Hansard — Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 78

I am pleased to introduce the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. This bill amends the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

The proposed Insurance (Vehicle) Act amendments ensure that the province retains the reimbursements made by the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, ICBC, since the early 1970s for health-related services costs arising out of vehicle accidents.

The bill also includes amendments to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act relating to the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia as a property guardian for children.

When the Public Guardian and Trustee is a property guardian for children, the Public Guardian and Trustee is responsible for protecting the legal and financial interests of those children. The amendments will support the PGT in this role by consolidating, updating and clarifying the public property guardianship framework and responding to practical challenges faced by the PGT.

Amendments will also provide greater consistency in the application of the framework to all circumstances where the Public Guardian and Trustee is property guardian for children and will ensure that the public property guardianship services are equitably available to all children in the province that may require them.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[1:35 p.m.]

Bill 22 — Statutes Act

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Statutes Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Statutes Act. This bill makes online versions of acts and consolidations official under the Evidence Act, which means that people will be able to use, for evidentiary purposes, online versions of statutes and consolidations accessed through a government website.

This is another step in government’s ongoing work to improve and modernize access to justice for all people in British Columbia. Currently only printed copies of acts published by the King’s Printer can technically be presented as evidence of the law. Under this new Statutes Act, official versions of the acts and consolidations published online by the King’s Printer can also be used for evidentiary purposes.

Users will be able to present official copies of acts on their electronic device or printed from a home printer as evidence of legislation. Official printed versions would still be available from the King’s Printer on request, but the option of accessing official legislation online places more power in the hands of individuals, making it easier to obtain material that can be used in evidence in people’s interactions with the justice system, with business and with each other.

The bill tells the story of legislative publishing in B.C., providing clear descriptions of publishing relationships and responsibilities and setting out current and long-standing practices for the publication and consolidation of acts enacted by the Legislature.

It also updates the Queen’s Printer Act, the Interpretation Act and the Evidence Act to accommodate the new official status of statutes and consolidations published online.

Finally, the bill enables accessibility features like hypertext links and alternative text and information features like not-in-force notions and historical references in official versions of legislation, improving user experience without legal impact. These features help to ensure that our access to justice benefits from recent advances in publishing while providing enough flexibility to accommodate future accessibility in digital information technologies.

The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Regulations Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Regulations Act. This bill updates the existing Regulations Act. As the bill for the Statutes Act makes online versions of statutes and consolidations official, this bill makes online versions of regulations and consolidations official under the Evidence Act.

This means that people will be able to use, for evidentiary purposes, online versions of regulations and consolidations accessed through a government website.

This also continues the government’s work to improve and modernize access to justice for all people.

The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I am calling second reading on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

The Speaker: In the House?

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Of course, absolutely.

The Speaker: We’ll give it to you.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: In Committee A, I call the continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

[1:40 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Well, thank you, Members. We will call this House back to order, and we will continue Bill 12 debate, which is the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act of 2025.

Recognizing the member for Abbotsford South.

I guess we’ve got a little confusion going on here this afternoon.

Bruce Banman: I do apologize. I thought the previous speaker reserved their right to continue to speak, but I guess they’re declining. They’ve said all they want to say.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Continue.

Bruce Banman: As I’ve said before, it’s always an honour and a privilege to stand up and talk about the business of this, especially when it comes to this particular bill in front of the House or legislation in front of the House.

For those that don’t know, I’m an avid gearhead. Maybe I’m a dinosaur, but I absolutely grew up in that era where the automobile and motorcycles…. Pretty much anything with an engine on it was something that was…. I could hardly wait to get my driver’s licence. I think I was…. Day two after I turned 16, I was taking the course.

Having said that…. This party, the Conservative Party, actually is in full agreement to streamline the system that we have in front of us now. Let’s just start off with that. We want to streamline it. We want to improve it. We want to improve not only the timelines and the frustrations that I have heard from many of those going through this system. But probably the single most important thing is that we want to improve safety.

My wife relayed a story to me where a father came into her office and broke down and cried because his son had succumbed to his injuries in a single-vehicle accident.

Making sure that we protect the most precious thing that we have, our children, this party is in 100 percent agreement with. We need to make sure when someone is on the road that they are competent and that they are safe and that they are not going to risk injury to themselves or others.

Road accidents. I was a chiropractor. I saw the aftermath of accidents. Sometimes as simple as a low-velocity-impact, rear-end collision had devastating consequences.

