public and ourselves to make sure that we’ve got the right causes in place and the changes that are made and they’re not

and so this would be similar to that.

Tony Luck: You’re getting quicker.

Yes, thank you. Some of these questions are kind of tedious, but we’re just confirming with the public and ourselves to make sure that we’ve got the right clauses in place and the changes that are made are not making huge adjustments or anything as we go along to the voting process for the voters out there. So bear with us as we go through this process, of course.

Clause 17 permits retroactive orders back to the first day of the election period, or 80 days before general voting day as an assent vote. Why were these specific limits chosen and how does the ministry assess the legal risk of overturning actions that were lawful when originally taken?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A two-part question. The 80 days is already in the bill, so it’s aligned with what’s already defined in the bill.

This makes it explicit that when an administrative error has occurred that the minister has the powers to make an order during the period of time which the election is underway and where the error occurred and that the time for the administrative task to be completed has passed. So that’s the answer to the second part.

Tony Luck: We have one more question on this section here.

How will the ministry ensure that retroactive orders do not unfairly penalize candidates, electoral organizations, or third-party sponsors who have relied in good faith on the rules as they existed at the time? Will there be a compensation or remediation mechanism for them?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: These are not major, like I think maybe there’s a misunderstanding of the scale of this piece. It’s minor; it’s administrative.

So, you know, it’s hard for us to consider what would be administrative yet would have a major impact on an election. I shared the example of flooding, a special circumstance in 2014 to extend the period to receive nomination documents during the

it’s hard for us to consider what would be administrative yet would have a major impact on an election. I shared the example of flooding, of a special circumstance in 2014, to extend the period to receive nomination documents during the local elections due to an RCMP lockdown at the village of Slocan. Those are the types of examples that we’re looking at here. It’s very administrative. It’s not major changes to an election.

Tony Luck: I’m offering you up something. We’re done for 17 through 21 if you’d like to….

Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

Tony Luck: Clause 22, we’re into here, removes the requirement to deliver originals to the nomination documents and a number of things like that. Just some clean-up stuff as well. So minister, with nomination packs now accepted by fax or email, what verification protocols will Election B.C. and local chief election officers use to confirm the authenticity of signatures and statutory declarations that formerly had to be delivered in hard copy and by hand normally?

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you so much, Chair. We’re getting better and better at this. I like it.

The Chair: You’re intimidating.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Oh. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard this from this member from the Chair. I appreciate that.

I’ll just say to my friend across the way: it’s a two-part…. One, now, quite frankly, with technology, once you scan a document and you email it, it’s essentially the same thing as a document, but there’s still a requirement to sign a declaration, similar to if you were providing a mail-in package.

This is a request that’s come, in fact, more from rural communities. It’s more about managing the administrative load just to make the process more efficient. That’s essentially the reason for the change. From the working group, they said this would be an element that they would support.

[3:05 p.m.]

The team also shares with me that many legal documents are now accepted electronically under the Electronic Transactions Act, which provides an electronic signature, has the same legal effect as a wet signature, and the local chief elections officers have shared that the requirement for original copies is redundant and administratively burdensome to track.

Tony Luck: Having been a realtor, I totally understand the system of electronic signature and everything, but we’re

signature and the local Chief Electoral Officers have shared that the requirement for original copies is redundant and administratively burdensome to track.

Tony Luck: Having been a realtor, I totally understand the system of electronic signatures and everything, but we’re talking about elections here. What’s gone on in the recent history here of elections that…. People get a little bit more upset about signatures on documents, especially when it comes to voting irregularities and things like that, other than signing your will or your house documents online. They don’t seem to worry about that.

But I appreciate your answer, and I think that’s where we’re moving to more and more as it is. I appreciate, also, the fact that in rural…. I was in rural, in Merritt. There is a challenge up there getting in before doors close and lock and all those kinds of things. So I appreciate that.

Clause 22 also now allows council to give the public access to all or part of the nomination documents. What guidance will the ministry issue to ensure minimum provincewide transparency so that core information, endorsement statements, financial agent details, etc., are not withheld by local bylaw?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just wanted to share an example with the member around the mail-in documents and when it was a challenge. The district of Port Hardy, the village of Zeballos and the Central Coast regional district experienced challenges receiving original nomination documents on time due to a postal service delay during the 2022 local election.

[3:10 p.m.]

Despite having electronic copies of nomination documents…. All reasonable efforts were made by the nominees. The legislation provides that those persons would have their nominations withdrawn because those documents never arrived. That’s what we’re trying to address here. I can share with the member that in this section, this actually enhances

all reasonable efforts were made by the nominees, the legislation provides that those persons would have their nominations withdrawn because those documents never arrived. That’s what we’re trying to address here.

I can share with the member that in this section, this actually enhances transparency because now…. The information is still available on site for the public to see, so that doesn’t change. The information is available online still, but the ability to black out online people’s personal information is what’s included here. That’s essentially its privacy protection piece that the member was asking about.

Tony Luck: I recognize that. I think that’s a really good piece because of some of the issues you’ve talked about before with women running and certain individuals running and that kind of thing. Especially in rural ridings, we get a lot of that kind of thing happening.

But the question was more specific. How do we prevent local bylaws from changing that legislation if they decide they want to do something different? That happened a couple of times.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They can’t. These are the rules. They can’t change that.

Tony Luck: We asked this question a little bit before, maybe just a different little slant. Reporters and academics often need full nomination files for accountability work. Will certified media or bona fide researchers be able to view unredacted addresses on site, subject to control conditions, or is the information entirely off limits?

I think you may have answered a nuance of that in the past.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: In person, it’s still going to be available.

Tony Luck: The next question I had was more around the misuse of the nomination data as well. What legal consequences, civil or criminal, attach to a breach of that declaration, and who investigates those alleged abuses?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is an offence. I was chuckling with the team that I’m going to have to get my lawyer, the AG, over here to tell me if it’s criminal or civil. So I don’t want to weigh whether it’s criminal or…. I suspect it’s criminal, but I can’t say 100 percent.

It is an offence, as the member just phrased it.

Tony Luck: I won’t hold you to that right now. If it’s criminal or civil, that’s fine, as long as it’s an offence, and it will be taken care of. Absolutely. Thank you.

Just a little bit around…. There are a lot of changes coming down….

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Fraser-Nicola.

Interjection.

Tony Luck: I will. I can’t remember what I said now.

A lot of changes — there we go — and things happening in this legislation, especially around the voting procedures and things like that. Of course, it always comes down to: are the staff going to be trained? Do we have enough information and stuff in place to be able to take care of all that?

Has the ministry estimated the additional IT security and training costs for smaller municipalities that must now manage email submissions, redaction tools and electronic public access portals? If so, will provincial grants be available if they can’t afford it?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The changes here are really all minor. They’re not major changes. So it doesn’t require a massive retraining of people. Most of them are administrative changes that have been requested

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The changes here are all minor. They’re not major changes, so it doesn’t require a massive retraining of people. Most of them are administrative changes that have been requested by local governments. In fact, they may even save money for the folks operating. I certainly hope so.

When they say removing administrative barriers, I assume that’s red tape, inefficiency. Again, this gives the ability of local governments to do this if they have those pieces in place. Many local governments are accepting legal documents online right now. And so this just gives those local governments the ability to continue to do that work. It’s enabling, it’s not forcing them to do so.

Tony Luck: I agree with it. I think this is good. I think a lot of these things are a good thing to have the municipalities take hold of and grasp, and hopefully we can see some savings across the board on some of this.

Now one of the things we do…. I could have put this question to just about any of these clauses of course. It’s one of the things we wanted to do, but we hear it all the time. In an election, I call up city hall and I try to get an answer, and I call them back or somebody else and get different answers.

What, if any, education did the Elections B.C. staff have to provide correct information during the writ procedure, especially with these small but a lot of changes coming in?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If these amendments are passed, we will go through correspondence and guidance material to local governments as a follow-up.

The Chair: We are on clause 22. Shall clause 22 pass?

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Tony Luck: This is amendments for the criteria for what is required for an electoral organization to endorse a candidate. This gets a little bit more into the meat of the actual nomination of candidates and working with the candidates and everything, so this is an important piece.

Minister, could you outline why the government chose to replace the stand-alone endorsement document with two brief statements inserted in the nomination package? What administrative or legal problems with the previous system is this clause meant to solve?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this was a recommendation from the advisory group. It’s about creating efficiencies. Essentially, it creates an efficiency because there are less forms to track and all of it can be consolidated to one form as opposed to having multiple documents.

Tony Luck: Yes, and I agree. Anything to reduce and simplify, right? That should be a mantra in all our speeches these days when it comes to official documents and that, especially with rural communities that are always struggling with having the time and resources to be able to manage a lot of this stuff.

What procedures will Chief Electoral Officers follow to verify that the authorized principal official who signs the endorsement statement is in fact duly authorized by the electoral organization governing the documents?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re not making any changes to that. Elections B.C. would still have to go, and they’d still have to confirm like they normally do. We’re not changing their powers to be able to do that.

Interjection.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Fraser-Nicola.

Tony Luck: I’ve been known to be anxious in my life, so I apologize.

The Chair: It’s good to see people who are eager.

Tony Luck: I’m very eager.

Must the endorsement and consent statement be filed at the same time as the nomination papers or can they be added later with the nomination period? How will late or incomplete filings

Tony Luck: I’ve been known to be anxious in my life, so I apologize.

The Chair: It’s good to see people who are eager.

Tony Luck: Must the endorsement and consent statement be filed at the same time as the nomination papers, or can they be added later with the nomination period? How will late or incomplete filings be handled?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re not changing any of that, so it’s not reflected in the item that we brought. Maybe I’ll just say, generally, that people can change their documents. There are processes in place, but we’re not changing that in any way with what we’re proposing here.

Tony Luck: This goes back to, again…. How will local election officials ensure that the ballot endorsement name matches the name, abbreviation or acronym recorded in Election B.C.’s electoral organization register, particularly in light of the short form provisions amended elsewhere in Bill 13?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you. Same way as before. Information is shared.

Tony Luck: What penalties or remedies exist if a person files a forged endorsement statement or a candidate’s consent as later shown to have been falsified? Does the minister foresee a need for additional offensive provisions in that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are no changes to that. It would be just the normal process that local governments take if someone were to do that.

Tony Luck: Yeah, a lot of these seem mundane, but we just want to make sure and confirm and get it on record that these are changing or not changing or how they would affect….

If an elector organization or candidate later wishes to withdraw the endorsement after the close of nomination, does clause 23 provide a mechanism for doing so, and will the ballot be reprinted and amended in such cases?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re not making any changes to that.

These questions are straying a lot away from the actual amendment changes, administrative changes. I’m happy to have latitude because I know this is a cordial conversation, but we’re just moving far away from it.

Clauses 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

Tony Luck: Clause 26. We’re dealing with amendments to authority to appoint a person to fill a vacant office by conferring the authority only on councils.

[3:25 p.m.]

Ministry, why was “immediately adjacent” chosen as the residential boundary for appointed councillors? How will Chief Electoral Officers interpret adjacency when municipal electoral areas and treaty land boundaries do not perfectly align on the ground?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This was requested by local governments. Again, these are requests that come, a lot, from smaller communities and rural communities. Local governments have requested that to ensure that we include neighbouring jurisdictions to increase the chances of them being able to find someone in their community that doesn’t live within the municipal boundaries.