So this party is in full agreement on How we make our roads actually safer. However, where we do disagree is in creating a system that’s confusing, that lacks consistency and that is open to one of the worst things, especially in this House — political manipulation.

This, of all things, should not be about political manipulation. It should be really about safety. And well, I would hate to see it become confusing, inconsistent and open to political manipulation instead of common sense, competence and, most importantly, fairness. It has to be competent and fair.

Now, I’ve been going through the abridged notes that we do have. Let’s start with a couple of things. The amendments give ICBC the power to compare out-of-province licences and offences within the B.C. system.

[1:45 p.m.]

Well, if you’re coming from out of province and you want to get a licence, and considering that we have a single…. There aren’t really a lot of options for insurance. I think that that is something that’s important.

If you’ve had four DUIs or whatever or you caused multiple accidents in another jurisdiction, I believe that ICBC should have the ability to know that, regardless of where that jurisdiction may be from. Most commonly it’s going to be from across Canada and other provinces, but with the immigration as it is, we could also be looking at infractions from other parts of the world.

I believe that ICBC having the ability to compare and determine risk is important, within limits. I’m sure when we get into the next stage of this bill, we’ll be able to discuss those.

It also, which I think could potentially be a good thing for streamlining, no longer requires mandatory testing. People will only have to take tests if required by ICBC. Well, that’s a bit of an issue perhaps. ICBC, once again, is being put in as the judge and jury, and it may or may not pass the commonsense test in some cases.

I would look forward to what’s going to be in the next stage of the bill. What does that actually mean, and how does that actually play out? I’m sure that we will have some comments and some questions with regards to that.

The bill will reduce the requirement of road tests for novice drivers to get their class 5, which is their full licence. Well, what does that mean? I heard the previous speaker actually talk about modernizing this system. I could not agree with her more. We need to modernize the system.

But let’s go back to…. The bill will reduce the requirement of road tests for novice drivers to get their class 5 full licence. Well, if we go back to competence, would it make sense perhaps…? Defensive driving is a course that was available when I was younger, and I did not take it at the time. Perhaps I should have. I know on at least one occasion I would have avoided an accident.

I know right now I am looking up…. My head is on a swivel because I don’t know where people are, what they’re about to do.

I take a look when I get in the car with my grandchildren, who are…. Well, they’ve been driving now for a while, but I’ve got another one that will be learning pretty soon. I’m pointing out: “Look out. That car that’s stopped right there, you don’t know if they’re going to pull out or not. Is that car going to turn in front of you?” There are many things that you learn that actually can be taught in a defensive driving course.

When I was younger, I had aspirations of being a race car driver — in particular, a rally driver, because I think they’re the finest drivers in the world. How to handle a car when things go wrong is actually important.

I remember my daughter, when I taught her how to drive, had a problem driving in snow, especially in the Lower Mainland. It’s not like snow in other places. You drive four cars over it, you might as well be out there with an ice polisher, polishing it up. It gets pretty slick because we get a different kind of snow. It’s got a lot more water and more humidity in it.

What I did with her, because she got into a car and it started going…. The rear end started to come out, and she did absolutely everything wrong. So we went out into an abandoned parking lot, because it was slow, had not been plowed, and I taught her how to control a car when it starts to go into a skid. It was safe. It was controlled. There are classes that you can do that.

If we want to actually protect those that are getting behind the wheel of a car, especially as we now have autonomous driving and everything else that’s coming along down the pike, are we teaching driving skills? Are we teaching what to do when you hit a patch of oil on the road after a long dry spell and it gets rainy? Your car starts to go out of control. Do we actually teach people what to do?

[1:50 p.m.]

We’ve seen that TV show Canada’s Worst Driver, where they do exactly that. We’ve all seen it.

One of the things maybe we should look at is that instead of reducing what we’re doing, is there a way that we could actually improve the overall competency of those that get behind the wheel of a vehicle? I can tell you, in talking to some of the truck-driving organizations, it would be something they would support as well. We did something similar with 18-wheelers, where we increased the requirements of what is required to get in behind the wheel of a big rig.

Should we also be looking at something like this? In return, if you have passed a course like this, should there also be a lowered insurance rate? There is a correlation, my understanding, between those who have taken these types of courses and their safety on the road.