I’ve got an example. During the 2022 general election, the village of Valemount experienced an insufficient number of candidates, despite extending the nomination period and concerted efforts to recruit potential candidates. As a result, the village of Valemount had two vacancies on council and undertook an appointment process to fill those vacancies, as required under section 100 of the Local Government Act.

During that process, it was made clear that the people were located just outside the municipal boundaries, with close ties to the community and its services. They were interested in participating in the appointment process, but because they were just outside, they were not able to.

So these are requests…. There are other examples like this. This was allowing the ability for it to be just expanded to neighbouring communities when these kinds of more extreme situations arise.

Tony Luck: That’s an interesting explanation, because during the election process and nomination process before the election…. I can run in Prince George if I want. A lot of the public does not understand that. There might be a public education piece here that’s missing, in letting people know that.

So for a council, they say: “Yeah. Okay. We’re allowed now to go outside the boundaries of the municipality.” Well, you can do that anyway without…. It just seems a little bit redundant. That’s all I’m saying. It just seems kind of strange. I’m not criticizing or anything, but it’s just interesting.

Does clause 26 require council to seek any form of public notice or input before they appoint unelected members? If not, has the ministry considered a short, optional consultation period to bolster democratic legitimacy on that piece?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, the member is correct. It’s one of those weird rules. I recall a local government election — maybe it was two elections ago or three elections ago — where a gentleman ran in pretty much every riding in the Fraser Valley. I think he was in real estate, so he thought: “This is a good way to put my signs up.” He was running in Whistler. He was running in Surrey.

I understand there was somebody in the CRD here, as well, that ran in all the communities to raise their profile, I guess, which is interesting.

[3:30 p.m.]

But to the member’s main point in his question, which was: what is the guidance that is issued to local governments? The guidance we issue to them is to post notice, give a two-week application period

profile I guess, which is interesting. But to the member’s main point in his question, which was what is the guidance that is issued to local governments? The guidance we issue to them is to post notice, give a two-week application period, have a discussion with applicants by council, if successful, close vote by council for an applicant, and an appointment by council. Those are the guidance processes that we put in place.

Tony Luck: It seems a little strange on some of that stuff, but maybe that’s for the next amendments we can look at and change somewhere down the road.

What guidance will the ministry issue to ensure that the criteria and deliberations for appointing councillors are publicly documented, so the community can understand why particular individuals were chosen?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The local government is required to put out a pretty transparent process that they’ve got for their public. We do work with them through different associations etc. when those circumstances arise. It’s not something that happens everywhere. It is very localized in some communities, and often, it’s very public. People read about it in the paper that nobody ran and why isn’t anybody running.

But it is on the local government to have a transparent process that the public’s aware of how to deal with the situation, if it were to rise.

Tony Luck: That’s very true. It seems that we ask these questions here in the committee and everything, but the public’s pretty aware, and they’re pretty on top of some of this stuff. But we just want to make sure that we’re tight on our stuff.

Will appointed councillors be required to complete the same financial disclosures and conflict of interest training as elected members prior to taking office, and how will compliance be monitored? I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that, but we’ll get it on record.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member will know it’s the same process. They go through the same orientation. They have to follow the same rules.

Tony Luck: Clause 26(4) grants appointed councillors the same rights, duties and powers as elected ones. Did the ministry consider any limitations, such as restricting them from voting on tax rate bylaws or land use decisions, given they lack a direct electoral mandate?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We haven’t changed any of those rules. Everything stays the same. The only thing this piece changes is the geography to be able to expand. Everything else is still the same.

Tony Luck: You can understand where that question came from, because once you start appointing people then there looks like a chance for bias and preferential treatment and those kind of things, even though, hey, you didn’t step up to get elected, but now you’re going to complain about the bias aspect of this. We always want to be careful on those kind of things, especially when it comes to democracy, and make sure everything is open and transparent and everything.

Can the minister provide examples from other Canadian jurisdictions where councils may fill vacant seats by appointment rather than by election, and outline a couple of safeguards they may have found in other jurisdictions? Are we a lone wolf on this?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First, I should start by saying: this is rare. I shared with the member that the village of Valemount last electoral cycle was an example. Part of what we do is we learn from the electoral cycle where there are examples, and we try to create efficiencies and flexibilities within the process.

That’s what we’ve done here. This was, again, recommended by the advisory committee that we have. It was seen as a tool, in particular for rural communities, to be able to fill vacancies with people who still have a connection to the community. I don’t have, at this point, a jurisdictional scan of what there may be in other jurisdictions. I know that the authority already existed in the legislation prior to any changes we’re making.

The team informs me that in Alberta, the minister has broad authority to determine what next step will be needed to move it….

The Chair: Minister, I may need to remind you that looking at electronic devices is not permitted in the chamber.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I will look at my friend across the way if that helps you. In Alberta, the minister has some broad authorities to be able to do that. And again, this was a response to what our advisory groups have suggested.

The Chair: We are on clause 26.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

Tony Luck: A lot of tedious stuff here, but this goes to voting integrity, of course, and the way that we…. Even the little tweaks and everything, there will be somebody that picks up on some of this stuff, so we just want to make sure we’ve got our i’s dotted and our t’s crossed, of course.

So some of these questions may sound a little redundant, but, as I mentioned, I think this goes to voting integrity amongst the public, because there’s been a lot of concern around that lately.

Minister: for clause 27, what criteria or written guidance will the ministry issue to help chief election officers determine what constitutes appropriate public notice of mailing ballots, and how will consistency be monitored across 188 local governments?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I hope the member is okay with me just going broader here, because I know there is a whole lot of conspiracies out in the public around mail-in ballots and did people lose the election

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I hope the member is okay with me just going broader here, because I know there’s a lot of conspiracies out in the public around mail-in ballots, and did people lose the election federally because of mail-in ballots. I think it’s important for us to spend some time in this section just to be clear of what the changes are.

The three changes that we’re allowing in this section are to allow local elections officers to be able to specify locations where mail-in ballots can be dropped off if an elector chooses to vote by mail. So you can actually have…. They can define the location as opposed to having to go in the mail. It’s a minor housekeeping amendment to remove outdated language around “entitled” to vote by mail. It’s a minor change. Third, it permits the use of secrecy sleeves and other types of enclosures to protect the secrecy of the mail-in ballot votes. That’s what this section does. It does those three things.

I can share with a member that during the 2022 local election, the ministry heard from a number of local governments that expressed concerns over the challenges of ensuring mail-in ballots were received by the CEOs on time, especially when the distances between polling stations were very large.

In response to the comments from local government, ministry staff facilitated a working group consisting of chief electoral officers, administrative staff and the mail ballot voting working group. It was aimed to explore ways to improve the mail ballot process for electorals, local government staff, and informed by recent elections, local elections and byelections.

I can share with the member, on the question of what guidance, for each general local election, guidance materials are prepared by the province to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Education and Child Care, as well as members of the technical advisory committee.

The technical advisory committee, of course, I shared with the member has got representation of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM; the Local Government Management Association; Elections B.C. and the B.C. School Trustees Association, as well as, I believe, representatives of the Attorney General. I don’t see that here.

Hopefully, that answers all of the questions the member had there.

Tony Luck: I wasn’t alluding to conspiracy theories or anything like that. I happened to be involved in an election in 2022 where staff in that particular municipality decided to do things their way. It became a fiasco where we even did an affidavit before the courts to look at some of the issues that had happened with ballots, ballot boxes and all those kinds of things. It’s not that I want to talk about conspiracy theories here, but these are legitimate concerns that happen in municipalities.

I thank you for your clarification on that, and I appreciate that. It’s really, really important to make sure we get this right moving forward here — that we have consistency across the province, that everybody uses the same binder and that everything’s done in the proper manner. I appreciate the answers that you’ve given us here, Minister.

How will the minister ensure that rural and remote voters who may live far from the municipal office have reasonable approximate drop-off options and that site hours do not disadvantage voters who work standard hours. As I say, some like to be rogue cities.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I started my comments by saying I’m not referring to the member or anybody in this room. Well, not all the members in this room.

Oh, I just tease. I tease.

That being said, I will say to the member that the question around rural communities, in particular, is actually the core point of why this change is made. When you have larger communities now, the ability for a chief electoral officer to specifically name a location in the diversity of some large communities is the exact reason why this change was recommended by that committee.

It can be a challenge in larger communities, and having the ability for the chief electoral officer to say that this is a defined location that’s in reasonable geographic distance for people to travel, I think, will help strengthen our democracy.

Tony Luck: Thanks, Minister. I think we’re on the same wavelength on that. It’s about ensuring proper democracy and voting procedures for everybody in the province.

[3:45 p.m.]

It doesn’t matter if I live in Vancouver or in Pouce Coupe or wherever, the process and procedures are followed the same by everybody, so I think that’s an important piece. I do appreciate a lot of these amendments that are coming forward, but, as I say, we just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page on that. So that’s great.

I think we’re on the same wavelength on that. It’s about ensuring proper democracy and voting procedures for everybody in the province. It doesn’t matter if I live in Vancouver or in Pouce Coupe or wherever. The process and procedures are followed the same by everybody.

I think that’s an important piece. I do appreciate a lot of these amendments that are coming forward. But as I say, we just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page on that, so that’s great.

I think this is a question that is in almost every clause. Has the ministry estimated the additional staffing, training and IT costs for municipal implementation of multiple drop-off sites and electronic notice systems? Will provincial funding or templates be provided for those municipalities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is about efficiency, so I’ll create another efficiency just by saying that the changes around the sections around the elections…. None of them are about adding costs. Everything is about, actually, reducing paperwork, reducing administrative burden and helping streamline processes that Chief Electoral Officers have raised with us.

Clause 27 approved.

On clause 28.

Tony Luck: Minister, what problems has the ministry, or this tech group here, observed with variant or informal electoral organization names on ballots that made it necessary to require an exact match with the Elections B.C. register under the new section 115(1)(d)?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is the mirror of clause 13, where we made changes in one act for the language to re-align. This changes it in the other act to make sure the two speak to each other.

Tony Luck: What deadlines will be set to ensure that consultation with the B.C. CEO is completed early enough to avoid delaying ballot production, in particular in jurisdictions with large candidate fields and large geographical areas?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The answer is the same as it was in clause 13, which is that the CEO will engage with everyone and do the appropriate consultation.

Clauses 28 and 29 approved.

On clause 30.

Tony Luck: This is always an interesting one here, talking about a clause about accepting marks on ballots. We’ll have a few questions on that, and then we’ll try to get through this one as quickly as we can.

Minister, what evidence, such as recount data or court rulings, drove the decision to adopt an open-ended voter intent standard and to delete rejection grounds for (d)?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is essentially a cleanup. Now with this change, it aligns with our elections, and it goes on voter intention, as opposed to just having to be an X. If somebody, for example, colours in the box.... When I was younger, for all my tests it used to be: “You colour in the box, and it goes in.” So a lot of people do that. It just makes sure that that is allowed, as long as the intention is clear.

To a previous question, I think the member had asked me: “How does it align with our elections?” This now aligns it. Again, it’s a minor change.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I agree. Sometimes you wonder why it takes so long to make these alignments. It’s good to see a lot of these things falling into place and everything getting aligned. It makes it simple. From one election to the next, everybody kind of knows the standard. It’s great; I like it.

Will Elections B.C. publish illustrative examples, such as a tick, circles or initials, to help both voters and officials understand what “clearly indicate” means in practice?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The local CEOs do that. They provide people information about it: “Here’s your ballot. Here’s how you can mark it, etc.” Everyone will have the same information now.

Tony Luck: There’s always a learning curve. Does the Attorney General or the ministry anticipate a higher incidence of judicial recounts or court petitions challenging officials’ interpretations of ambiguous marks under the new standard? What safeguards are in place to ensure consistency?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would say that this would probably create less.... Our hope is that as the rules become more clear, we’ll have less of those fractious kinds of situations.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the last answer to that question I had there on clause 30.

In clause 31 we’re going to be looking at persons affected by court appeals, applications, injunctions and that.

What policy considerations led the ministry to stipulate that an appeal to the Court of Appeal does not stay a Supreme Court declaration of disqualification or invalid elections? How does this compare with stay-of-proceedings rules in other B.C. statutes?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this is a minor change. This is a cleanup, a legal cleanup. Currently the status of an elected candidate only refers to the court declaring the candidates disqualified and the office vacant.

The courts also have the option to declare the election invalid and the office vacant. Changing the language to capture a court declaration of invalid election captures all the scenarios in which an office may become vacant through court declarations under section 155 of the LGA and clarify the status of the relevant individuals, and it mirrors the clause previously to it. So it’s just creating more clarity.

Tony Luck: When a member is removed pending appeal, what mechanisms ensure constituents continue to receive representation? And did the ministry weigh the options of allowing the disqualified member to sit without voting rights during the appeal?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That was out of the scope. We have made no changes to that.

Tony Luck: Parallel amendments are proposed for the Vancouver Charter, clause 58, and potentially other statutes. Can the ministry confirm that the operative language is identical across all acts and explain any deviations?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s the same policy intent for both.

Tony Luck: I like the confirmation, so that’s good.

What guidelines will the ministry provide to local governments on notifying the public when a councillor is removed, reinstated or replaced due to court decisions, to maintain transparency and reduce mistrust in the electoral process?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is something the local government is responsible for and they do. It becomes pretty apparent in communities when something like that happens, but it is something that the local governments have to put out.

Clauses 31 and 32 approved.

On clause 33.

Tony Luck: Clause 33 we’re into here now. That expands the authority of the minister to make an order the minister considers appropriate to achieve the purpose of part 3.

Minister, what objective criteria will guide a finding that special circumstances exist under section 167(1)(a)? Could you table any internal policy or decision tree that will help ensure provincewide consistency?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is again a situation where, in clause 18, we made the change, and now it’s just mirroring it so it’s exactly the same.

The Chair: The committee shall now take a ten-minute recess. We shall return at 4:10 p.m.

The committee recessed at 4 p.m.

shall now take a ten-minute recess. We shall return at 4:10 pm.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On clause 33.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the seat. We’ll hopefully have as much fun in this piece as we did in the last one, so thank you.

We got that first question answered there. With this clause, what threshold of evidence, administrative audit, sworn affidavit or complaint volume will the ministry require before concluding that an irregularity or procedural area justifies an order under section 167(1)(b)?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is similar to section 17 — same process. Chief Electoral Officer raises concerns, reaches out to staff, and they confer. So same answer to 17.

Tony Luck: Will the minister be statutorily obliged to consult the Chief Electoral Officer before issuing an order? Or if not, why was this safeguard omitted?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. Again, as I said in section 17, the concern would come from them.

Tony Luck: Probably the same applies here, but I’ll ask the question. Quick answer if that’s appropriate. If a petition has already been filed under section 153, an application to court regarding validity of election, can the minister still issue an overlapping order under section 167 and how will conflicts be resolved?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was enjoying the moment to see my friend getting a little bit more air from the fan.

No, the minister would not interfere in a court decision or a court order or during a court proceeding.

I’m just enjoying the moment to see my friend getting a little bit more air from the fan.

No. The minister would not interfere in a court decision or a court order or during a court proceeding.

Tony Luck: Is there any statutory right for candidates, electoral organizations or voters to seek judicial review or internal reconsideration of a ministerial order issued under revised 167?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I want to remind members that these are all administrative pieces and usually the CEO is requesting remediation from us. It’s coming from them to help address an administrative challenge. Anyways, I hope that answers the question.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

Tony Luck: Now, for some reason, all our questions for 34 to 39 got all bundled together. Is it all right if we do that as a single grouping, and then we can pass them as a single grouping too at that particular point?

The Chair: Minister, you’re agreeable to that?

Yes, please. We can go ahead and do that.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Minister.

The first question here is what practical problems or past litigation informed the decision to let election-related regulations be made retroactive to the first day of the election period or 90 days before assent vote date?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This authority supports ministerial regulation to vary or display provisions related to timelines of part 3 or part 4 where those timelines have already expired. Issues sometimes arise due to human error or in special circumstances — floods, wildfire.

I can share with the member that in 2021 two local governments had state of emergencies, and, then during COVID, there was a community that had a state of emergency, so those were the types of circumstances they were used.

[4:20 p.m.]

Tony Luck: Floods and fires are getting blamed for everything these days and then we’ll throw in the pandemic as well, but that’s okay.

What internal checks, legal review, cabinet guidelines, mandatory consultation with Elections B.C. will be in place before a retroactive regulation is deposited?

are getting blamed for everything these days, and then we will throw on the pandemic as well, but that’s okay.

What internal checks, legal review, cabinet guidelines, mandatory consultation with Elections B.C. will be in place before a retroactive regulation is deposited?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is a local government elections administration, so local government CEOs, the CEOs at the local government level, but not Elections B.C.

Tony Luck: How will candidates, electoral organizations and third-party sponsors be notified that a rule affecting them has been backdated, particularly if the change alters spending or disclosure obligations already incurred?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: These are administrative changes. They’re minor. In many cases, they would say that’s minor technical changes. We just can’t see how this would have a major impact for someone who had put their name forward.

Tony Luck: Subsection (5) now excludes seats vacated by section 155 court declaration from a resignation, death or disqualification language. Could this create a gap before a replacement is named, and how will boards ensure uninterrupted representation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member’s moved on to 35 by agreement by both of us. This ensures that it’s clear that an alternate director’s term ends if the electoral area director that appointed them ceases to hold office because of a vacancy created by an application to court respecting the validity of the election, the alternate replaced or until the next general local election, whichever is earlier.

Tony Luck: So why did the ministry choose appointment by resolution rather than an automatic by-election for vacancies caused by court decisions or renunciations?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This one is the clause after that. A by-election would be triggered, but this just gives the ability to put someone interim until such time as the by-election has happened.

Tony Luck: So just clarity on that, what I’m hearing is that there will be a by-election triggered, but we’ll put somebody in place just to hold the spot while waiting for the by-election. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct, and then we could put somebody in. Not necessarily saying we would, but you could in the time until the by-election is completed.

Tony Luck: One of these timeline questions: why was 45 days chosen rather than aligning with the 50-day deadline in clause 36? Could mismatched timelines cause inadvertent disqualifications or confusion?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, Chair, for the delay on that one.

There’s no connection between the two. Yeah, they’re completely separate. That’s why it took a couple of minutes extra for us to connect. One is in case we need to appoint an alternate and, of course, this other one is to take an oath of office, so they’re actually two completely separate pieces.

Tony Luck: Well, if we’re aligning things, it would be kind of nice 50/50 or whatever. But anyway, you can think about that and make an amendment.

Now we’re into 38, 39 here with the fire safety piece.

Does the ministry anticipate regional districts hiring qualified fire inspectors and investigators and has any provincial training or certification program been planned to support consistent standards across the districts?

Interjections.

The Chair: All right, shall 34 through 36 clauses pass?

Clauses 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 37 pass?

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

[4:30 p.m.]

Tony Luck: What criteria will a board use to decide whether costs are shared among all electoral areas or only those that have benefit from the service? There’ll be a shared responsibility and shared the cost on those services.

all electoral areas, or only those that have a benefit from the service? Will there be shared responsibility and shared cost on those services?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The answer is that section 38 allows us the ability to do it. Section 39 actually lays out how the costs are done, but I’ll take the question anyway.

Section 39 in this bill allows it to be distributed evenly amongst the regional districts but also gives them the ability to weight it. If they come together and decide that they want to do by population or that they want to do it in a different formula, it gives them the ability to do so.

Tony Luck: If electoral directors disagree on who benefits from the service, what dispute resolution mechanism is available before a board’s cost-sharing resolution is challenged in court?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: In the Local Government Act, there are already processes for when these disputes happen. This would be similar to that.

Tony Luck: Has the ministry modelled the expected tax impact on rural property owners for the new inspection and investigative services? Will there be any provincial grants to offset some of the start-up costs that might be incurred?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is very minor, if there’s anything at all. These changes to the Fire Safety Act were made in 2024, and PSSG does lead any of the investigations already. So we don’t foresee much cost associated with that. This is just to support PSSG’s changes from 2024.

Clauses 38 and 39 approved.

[4:35 p.m.]

On clause 40.

Tony Luck: What evidence led the ministry to conclude that a two-year freeze on newly adopted or amended Metro Vancouver development cost charge and amenity cost charge bylaws was necessary to maintain cost

Clause 39 approved.

On clause 40.

Tony Luck: What evidence led the ministry to conclude that a two-year freeze on newly adopted or amended Metro Vancouver development cost charges and amenity cost charge bylaws was necessary to maintain cost certainty for projects already in the approval pipeline? Please table any economic impact analysis or stakeholder feedback that might underpin this decision.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, these would be better questions for Metro. They agreed to these terms with the federal government. This is just enabling that change to happen.

The numbers I can share with the member are the ones I’m aware of. Metro believes that the cost for in-stream protection will be $220 million. The federal government agreed to give them $250 million.

Those analyses would all be done by Metro. We’re responding to their request to enable the support from the federal government to flow.

Tony Luck: We know where Metro Vancouver is with the number of concerns that the public has, but has the minister’s office assessed potential legal challenges from municipalities or community groups alleging that the two-year freeze undermines local infrastructure funding objectives or violates the Community Charter cost recovery principles? If so, could that legal opinion, redacted as necessary, be shared with the committee?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This enables infrastructure. This enables more dollars to flow to Metro Vancouver. So this is, from Metro Van’s perspective, a positive. They deliberated on this, and this change reflects their request.

Tony Luck: Section 511.1 protects subdivision applications, while section 568.1 and 570.911 protect building permit applications.

Could the minister explain the policy rationale for using different procedural milestones and whether there is any risk that a project could slip through the gaps if it required neither a subdivision nor a qualifying precursor application?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re just trying to get to the bottom of it. Can the member repeat the question so that we can better get a grasp of where he wants to go?

Tony Luck: Section 511.1 protects subdivision applications, while sections 568.1 and 570.911 protect building permit applications.

Could the minister explain the policy rationale for using different procedural milestones and whether there is any risk that a project could slip through the gaps if it required neither a subdivision nor a qualified precursor application? Does that make sense?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We believe that it’s covering all the spaces where it could be at. That’s why we made the change. If we didn’t believe that, we wouldn’t be making this change.

[4:40 p.m.]

I will say as we continue to deliberate that the member should be on his best behaviour, because I know his partner is watching. I thought I saw your wife walk by outside. But maybe she’s wandering the halls, just listening to see if he’s doing a good job.

we wouldn’t be making this change.

I will say, as we continue to deliberate, that the member should be on his best behaviour, because I know his partner is watching. I thought I saw his wife walk by outside, but maybe she’s wandering the halls just listening to see if he’s doing a good job.

But yeah, we do believe that it’s captured all of that, Member.

Tony Luck: Well, that’s why I have all of you here to make sure I’m on my best behaviour.

Please correct me. I’m always learning, so you can always correct me.

Interjection.

Tony Luck: That’s awesome.

Why are these grandfathering provisions limited to Metro Vancouver and the greater Vancouver water district? Have any other rapidly growing regional districts such as Fraser Valley or the capital district requested similar cost-charge exemptions, and would government consider extending them to all regional districts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s in response to an agreement that Metro had with the federal government. If the federal government were to provide appropriate dollars to other partners, and that was part of the agreement, we certainly would consider that.

Clause 40 approved.

On clause 41.

Tony Luck: This is some interesting information language here and updates. The Community Charter already specifies delinquency periods prior to tax sale. How was the new 30-day notice period chosen, and did the ministry analyze whether it dovetails with or extends existing notice timelines under municipal bylaws?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The general change was recommended by the Ombudsperson in 2021. The 30 days was chosen after consulting local governments and consulting tax experts on the appropriate time for either someone to pay or people to be notified.

Tony Luck: Yeah, this is an important piece, one of the clauses that is really important because we’ve had some bad situations out there with some homeowners lately. It just hasn’t seemed fair, so I appreciate some of the changes that are coming down the pipe on this one as well.

Has the ministry estimated the incremental costs — legal, courier, clerical — of preparing and tracking registered mail or courier notices, and will there be provincial support for smaller municipalities that conduct only occasional tax sales?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, these changes around this are to make it less onerous. In fact, it’s to ensure that local governments have multiple ways, ways that they think are the most efficient way for them to proceed.

The member may have seen my comments when I spoke to this, but there was a high-profile case in Penticton, in particular. We made a lot of changes, but we’re refining that to make sure that it’s an effective process for local governments, and this was a key part that was recommended to us.

[4:45 p.m.]

Tony Luck: If a collector fails to comply with any element of section 647.1, and the property is sold, what remedies will be available to the former owner? Could non-compliance invalidate the sale, and has the ministry evaluated potential liability exposure for the municipalities on any such sale?

if the owner fails to comply with any element of section 647.1 and the property is sold, what remedies will be available to the former owner? Could non-compliance invalidate the sale and has the ministry evaluated potential liability exposure for the municipalities on such sales?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. There are remedies. Council can take some steps to address the challenge, and also you can go through the Supreme Court so there are two avenues.

Tony Luck: While owners receive formal notice, tenants and unregistered occupants may still be surprised by a tax sale. Did the ministry weigh extending notice to occupants of record or at least requiring on-site posting to protect vulnerable tenants?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This process can take three to four years. It’s not like a one-month or two-month notice. It’s a very lengthy process and, certainly, there are obligations of the property owner to notify a tenant in the case that this type of issue arises.

Clauses 41 to 44 inclusive approved.

On clause 45.

Tony Luck: This particular clause here, Minister, what problem is clause 45 trying to solve? Were there specific projects or local governments that reported difficulty amending site-specific density bonus zoning bylaws once the new provincial framework was announced on April 25 of 2024?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: On clause 45, the intent of this amendment is that any site-specific zoning bylaws adopted before April 25, 2024, do not need to be amended to be consistent with the new density benefit rules.

[4:50 p.m.]

The intent of this amendment is also to provide that the site-specific zoning bylaws that received first reading by April 25, 2024, or that received first reading at any other time before the prescribed date, do not need to be amended to be consistent with the new density benefit rules. In order for these exemptions to apply

of this amendment is also to provide that the site-specific zoning bylaws that received first reading by April 25, 2024, or that received first reading at any other time before the prescribed date, do not need to be amended to be consistent with the new density benefit rules.

In order for these exemptions to apply, the site-specific density benefit zoning bylaw must be consistent with any applicable density benefit zoning bylaw that applies to the broader area where the site is located.

Now, the member has asked why these legislative amendments are being proposed, and I can share with the member that April 2024, density benefit legislation included transitional provisions to protect in-stream development projects under existing general density benefit zoning bylaws until a date set by regulation. However, the legislation did not specify or specifically mention site-specific density benefits zoning bylaws, which are typically used to implement individual housing projects through rezoning.

The proposed amendments clarify that the site-specific density benefits zoning bylaws do not need to be amended to comply with the new legislation if the bylaw existed prior to April 25, 2024, or receive first reading between April 25, ’24, and the prescribed date.

These amendments ensure consistency in the application of transitional provisions and provide stable, predictable process that allows development to proceed uninterrupted while local governments update their general density benefit zoning bylaws.

Tony Luck: So to kind of encapsulate, it’s a bit of a grandfathering, I guess. Is that what happened there? Is that kind of how I’m reading that, there? Anything before that was they met or were close to the criteria. Is that what we are seeing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, I think the member is correct. Several local governments had asked us to allow this provision, so that’s where we are making changes.

Tony Luck: The amendment introduces a site-specific density benefits zoning bylaw. Could you explain, with examples, how staff will distinguish a truly site-specific bylaw, one or more parcels from an area-wide density bonus bylaw that nonetheless named certain parcels in the schedule? Does that make sense?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: What we are trying to do is align both the site-specific and then the general piece at the same time. And this is how local governments operate, so this won’t be a surprise to them or a change for them.

Tony Luck: If a site-specific bylaw is later challenged in court for failing the consistency test, could the entire density benefits package, including negotiated amenities or housing contributions, be struck down? Has the ministry issued guidance to mitigate that risk?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hypothetical, so it’s hard for me to provide a specific answer. We have issued guidance to local governments to help guide them on how they move forward on this work, but it’s hard to know what lawsuits would come in the future, and we’ll respond if we need to.

[4:55 p.m.]

Tony Luck: I can understand that, because this is all so new to municipalities that they’re dealing with, and we probably haven’t had a situation like that yet. But we’re just trying to anticipate some of the issues, and are you ready for that kind of thing? I appreciate the answer.

Some municipalities rely on density bonus zoning to fund parks and child care. Has the ministry modeled whether exempting bylaws from the new procedural steps until the prescribed

municipalities that they’re dealing with and we probably haven’t had a situation like that yet, but we’re just trying to anticipate some of the issues, and are you ready for that kind of thing? Appreciate the answer.

Some municipalities rely on density bonus zoning to fund parks and child care. Has the ministry modelled whether exempting bylaws from the new procedural steps until the prescribed dates will affect amenity contributions or municipality balance sheets?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The whole point of this is to allow them to continue to operate, to mitigate any complications while they develop their new changes.

Tony Luck: How will grandfathered site-specific bylaws coexist with the province-wide wide up zoning under Bill 44? Could there be scenarios where the underlying density baselines change, altering the negotiated value of the bonus density?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are starting to skate into relitigating the legislation from previous, because that’s not part of these changes at all. So, you know, respectfully, perhaps we can just go back to the bill at hand as opposed to the other pieces.

Tony Luck: Fair enough.

The Chair: Shall Clause 45 pass?

Clause 45 approved.

The Chair: Shall Clause 46 pass?

Clause 46 approved.

On clause 47.

Tony Luck: Got a few questions around that one. Then I’m going to give you a real treat coming up.

What recent conflicts or court decisions persuaded the ministry that Vancouver’s charter required a stand-alone statement of provincial supremacy rather than relying on the common law doctrine of paramountcy that already applies to all municipalities.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Vancouver believed that they have the same powers as Local Government Act that all their local governments have. There was a court decision, the Pender Lodge decision, in B.C. Supreme Court in 2022. So these changes reflect us ensuring that Vancouver has the same powers as the communities do under Local Government Act.

Tony Luck: If a Vancouver bylaw is alleged to be inconsistent, what is the minister’s preferred enforcement path: informal dialogue, ministerial order, court application under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, or some combination of all?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The shortest answer of the day: none of the above.

Tony Luck: I’m assuming there is no answer.

Just…. Yeah, okay.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The shortest answer of the day: none of the above.

Tony Luck: I’m assuming there is no answer. Yeah, okay.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, if it were found to be inconsistent, the courts could strike it down.

Tony Luck: Why was the Vancouver subdivision control override left intact, under 2.3(3)? Were specific development permit or land title concerns raised that justified shielding that power from provincial paramountcy?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Section 292 of the Vancouver Charter outlines Vancouver’s bylaw-making ability in relation to regulating the subdivision of land.

In section 292(4), it states that if any provision or bylaw under this section is inconsistent with the provision or made under the Land Title Act or any other act with respect to the subdivision or the resubdivision of property, the provision of the bylaw shall prevail.

Section 292(4) is the only existing rule in the Vancouver Charter that does not align with the proposed express default conflicts rules. Its inclusion in section 2.3 is intended to recognize and maintain this exception.

Clauses 47 to 57 inclusive approved.

On clause 58.

Tony Luck: We’re getting around to voting again. We’ll talk about a few things there, for vote integrity.

Why does the new section permit a declared winner to take the oath, vote and exercise full powers, even when a petition under section 115 has already been filed? Did the ministry considered delaying the swearing-in until the first court appearance, to reduce the risk of multiple turnovers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s innocent until proven guilty; otherwise, you may see cases where people just continuously take people to court so that they can’t swear an oath.

[5:05 p.m.]

Of course, it’s important for courts, when they are doing their process, for that to happen before process is taken, but we don’t want to presume that people are in the wrong or guilty until the courts have made such a judgment.

Tony Luck: That makes sense. When a councillor or

courts when they are doing their process for that to happen before process is taken, but we don’t want to presume people are in the wrong or guilty until the courts have made such a judgment.

Tony Luck: That makes sense.

When a councillor or mayor is removed, pending appeal, how will the city ensure continuity of representation? Did the ministry contemplate allowing the disqualified person to sit without voting rights or to serve only under the appeal, as decided?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a similar answer to what we did…. It mirrors. There would be…. It would trigger a by-election, and the process would happen that way.

Clauses 58 and 59 approved.

On clause 60.

Tony Luck: Under clause 60 here, we are looking at expanded authority of the minister to make an order the minister considers appropriate to achieve the purposes of the sections there.

What objective criteria will guide the minister’s conclusion that special circumstances may exist under section 127(1)(a)? Could the minister table any internal policy or checklist that will be used to ensure consistent application of this discretionary power?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is exactly mirroring clauses 17 and 33 and now in this legislation, so it’s the exact same language, same mirrored change.

Tony Luck: I’m just trying to make sure that we don’t get the same answer for the other clauses we’ve had here.

Does the charter provide any mechanism for candidates, electoral organizations or voters to seek judicial review of a ministerial court order under section 127? If no explicit route exists, what is the government’s position on the standard of review that would apply?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, it’s the same answer as section 17, which is that any order would be open for judicial review.

Clauses 60 to 64 inclusive approved.

On clause 65.

Tony Luck: Could the minister clarify, with examples, how staff will distinguish a true site-specific density benefit zoning bylaw of one or more parcels from a neighbourhood-wide bonus density schedule that nonetheless lists individual legal descriptions?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s the same as clause 45, except that in the Vancouver Charter, the language is different. But this is mirroring the same change in the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: That’s good. Some of these are probably going to be answered pretty similarly, but we’re just making sure we got that cross-referenced, so I really appreciate the minister’s patience with us on this.

Subclause (7)(b) requires that site-specific bylaws be consistent with the density rules in any broader density benefits bylaw. What objective, criteria or checklist will the ministry issue to help council applicants and the courts determine consistency and avoid future legal ambiguities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s up to the local government. We’re not over their shoulder monitoring this, and we’ve issued them guidance on how they should proceed so that it’s consistent.

Tony Luck: Because grandfathered bylaws may proceed without procedural steps in 634(2), (a) to (e), what avenues will residents and neighbourhood groups have to comment on negotiated amenities, cash-in-lieu contributions or CAC formulas embedded in those bylaws?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member’s question actually goes to something that we had a good discussion about during estimates, which is that this allows things to continue until such time as they’ve made those changes.

This is why the changes we made in the legislation, in the previous government, were so important, because too often, there was frustration from public about what charges were charged for developments behind closed doors. It made it a real challenge for the public, leading to mistrust. It made it hard for local government officials, because they were, perhaps, negotiating in good faith, trying to get the best deal they could, but people didn’t believe that the same deal was made for everybody.

Actually, the question leads to why the changes are so important when they come into place, because the community will have a chance to agree on what amenities they want. They’ll be put into bylaws. A clear cost structure will be put in place so that everyone understands what the cost structure is — at the front of the door, before they walk in, as opposed to something that they’re halfway through the project and then they’re having to try to figure out.

It will lead to that transparency and that certainty for the public, as well as for the local government and for the development community, because it will be net new. It won’t be charging on charges that don’t actually contribute something new.

This piece allows them to continue until such time as those changes are made.

[5:15 p.m.]

Tony Luck: How will grandfathered, site-specific bylaws interact with Bill 44’s small-scale multi-unit zoning and the Housing Supply Act targets? Could a pre-existing density bonus agreement unintentionally constrain the high provincial baseline density now permitted?

bylaws interact with Bill 44’s small-scale multi-unit zoning and the Housing Supply Act targets. Could a pre-existing density bonus agreement unintentionally constrain the high provincial baseline density now permitted?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This was the same question that was asked previously when I suggested that, perhaps, we were going too far outside the scope of the legislation and going to relitigate the original legislation. Hopefully, the member’s okay with me saying the same answer as I did previously.

Tony Luck: I am absolutely okay with that. Some of these questions.… Because of the type of legislation that we’re bringing forward here is an omnibus bill…. There are going to be crossovers and interlaps and things like that. I’m okay with that.

Will the ministry require Vancouver to publish a public list of all site-specific density benefits bylaws claiming the exemptions, including the parcels affected, bonus floor area ratios and the negotiated amenity values? Would they be able to do that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All bylaws should be posted already.

Clauses 65 and 66 approved.

On clause 67.

Tony Luck: Just a few questions around 67 here. How will election administrators handle situations where the nomination period for the by-election starts under the former act, but voting day occurs after 2026 when the new provisions are enforced? Which rule set applies to campaign finance disclosure that straddles the transition dates?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All the changes that we are contemplating with this will come into effect in the 2026 local election. Anything that happens between now and then would be under the previous rules.

Tony Luck: How will election administrators handle situations where the nomination period for a by-election starts under the former act but voting day occurs after 2020? Did I ask you that question? Sorry, I already asked that question.

Minister, clause 67 grandfathers former provisions for any election or assent-voting event held before 2026 general election, local election, does that window include all intervening by-elections, school trustee by-elections and referenda that might occur as late as summer of 2026, or is the cut-off intended to be a statutory general voting day in October 2026?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The answer is yes. It would include everything up to the 2026 general election.

Clauses 67 to 71 inclusive approved.

On clause 72.

Lynne Block: I’m delighted to be here today.

[5:20 p.m.]

I’d like to just give a quick preamble to clause 72 with your permission. Thank you.

It specifically amends section 45 of the School Act. This amendment introduces a new subsection, 2.1. This new subsection mandates that a board conducting a trustee election must identify places for the public notice requirements of section 50

To clause 72 with your permission.

Thank you.

It specifically amends section 45 of the School Act. This amendment introduces a new subsection (2.1). This new subsection mandates that a board conducting a trustee election must identify places for the public notice requirements of section 50 of the Local Government Act. This provision is intended to prove transparency around school trustee elections. It ensures that the public is clearly informed about where to find official notices regarding these crucial local democratic processes. Knowing where to find official information about who is running important dates and polling locations is fundamental for informed voter participation.

This specific amendment in Section 45 (2.1) of the School Act, scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2026, explicitly applies to a board conducting a trustee election for a school district “other than School District No. 39 (Vancouver).” This exemption undermines transparency, creates a bit of inequity and weakens democratic process.

My first question, please, through the Chair to the minister: what is the specific reason that School District 39, one of the largest and most complex school districts in B.C., is being singled out and exempted from a basic transparency requirement being imposed on all other school districts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question.

My critic has left, but he and I had a good discussion about the Vancouver Charter versus the Local Government Act, etc.

This is a Vancouver Charter-related issue. Elections for SD 39 are run in accordance with part 1 of the Vancouver Charter. The Vancouver Charter does not have a requirement for the city to specify a public notice posting place or to post a notice at the public notice posting place as part of its requirement for public notice in section 3.

Instead, the legislation explicitly states when a notice must be available for public inspection at city hall in addition to meeting the public notice requirement in section 3, the requirements for SD 39 will be the same as for the city.

Lynne Block: Through the Chair to the minister, so it’s just a different set of rules. Basically, the requirement for consistency and clarity is embedded in their particular governance. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s correct. It’s embedded into the Vancouver Charter.

Lynne Block: Just a question. How long has that been a part of the separation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I look to the team and my team is way too young to know.

But I would say…. The team says the Vancouver Charter was created around 1953 so it would be around then.

Lynne Block: Through the Chair to the minister, I’m just curious. Obviously, it has been around for a long time and obviously works and no issues, I believe, with transparency or clarity or organization. Is there any talk or has there been any talk of including it with everybody else so there would be consistency and clarity? Just a question. Just curious. Thank you.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Vancouver runs the election and school boards tag along.

I can share with the member that we have not had any feedback around that change from the B.C. School Trustees Association. We engage with them on this.

[5:25 p.m.]

Lynne Block: Through the Chair to the minister, thank you for your answers. I do appreciate that.

It was just a curious little note. I didn’t know why it wasn’t for the whole of B.C. So thank you.

The Chair: Shall clause 72 pass?

engage with them on this.

Lynne Block: To the minister: thank you for your answers. I do appreciate that. It was just a curious little note, and I didn’t know why it wasn’t for the whole of B.C. Thank you.

Clause 72 and 73 approved.

Interjection.

The Chair: So clause 72 has passed.

Wait, please.

Interjection.

The Chair: Is there agreement to come back to 73?

Interjection.

The Chair: You’re okay with 73 passing.

What I want to do is keep the minister for anything else that….

Interjection.

The Chair: Eighty-six?

If there is agreement in the committee….

Interjection.

The Chair: I would just like to clarify with the committee in the room that clause 73 has passed.

Donegal Wilson: I just want to take this opportunity to thank the minister and his staff. It was very good engagement. My colleague from Nicola had to leave, but he definitely appreciated your time and all your staff’s expertise today. Thank you.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member thanking my team. I want to thank my team as well. I also want to thank my critic for a really thoughtful and respectful exchange.

Again, I just want to emphasize what I made in my first comment, and it wasn’t directed to my colleague across the way at all. But there were a lot of speeches in the second reading around our housing section, and I hope folks understand there were mostly administrative changes. There wasn’t any major overreach from government, and I’m glad I was able to answer all those questions.

Thank you to the member, and we’ll just move out and let the next team come in.

The Chair: At this time, we’ll take a brief recess. I have 5:28. If everybody could be back at 5:32 please — five minutes.

I’ve had a request for a ten-minute break, so if everybody could be back at 5:37. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:28 p.m. to 5:41 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:28 p.m. to 5:41 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act, 2025, back to order.

Clause 74 approved.

On clause 75.

Larry Neufeld: I think most of my caucus and, perhaps, most others may have glossed over what it actually does say in Clause 75. With perhaps a bit of latitude, it’s going to be important for me to illustrate the importance of this clause by giving a bit of background and a bit of history as to why this is important.

I’ve been a professional engineer for probably longer than I should admit, but I will admit to 30 years. The importance of this clause to me.... Again, I think a little bit of background here is probably important. The iron ring that I wear is nothing flashy, it’s nothing blingy, and it’s not meant to be a piece of jewelry. It’s meant to remind us that if we make errors, people will suffer or even perish.

The history behind the ring, if I may.... I enjoy telling it, but it’s actually the unfortunate result of engineering mistakes that have resulted in death. It’s worn on the small finger of your dominant hand. I’m right-handed; if I were left, it would be on here. The rationale behind the ring is that it is to touch every plan, every drawing, your keyboard, whatever it is that you’re working on, again, to remind you to be diligent and that if you’re not diligent, you can cause harm to the public.

Incidentally, the other really interesting part of it is that these rings originally were made from the steel of a bridge that fell and killed a fair number of workers, from the simple fact that there was an engineering mistake completed on that bridge during construction.

There was a very poignant story told during members’ statements; honestly, I can’t remember the member’s riding, so I won’t try to describe it. She did talk about the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, or the Second Narrows Bridge, which collapsed in 1958. If I recall, there was something on the order of 18 workers that were killed during that collapse — an incredibly tragic event.

Again, the ring is a reminder. It cost me $5 when I was awarded it. It did take an awful lot of work to get it, but it’s there as a reminder. The other one, I think, from my own riding, which is incredibly important to highlight is Taylor Bridge. It has also fallen down once in the past. I’m not saying that was due to engineering issues, although.... Well, I will say that. The footing squashed out, and the bridge fell down. It could have killed people.

Why I appreciate the latitude to give this preamble is that it is incredibly important to me that we maintain the ability to oversee and to control the profession of engineering. By controlling those standards, we protect lives.

[5:45 p.m.]

What concerns me in this section. Reducing oversight on that one particular clause, or that one particular aspect of software engineering, is concerning to me. It’s deeply concerning. If you look at the

Reducing oversight on that one particular clause, or that one particular aspect of software engineering, is concerning to me. It’s deeply concerning.

If you look at the Max 8 disaster that we all will remember…. That was software engineering. That was software that killed those people. If we look at the future of artificial intelligence or we look at the future of self-driving vehicles…. Self-driving vehicles will be programmed by software engineers.

If we don’t make sure that they are operating to the very highest level of safety and protecting public safety, I have grave, grave concerns about that. I truly do. That bothers me. In fact, when this clause was first brought up, I heard one of my colleagues speak to it in support, and I jumped up pretty quick. This is a very strong thing for me personally.

I’ve also been in contact with the Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia executive, and they have expressed extreme concern, equal to my own, with respect to this clause. I really don’t think that we appreciate that we’re putting public safety and, ultimately, lives at risk by passing this clause.

One of the things that I was provided with from Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. was that one of the major concerns is clarity and public trust. If we start using that title but it’s not regulated…. I know that the government has illustrated that Alberta went down that path. I’m a registered member in Alberta as well, and I’m also aware that Alberta is struggling right now on how to continue regulating all engineers because of the information that’s carried out in this clause.

If memory serves me correctly, I want to say…. I don’t know if memory does serve me correctly. I’m certain it’s over 60,000 registered members for Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. I should have looked that up before I said that. I want to say something like 67,000 or 69,000, but please don’t hold me to that.

Again, it’s incredibly critical to public safety that we protect that title for the simple fact that when a person uses that title, they have been rigorously vetted through an education process, an ongoing training process and an ongoing regulatory process, whereby they’re held to account by people in their own field.

For instance, I’m of a civil background. If I make an error, I’m going to be judged by civil engineers. They are going to know exactly what I did wrong, they’re going to know if I was negligent, and they’re going to punish me appropriately.

Removing that oversight, I think…. Again, giving the examples of the Max 8 and the self-driving vehicles that are around the corner, I’m concerned. I want to express my deepest concern.

That’s the amendment that I will be putting forward. But to go a little bit further, I do really want to get this on the record, because I think this is something that…. If and when this does end up before a justice, it’s important from their perspective, perhaps, to understand what the thought process was behind the implementation or the proposal of this clause.

The code of ethics that, as an engineer, I follow contributes to clarity and public trust. Again, that’s very, very important. With the stamp that I put on a document, I’m taking responsibility for that document. That goes for any work that — I own an engineering company as well — any of my staff…. I have to stamp their work. I take my responsibility very, very seriously. That goes back to my significant concern with this clause. That is going to be removed.

We’ve already talked about the risks to public safety and oversight. I’ve been an incredibly proud engineer for 30 years, and I’m very concerned at what the public perception of engineering will be if this clause does pass. Real world precedents — I’ve already talked about that. We did have an unfortunate…. Well, I already spoke of it, so I’ll just leave it with that.

[5:50 p.m.]

Judicial consistency is another one that should be discussed. Most provinces and international regulators continue to protect engineering titles — across Canada. I was registered originally in Saskatchewan, then Alberta and now British Columbia. Those are all three different colleges. They’re all three different organizations. If I were to work in Nova Scotia, I would have to be registered there as well.

If we remove that

regulators continue to protect engineering titles. Across Canada…. I was registered originally in Saskatchewan, then Alberta and now British Columbia. Those are all three different colleges. They’re all three different organizations. I need to be…. If I were to work in Nova Scotia, I would have to be registered there as well. If we removed that requirement in British Columbia, how does that transfer to other jurisdictions? That would be another concern that I would have.

Policy framework integrity through the Professional Governance Act is meant to be consistent and apply accountable standards across all professions. If we remove that requirement for a very select number of folks within our profession, again, where’s the consistency, and how do we properly allow the regulating body to do their job? That is incredibly important. It’s to protect public safety. How do we allow the regulator to do their job accurately and effectively when we remove their ability to do so? As legislators, I find that to be a pretty grave responsibility.

The other one that I did want to highlight is the impact on B.C.’s education system. We currently have two educational institutions in this province that do offer an accredited software engineering program. If we were to remove this requirement and allow others to come in from other jurisdictions, what does that say to the folks that spent four hard years, five hard years obtaining that degree?

I would further add that there is an opportunity right now within the existing framework where software engineers coming from other jurisdictions can be registered here. Just again, they would be regulated under the auspices of the existing regulatory body. It’s been in place since 1928, I want to say. Excuse me if I got that date wrong, but I do believe that was 1928. Excuse me, 1920. For the record, 1920.

Those would be my major concerns. My question would be: will the minister remove clause 75 from this bill?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Before I give my answer to the member in opposition, I would like to start by introducing the staff that I have with me today. With me from the ministry, I have Tony Loughran, assistant deputy minister; as well as Alayna Van Leeuwen, who is a director of legislation.

These amendments work to clarify regulation-making powers in the Professional Governance Act respecting professional titles. I take to heart the passion that the member has. I have a lot of respect for the work that engineers do, making sure that our built environment is safe, absolutely.

However, the act specifies that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations related to what job titles are reserved for certain professionals, and these amendments will provide clear ability for government to determine what titles are not reserved for.

We are still required to have practice rights, required to be registered and still have the power to enforce authority. All of that will be maintained. These regulation-making authorities are important for government to respond to concerns around industry standard job titles that overlap or conflict with reserve titles under the PGA.

The member did talk about if these amendments will diminish the value of professional credentials, especially in terms of engineers. The answer is no. It will not diminish the value of professional credentials. Nothing is changing for professionals under the PGA, who have worked hard to earn the credentials through many years of education and training, and that entitles them to register with their regulatory body and to use the relevant reserve titles under the regulations. I just wanted to make that clear.

In examples that I have discussed in the House during second reading, it is important that our government supports B.C. employers, businesses and workers. The amendments clarify government’s ability to respond to the concerns raised by the technology sector while maintaining the value of professional engineers in B.C.

The member also did raise a question if these amendments will impact or diminish professional standards, and that was the main concern. The answer is no, as well. It will not diminish or impact professional standards.

Regulatory bodies will retain their existing authority to investigate potential of practice infringement. If a regulation is made to allow people to use the title “software engineer,” for example, that does not give them the authority to practice engineering without a licence. If someone calls themselves a “software engineer,” EGBC would still be able to examine the work performed by the person and determine whether they are practicing the reserve practice of engineering and take enforcement action against them.

Just a very brief example. If an engineering company that was building a bridge were to be hiring someone who may have the title “engineer,” through the interview process, they would have determined if they’re qualified or not and would be hiring the right person with a qualification. If the person said, “I’m a software engineer, and I have been programming for specific data programs,” the employer would realize that this person is not the engineer that they were hiring.

Under these circumstances, it will not diminish the value of professional credentials nor would it impact or diminish professional standards.

[6:00 p.m.]

I will not be accepting any recommendations to clause 75.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

I am a little confused, though. Are we saying then

I will not be accepting any recommendations to clause 75.

Larry Neufeld: Through the Chair, thank you, minister, for that answer. I am a little confused though. Are we saying then that anyone using the title “software engineer” will be forced to register with Engineers and Geosciences B.C. ?

Hon. Anne Kang: Through you Madam Chair, no.

Larry Neufeld: Again, with respect, I would…. With respect — I do respect you — I would reject your previous statements. I strongly believe that this will diminish not only the profession, but it will put public safety at risk by not regulating folks that are using the term “engineer.” I truly do. With respect. I’m not trying to be challenging.

To follow up with my statement, one of the things I would like to talk about is that the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. have opened…. Sorry, I’m going to make sure I get this correct here. The number of enforcement files that have been opened has been staggering and again, my concern here is….

With respect, if we think about the MAX 8 disaster, that was software engineering that caused that. The families that suffered because of the lack of oversight of individuals that were performing that work for a very, very large company, I can’t imagine how I would stand here and look at anyone in the face if it was one of my family members.

And I would also want to believe in my heart that had that person or those individuals that were responsible for it, for that horrific lack of ability to keep humans alive, if they had had the proper amount of oversight, I really wonder if we wouldn’t be telling this horrific story right now.

I’ll get to my question here in a moment.

One of the things that I did want to talk about is…. After I did speak with the very kind folks at Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., again, to get on the record that in one fiscal year they opened 400 enforcement files. They resolved approximately 250 of those files.

Again, back to the situation that we were just talking about, if the government is going to allow software engineering to proceed in this province without the oversight of the professional governance body, what protections will be put in place to ensure public safety?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I understand the member’s concern on the health and safety of using this title. Our government stands behind the safety critical software, which is a standard that EGBC has developed. It takes to heart the issues of practising engineers, and it does make a critical distinction between health and safety and what would not be under the protected title of a practising engineer.

If we take, for example, those who are hired by Electronic Arts, who are, by their employment letter, hired as a software engineer but they’re not able to be called a software engineer, this is where we are trying to provide this opportunity for a new industry which is using a new industry title.

However, we do take in mind that safety critical software is the safety regulation that we are standing behind. There will be…. If the question is how the public will know the difference between a software engineer and an engineer that does not practise engineering, the regulation will allow the use of software engineer with engineering activities that pose risk to public health and safety or the engineer will continue to be within the EGBC’s authority to regulate.

Larry Neufeld: My next question would be: will this government allow software engineers to program self-driving cars to be driven on the roads of British Columbia?

Hon. Anne Kang: I’m not the subject expert on this. It would be…. EGBC would have the jurisdiction over this. It seems to me that to be programming a self-driving car is of critical safety, and those who are a practising engineer would be best fit. But I will leave this to EGBC to decide. It seems to me it’s pretty critical that we have practising engineers programming self-driving cars.

[6:10 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I couldn’t agree more. Again, that’s why I will be proposing this amendment. Speaking with, and I don’t want to put words in folks’ mouths…. Well, perhaps, I’ll ask this question.

programming self-driving cars.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister. I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I will be proposing this amendment. Speaking with.... I don’t want to put words in folks’ mouths, but perhaps I’ll ask this question: what, if any, consultation was there with EGBC on this clause, and what was their response?

Hon. Anne Kang: My ministry has had several conversations with EGBC but no formal consultation, in terms of the legislation that is before us. If we were to be putting a regulation into effect, we would be consulting with EGBC and making sure that we get things right.

However, I would also like to point out that the general public does not hire professional engineers. It is the professional industry that hires professional engineers, and they would be able to differentiate between a software engineer — like someone who works at Electronic Arts — versus someone who is required to build a bridge or a program for a self-driving EV car.

Larry Neufeld: Again, with all due respect, I’ve been a professional engineer for 30 years. I own an engineering company, and I disagree very adamantly with what you just said.

The entire purpose behind a professional governance body, as I stated previously, is to protect human life. I took an oath; my colleague just reminded me of it. When I was awarded my professional engineering status, I took an oath, and my oath was to put human safety first and foremost.

I am exceedingly concerned about this clause. My question to the minister would be.... Well, first and foremost, I will state that I’ve had a number of conversations — I believe I already have stated that — with the regulator.

[6:15 p.m.]

Certainly, I’m hearing something different from the regulator than what I just heard from the minister, with respect to conversations with them and with respect to any type of support. In fact, perhaps I could ask for a recess. I need to have permission to table a letter that has been provided to me that would suggest that the statement I just made is accurate.

back to conversations with them and with respect to any type of support whether…. In fact, perhaps I could ask for a recess? I need to have permission to table a letter that has been provided to me that would suggest that the statement I just made is accurate.

The Chair: Who are you seeking permission from please?

Larry Neufeld: The author of the letter.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Yes.

The Chair: Is the author readily accessed?

Larry Neufeld: Madam Chair, they are not on the precinct, but they are available via telephone or other means.

The Chair: Minister, what are you saying?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don’t think we need to table the quotes. I don’t disagree with the member across the way that protecting the engineering title is important, protecting the practice is important. I don’t disagree with you.

The amendments that we are trying to do, as I have said, will not diminish the value of professional credentials, and it will not impact or diminish professional standards. I just want the member to be aware that the changes we are making will just provide more opportunities for our businesses here, and those who are software engineers, who are working, say, at places like Electronic Arts, to be able to practice here without being penalized because they’re using the title “software engineer.”

The Chair: Just an advisement to the member. Remember that if you do table an amendment, there will be a recess at that time.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. My question is without tabling said documents, my understanding was that this letter, that was sent to me, had been circulated to other MLAs as well. Has the minister received or read a letter from the regulator dated May 9, 2025, that would disagree with her previous statement?

Hon. Anne Kang: The member does not need to table the document. I have it in front of me. Thank you.

Larry Neufeld: Again, I’m not trying to be confrontational here. I do respect you. So please don’t take this in any way personal.

Given her previous statement, would the minister please identify anything in that letter that would support her previous statement?

Hon. Anne Kang: My ministry has had several conversations with EGBC.

[6:20 p.m.]

We will be consulting with them when we get into the regulations to make sure that we get things right.

Larry Neufeld: May I ask the timeline and the veracity of these conversations with EGBC? When did they begin? How many were

Larry Neufeld: May I ask the timeline and the veracity of these conversations with EGBC? When did they begin? How many were there? When did they end?

Hon. Anne Kang: The superintendent of professional governance has been meeting with EGBC quite regularly, and the topic of professional governance and the software engineer topic have come up quite a bit. As well, I myself met with EGBC last month.

Larry Neufeld: With respect, Minister, that didn’t answer my question.

My question was: specific to clause 75, how many times has the ministry met with EGBC, and when did those meetings occur?

Hon. Anne Kang: The ministry did not consult with them in terms of the legislation, but we will be consulting with them during regulation.

Larry Neufeld: Given the gravity of what I hope I’ve done a reasonable job of explaining — what clause 75 could mean to public safety — would the government, would the minister, accept, at minimum, to table this clause until such consultations have been had with the professional governance body who is responsible for protecting the lives and safety of the citizens of British Columbia?

Hon. Anne Kang: I just want to be clear that this particular legislation does not impact public health and safety. It does not change the professional credentials of engineers. It does not diminish the value of professional credentials.

[6:25 p.m.]

I think, perhaps, the member opposite is getting ahead of himself. This repeals and replaces…. The purpose of this section is to add a narrow regulation-making authority for the LGIC to prescribe

the value of professional credentials.

I think perhaps the member opposite is getting ahead of himself. This repeals and replaces…. The purpose of the section adds a narrow regulation-making authority for the LGIC to prescribe narrow exceptions to the prohibition against the use of certain names or titles by non-registrants. But there is no change to professional engineering or the health and safety of what the member across is referring to.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister. Again, with respect, I could not disagree more. I truly could not disagree more

I would ask the minister again to refer to the letter that she has in front of her, and perhaps after she’s referred to that letter, would she prefer to answer that question a second time please.

Hon. Anne Kang: Asked and answered.

Larry Neufeld: At this point, I would like to submit an amendment to the bill. That amendment would be to remove clause 75. The protection of public safety is paramount. I can’t vote for this. I would like to submit an amendment, please.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess while we review the amendment for admissibility and make copies for everybody, so we’ll convene shortly. Please don’t go too far.

The committee recessed from 6:27 p.m. to 6:44 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:27 p.m. to 6:44 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee on the Whole for Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, back to order.

We are currently on clause 75. An amendment has been proposed by the member for Peace River South. I’d like to invite the member to speak to the proposed amendment.

On the amendment.

Larry Neufeld: I do want to correct the record. Prior to the break, I had indicated that I was going to be submitting an amendment to remove clause 75. I did make a different decision, and as we’ll all see and have all read, this is actually an amendment to add a 30-day public consultation period to any proposed regulation prior. Why don’t I just go on to my statement?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hopefully, I have done a reasonable job of illustrating how incredibly important the protection of public safety is and how incredibly important it is to protect the title of “engineer” in that respect. Having said that, I will get to the amendment. This amendment proposes to require public consultation should the

illustrating how incredibly important that the protection of public safety is and how incredibly important it is to protect the title of “engineer” in that respect.

Having said that, I will get to the amendment. This amendment proposes to require public consultation should the Lieutenant Governor in Council wish to consider regulations regarding reserved titles and reserved practice, exclusivity of reserved titles and right of practice of reserved practice, prohibition and limitation, use of reserved titles, prohibitions regarding reserved practice.

I would go on to further state that on this side of the House we believe there is a reason these titles are currently reserved titles. Again, I hopefully have done a reasonable job of explaining that.

This amendment does not prevent the government from choosing to make regulations, however it does mandate that they are required to consult before these changes are made. It is our belief that if the government wishes to make changes to the title around “engineer,” then they should be consulting with other engineers.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Thank you, Member for your proposal. After reviewing the amendment in consultation with the Clerk’s office, I have determined and that it is out of order as it is illogical with the legislation as drafted.

Larry Neufeld: I don’t want to belabour it too long, but I do have one final question with respect to clause 75. Through the Chair to the minister, is there any intention to add or eliminate any further protected titles or protected professions?

Hon. Anne Kang: This legislation gives LGIC the power for regulations for protected titles, but not for reserved practice. So that question would be a bit more premature than it is. But I have committed to consulting with relevant parties when we propose regulations.

[6:50 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

Through the Chair, I would like to ask one final time why the ministry did not consult with the engineering regulator on something of this level of importance prior to including it in a legislative bill. Thank you.

time why the ministry did not consult with the engineering regulator on something of this level of importance prior to including it in a legislative bill?

Hon. Anne Kang: This legislation is enabling legislation, and we will be consulting with relevant parties during regulation.

Larry Neufeld: What mechanism would we be able to expect to ensure that the voices and the grave concerns that are in the letter in front of you are, in fact, taken into account when the ministry consults with the professional practice regulator?

Hon. Anne Kang: The usual process that we would take is to be showing the relevant parties a consultation draft under an NDA.

Hon. Anne Kang: Is that process available to members of this House in writing?

Larry Neufeld: I have answered the question into the record that relevant parties will be consulted during regulation to the bill. The process is set up by cab ops, so I don’t have anything that is written in front of me.

Larry Neufeld: May we have a list of relevant parties, please?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: That has not been determined yet, but we will definitely include the

Hon. Anne Kang: That has not been determined yet, but we will definitely include the six regulators under the Professional Governance Act.

[7:00 p.m.]

The committee resumed at 7:04 p.m.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall clause 75 pass?

[7:05 p.m.]

Clause 75 approved on the following division: YEAS — 6, NAYS — 5. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

On clause 76.

Larry Neufeld: A couple of questions on this one. Why does the cabinet need to establish new classes, and what does this mean, specifically in terms of decisions or activities?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. The purpose of this section is just to move the regulation-making authority of subsection 119(c) into the new subsection 119(d), replacing the content of 119(c) with a new subsection that allows the LGIC to “establish classes of establish classes of persons, entities, regulatory bodies, places, things, decisions, transactions or activities.”

This section also adds to the existing list of categories in subsection 119(d), formerly 119(c), to align with the new list of categories in the new section 119(c). It’s important, for the overall operation of a legislative scheme such as this one, to be able to regulate classes of persons, regulatory bodies, places, etc. This amendment makes that power explicit. This power is very routinely included in modern statutes.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Does this legislation require consultation prior to cabinet establishing different regulation for different classes and individuals? If not, why?

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: This amendment here is simply housekeeping. It’s quite routine. These authorities are very commonly included in modern statutes.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

What I would ask is: why does it allow for cabinet to make this decision without legislative oversight?

Hon. Anne Kang: This amendment makes changes to the act. It does not provide cabinet with regulation-making power.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the minister and, in particular, staff. I know I’m passionate about engineering. I’m not going to apologize for my passion, but if it did come across a little more assertive than I intended, then I do apologize for that.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your staff. That’s the end of my questions.

Clauses 76 and 77 approved.

The Chair: Before we move on to part 4, the Water, Land and Resource Stewardship amendments, let’s take the briefest of recess to ensure the minister and her team can get seated.

The committee recessed from 7:13 p.m. to 7:16 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7:13 p.m. to 7:16 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, back to order.

We are on clause 78.

On clause 78.

Donegal Wilson: I’m excited that we are turning attention to Water, Land and Resource Stewardship amendments. I know we’ve both been waiting for this since yesterday. I want to appreciate that the staff have waited around for most of the day — and I really do appreciate that — as the other members worked through their sections.

Requesting a little latitude from the minister, I have some questions overall that I think will help us get through the clauses faster, if the minister is willing to entertain that. Can you identify why you felt the need to add measures for aquatic invasive species to the Wildlife Act rather than leaving it in regulation where it lives today?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks for the question. I just want to introduce my team really quickly, because as you said, Member, it’s wonderful that they’ve been around here for the last two days. So James Mack, ADM for water, fisheries and coast division for WLRS; Martina Beck, invasive fauna unit head, water, fisheries and coast division, WLRS; Pam Doerksen, director of strategic initiatives, resource stewardship division, WLRS; and Sonja Sun, legal counsel, Ministry of the Attorney General. Thank you so much.

This is a really proactive move, because of the threat and, particularly, the threat of invasive mussels coming into Idaho recently. We wanted to be incredibly proactive and provide clear authority and have the mandate to be able to get people to stop. This gives us the authority to follow through when they stop or if they don’t stop.

[7:20 p.m.]

Yeah, I think I’ll leave it there.

Donegal Wilson: I want to be clear that I am in support of these amendments. You have a letter in your office from me requesting this.

they don’t stop. I think I’ll leave it there.

Donegal Wilson: I want to be clear that I am in support of these amendments. You have a letter in your office from me requesting this. My questions today are purely around whether this is the best way to achieve the goals, and it should not be perceived in any way of not being in support of what we’re trying to achieve.

What I heard, I think, is that you cannot achieve what you’re trying to do with regulation only. Is that true? It has to be in the Wildlife Act; it can’t be achieved through regulation.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes. My last answer was fuzzy. Thank you for asking again. Basically, your question of could we have done this under the current regulations, we could have still done it but without the proper enforcement measures that we needed.

This bill is proposing amendments to the Wildlife Act to establish legislative authority alongside the enhanced enforcement measures to proactively prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in B.C.

We’re creating the authorities to allow the regulation to be made in this instance. These amendments will also allow the province to define and designate aquatic invasive species. They’ll also establish legislative authorities to enforce the pull-the-plug that requires all boats and water equipment travelling in B.C. to have the drain plugs be pulled before moving over land from one body of water to another. Also, amendments to establish legislative authorities to require any watercraft being transported in B.C. to stop at any open watercraft inspection station.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

It clarifies authorities needed for officers to enforce the existing invasive mussel defence program as well, undertaken in partnership with WLRS and Ministry of the Environment. It also includes the relevant offences for non-compliance to the proposed authorities.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer. I definitely understand the goals that we’re trying to achieve. Are you concerned that the amendments that you have proposed may be too prescriptive? The fact that they live in the act and not in regulation means you need to bring that back to the Legislature to make changes, even to a word or punctuation. Is what you’ve put in here too prescriptive to allow you to pivot to what’s needed to be done?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. I think the short answer to your question — is it too prescriptive? — is no. The only kind of prescriptive one is the legislation to stop and inspect.

We think this legislation is basically where it needs to be. And where we think we do need flexibility and discretion, then we can do that through regulation.

Donegal Wilson: I personally think it’s pretty prescriptive and that you’re going to find that we will be back here. I look forward to the discussion.

Can you provide a list of organizations that were consulted or helped assist with the drafting of this legislation? I imagine they were probably under NDA, but if you can provide that list, it would be good.

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: In terms of the actual drafting of the legislation, the government did that, but we have been running this program for the last

Hon. Randene Neill: In terms of the actual drafting of the legislation, the government did that, but we have been running this program for the last ten years, so we have had a lot of feedback and a lot of consultation.

I do have a list of probably 50 organizations that we spoke to, which I can read out to put in the record or we can share with you afterwards.

Donegal Wilson: In the interest of everyone’s time we can maybe just have that afterwards. I believe you, Minister.

Were there any changes made to these amendments based on what the minister heard from those conversations? I heard that it was probably drafted based on those consultations and going forward, but I’m just wondering if there were any specific changes that were made based on what they heard from stakeholders.

Hon. Randene Neill: I think that we can safely say yes. All of the legislation that was made was based on feedback, was based on concerns that people had. It was based on the threat of these invasives coming closer to B.C. and our attempt to keep them out of this province.

You asked for specifics. For example, one was we specifically created the authority to enable mandatory inspections of watercraft from outside provincial jurisdictions. That was something we heard a lot, so that is something that we specifically crafted because of suggestions made to us.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the minister’s allowance to kind of divert and do some all-encompassing questions. I think that will allow us to move a lot quicker, so I appreciate that.

Specifically on clause 78, can the ministry share why we’re defining aquatic invasive species separately from controlled alien species?

[7:35 p.m.]

alien species?

Hon. Randene Neill: The term “controlled alien species” is wide and broad, and the term “aquatic invasive species” is actually a subgroup of controlled alien species that enables us to tailor and create specific legislation.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Were there any other definitions that the minister or ministry considered while drafting this legislation? As we go through it, there’s a lot of repetition about boats and airplanes. It repeats through every clause. Was there some thought around how to use definitions to clean it up, so that it was cleaner legislation?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question as well. We can always be more efficient, but because this is a miscellaneous bill, and what this legislation is doing is urgent and targeted, we did want to be very specific to what we mean. There are lots of different types of watercraft; we wanted to avoid ambiguity.

Also, this legislation is specific for authorities as well, right? In case it’s a floating dock, a kayak, a paddleboard or anything, it’s listing that out again and again. Repetition helps create the certainty of what it is that we’re talking about. That’s why that was chosen.

Clause 78 approved.

On clause 79.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. I will just share that I did try to draft some definitions to try to clean it up, but we would have been here for the next week then, cleaning everything else up after it. So I did not introduce that.

Under clause 79, what is the process by which a species will be designated as “aquatic invasive”?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: The species will be designated through a regulation change.

Donegal Wilson: This appears to be focused specifically towards invasive mussels. But the reality is we have whirling disease. We have milfoil and many other invasive aquatics.

Does this definition in the regulation, I think you said…? Will we be able to redefine all those other aquatic invasives in there as well?

Hon. Randene Neill: The newly proposed section 6.4 allows the minister to make regulations that can designate a non-native animal or fish species as a controlled alien species or a controlled alien species that is an aquatic alien species.

WLRS, specifically, deals with aquatic invasives — with fauna, not flora, like milfoil, you suggested, as plants. Also, we can’t specifically designate diseases, just species.

Clause 79 approved.

On clause 80.

Donegal Wilson: This is a pretty big clause, and it gets into some of that unwieldly that I was talking about, of repetition of what is a boat, trailer, fishing wharves, docks. It comes through several times in this section and further on. I will just put on the record that I think there was a cleaner way to do that.

Will these changes in clause 80 align us with our neighbouring jurisdictions, or will we be different?

Interjection.

Donegal Wilson: I just want to know if we’re aligning with our neighbouring jurisdictions or being different or, should I say, leading.

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I think the common consensus is that we are in step with all the other western provinces and states.

In fact, we all work really actively together to ensure that we stop and reduce the spread in the states and the provinces where it’s already been detected, in terms of mussels, and in provinces in B.C. where it hasn’t been detected to actually make sure that it doesn’t take hold here.

Donegal Wilson: Part of this work, 6.5(2), is being repealed and replaced. I just want to read 6.5(2).

It says: “In making regulations under subsection (1), the minister may do one or more of the following: define classes of controlled alien species; make different regulations for different controlled alien species or classes of controlled alien species; delegate a matter to a person; or confer a discretion on a person.”

We’ve changed that, and we’ve added two more sections. When I read 6.5(2), you’ve already defined the subclass of aquatic invasive. Wouldn’t the existing act cover what we need to do without adding all of the sections thereafter?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I’ll just read the first sentence, 6.5(2). It allows for the minister to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements for driving, operating, shipping or transporting motor or other vehicles and aircraft designed to land on water — for example, float planes or a boat.

In short answer to your question, we

it allows for the minister to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements for driving, operating, shipping or transporting motor or other vehicles and aircraft designed to land on water, for example, float planes, or a boat.

In short answer to your question, we needed new authorities here. We simply didn’t have the authorities to regulate without this new legislation.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. I respectfully think that the 6.5(2) existing could have been expanded. It gave you the powers to make regulation, to delegate a matter, to confer discretion. We could have added, maybe, a line in there around the authority to inspect. Regardless, can you define “thing” it refers to or “a thing referred to in this paragraph” that is in 2(b)(v)?

Hon. Randene Neill: The “thing” referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) would be a boat trailer, any item used for fishing, a wharf or dock, any item used for water-based activities or any equipment associated with an aircraft designed to land on water, or a boat.

Donegal Wilson: Can you explain the difference between 2(a) and 2(b) to me? I’m not really understanding the difference — one’s driving, operating; one’s shipping or transporting. Typically, with a boat, when you’re driving, you’re also transporting. I’m a little confused. If we could have some clarification between the difference between 2(a) and 2(b).

Hon. Randene Neill: So (a) refers to vehicles or driving, and our team actually used the motion for a steering wheel for part (a). And for part (b), they’re water-related equipment, typically non-motorized, like a boat trailer, an item used for fishing, a dock or different items used for water-based activities.

Donegal Wilson: On (3), do we currently have an inspection record that is given to people when they go through our stations?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Okay, so how we kind of relate to this is as a risk management. Right now, we don’t currently have any. But for example, if we do have a vehicle that has some suspicious-looking mussels on it and we decontaminate it, we will issue a certificate or a record of decontamination, and we will keep a record of that. But that is as far as we go at this point.

Donegal Wilson: How long would that decontamination be considered good? If they were decontaminated in Golden and three days later are at Okanagan Lake, would they just be showing that and continuing on? Or would they be re-inspected?

Hon. Randene Neill: For example, if a boat is decontaminated and it hasn’t left the province, then…. We don’t have any invasive mussels right now in our province, so we don’t require that boat to go through another decontamination. However, they are always required to stop, as part of the mandatory legislation, at any inspection points. They’re also required to clean, drain and dry their boat.

I would just go above and beyond this legislation. This is part of our education campaign, as well — just getting people to understand that the last thing we want is invasive species in this province, so we all have to do our best to keep them out.

Donegal Wilson: Do these amendments, then, support if we did have a case where a lake had become infected with invasive mussels? Would we be able to pivot and be able to decontaminate and do different measures, based on what we have here today?

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: This does actually allow us to pivot. Right now, we’re really focused on the borders and preventing invasives from coming into the province, but if it was detected in a lake, then we can pivot and set up a parameter or a containment around that lake. That is very consistent with other jurisdictions as well.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the answer and that we are able to be nimble if need be.

Looking at section 4(c), can you provide an example of why we would exclude a person or item?

Hon. Randene Neill: Quite simply, this was put in for emergency measures, emergency services equipment, a water bomber in the case of a wildfire. That’s why this clause would exclude a person in a vehicle or aircraft, that sort of thing.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you, that makes sense.

To the minister: will the government provide any transition supports or guidance for the public about these amendments?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I think the simple answer is we are doing our best with communications and education around this.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yeah, I think the simple answer is that we are doing our best with communications and education around this. We’ve been doing, as we mentioned, the invasive mussel defence program for over a decade. Embedded in that are communication and education to update the public. That’s part of the “Clean, drain, dry” as well.

We’ve got signs up on the highway and at inspection stations, and at boat launches as well. Local governments, anglers, different angling organizations, outdoor rec groups and boating groups have been such great partners in letting people know and spreading the word as well. We’ve been working, as well, with other jurisdictions, western provinces and states, to have similar language and communication in education around this.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that, Minister. Will these amendments have any adverse effects on industry? You had mentioned guided fishing, all of that. How are we managing the industry side of it?

Hon. Randene Neill: There is no cost to industry; in fact, industry just stands to benefit from this legislation. They know, all too well, the threat of invasives coming into B.C.

We’ve done studies on this, where there’s up to $129 million a year in impact on our economy if invasive mussels come here. There is a severe economic impact to industry if invasives come here, but none if we keep them out, with this legislation and with the public’s help.

Donegal Wilson: Will the ministry be working with those industry partners to ensure that there are best practices put in place for how they are decontaminating fishing gear and things they’re bringing into our water systems?

Hon. Randene Neill: Good question. I didn’t know the answer to this. Yes, absolutely, we’re working with commercial fishermen and outfitters, etc., for decontamination protocols, which we’ve got on our website and we’re sharing with all of industry. By all accounts, they’re eager to work through this to keep the invasives out of our waters.

Donegal Wilson: The last thing. I don’t know whether it was just my printed copy, but (4)(c) appears to have an extra period. I don’t know if that’s just in the online version or in all versions.

Clauses 80 to 83 inclusive approved.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main chamber. We will take a short recess and reconvene when that is complete.

The committee recessed from 8:10 p.m. to 8:29 p.m.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main chamber, so we will take a short recess and reconvene when that is complete.

The committee recessed from 8:10 p.m. to 8:29 p.m.

The committee recessed from 8:10 p.m. to 8:29 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, back to order.

On clause 84.

Donegal Wilson: One question I want to hit on is, I know we’re in a rush, what fail-safes have been put in place to ensure that the public is not unduly stopped with such broad language?

Interjection.

The Chair: Recognizing the Member for Boundary-Similkameen to please repeat the question.

[8:30 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m just looking to know what fail-safes we’ve put into place to ensure that the public is not unduly stopped with such broad language as in the act?

Donegal Wilson: I’m just looking to know what fail-safes we’ve put into place to ensure that the public is not unduly stopped with such broad language as in the act.

Hon. Randene Neill: The inspection authorities for officers are very, very specific to identifying and stopping the spread of invasives within B.C. through vectors of transportation. This is intended to limit the scope to operate within program parameters and set the guard rails.

Donegal Wilson: What steps have we put in place regarding coordinating with Border Services on our U.S. border, and then as well as what we’re doing along the Alberta border?

Hon. Randene Neill: We do work very closely with CBSA. We’ve been working closely with them ever since the invasive mussel defence program started about a decade ago. They will actually notify us in some cases when boats are coming across the border. They assist us in setting up inspection points — for example, at the Osoyoos border crossing.

And then we have what we call a perimeter defence approach with other provinces and western states wherein if an invasive mussel is found in, say, Saskatchewan, they will alert all the neighbouring provinces and areas so we’re all on the same page, and we’re all working together.

Donegal Wilson: How will enforcement capacity be scaled to cover peak traffic periods?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: In the summer months, starting May long weekend until October, we are full-scale operations. We track what we need for full-scale operations with compliance. We track how many vehicles we stop each year. And then at the beginning of each year, we set off the program based on the data from last year to ensure that we have the people power that we need and the dog power to be able to sniff out invasives.

Donegal Wilson: Just leaning back into the work we did in estimates, making sure that the budget is also there to ensure that we have these boots on the ground…. I have this fear of having…. In the Okanagan, when you see so many boats that could be lined up and creating traffic jams and things like that. So I think it’s really important that we have the boots on the ground.

Can the minister assure us that we have the budget to implement what’s in this act for this boating season?

Hon. Randene Neill: You’re right, this is something that we did canvas at estimates. We do have the budget to run this program this year as well as support implementation of the legislation. As we mentioned at estimates, this isn’t just a provincial issue, it’s a national issue. So we always encourage the federal government to take part in this program as well. And now that we have a new cabinet, that’ll be one of our first calls to see if we can get them to help us endorse a national program and kick in some funds to really fight the invasives in the country.

Clauses 84 to 86 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Donegal Wilson: I just wanted to thank the minister and her staff for hanging out all day again. I really do appreciate it. And the promptness of your answers to my questions was appreciated. Thank you.

Hon. Randene Neill: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:39 p.m.