Maybe we should be looking at, in order to help subsidize those courses, or maybe they should be part of our curriculum in schools, like they used to be at one point…. You know, there was a point, actually, where you got your driver’s licence…. If you didn’t learn how to drive on a standard, there was actually a restriction on your driver’s licence. You weren’t allowed to drive one. Then that got lost. That got disappeared.

Now a standard is pretty rare. I mean, go try and find a vehicle now that has a standard in it. Most people don’t want to drive them. I prefer that. Like I said, I’m a bit of a dinosaur, and I’m old school that way. But maybe that’s something we should be looking at.

The other thing that’s working on this is the amendments will allow cabinet to approve a driver’s education course given by a driver training school licensed under the regulations, which is where I was talking about with regards to this bill.

What exactly does that mean? How does it play out? How are we going to…? Are we going to inadvertently actually create other regulations to be able to…? Who’s going to police those that are teaching? Will they be able to actually say that they have passed in some remote areas of the province?

I know that there were kids that were talking about…. They would book a licence in Nanaimo or Victoria when they lived on the Lower Mainland to try and jump the queue. Is this one of the things that government is going to look at, that if you do take one of these courses, that driving school be able to then say you are proficient and graduate you so that you don’t actually have to take the driving course?

Does that now mean that we have to police the schools? We’ll have to have some way of knowing that whoever the instructor is, is actually competent. It’s not like, you know: “My uncle twice removed — with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge — just gave me the ability to get the ticket.” How are we going to make sure that it’s fair and that those that are in there are competent and that it’s transparent?

The amendments allow for a regulatory power regarding driver’s education courses that shorten wait times for novice drivers to get their full licence. Okay, I can see how that could be an advantage. But with most families a couple hundred bucks away from being able to pay their bills every month, how much is the course going to cost? Is it going to put some of us at a disadvantage, and are we going to create a dual system for the haves and the have-nots?

How are we going to apply this? I go back to maybe a discount on the insurance if you do complete that. That can somehow, perhaps, level that playing field a bit. How is that going to look? What’s it going to be in the recommendations?

Should we be shortening that time at all? One of the things, when it talks about the N driver’s licence, is it’s based on…. I wrote this down. It is now subject to “the length of time a person has held a valid driver’s licence issued under this act or in another jurisdiction.”

[1:55 p.m.]

All right, so let’s just play this out. I’m in another jurisdiction, or here, for that matter. I pass my driver’s test, and I don’t own a car, or mom and dad won’t let me drive the car, or I don’t want to drive. I talk to a lot of youth. They don’t want to drive. They take transit almost everywhere, but they want to get the driver’s licence.

It absolutely says nothing in here about whether or not you’ve actually been behind the wheel of a vehicle. How would you measure that? I get that it’s difficult to measure, but the length of time a person has held a valid driver’s licence isn’t really the same as the length of time someone has actually sat in the seat and driven a car. There’s a huge stopgap there as to whether or not someone is safe. It’s like any other motor skill, like learning how to dribble a basketball or play golf or anything else where there is eye-hand coordination. It’s a skill, and you get rusty.

I can tell you from my own personal experience, when I get behind…. I’ve got an old Triumph that I restored that I bought when I was in my 20s. It takes me a few minutes to remember how to drive that thing. It’s not like hopping in the Hyundai with automatic. It’s got an electric overdrive. It doesn’t have power steering. It doesn’t have ABS brakes. It’s kind of primitive.

For the first little bit, you’ve got to go: “Oh yeah, that’s right. I forgot. There’s no synchro in first gear.” For those at home, that’s that thing so you don’t smash the gears going into first gear. That’s what synchronized gears do. There’s no grinding of the gears in first gear. You have to remember all of those things, especially if you are coming to a stop. You can’t just put it in first.

With regards to this, if you have just held a driver’s licence, that really does not correlate to how safe you are or how much time you have actually been on the road. I don’t think it’s the gold standard of measurement for this. I’m sure that some of this will get pounded out throughout as we go through the committee stage. I hope.

Some of the concerns that this side of the House has are: has this become excessive delegation of power? Are we now allowing ICBC and/or the government too much power to be able to make simple changes? Section 23 and 25 actually hand over a significant regulatory authority to ICBC and the cabinet without any legislative oversight in this House.

Now, from a government’s perspective, it’s way easier if you don’t have to talk to the House. But if you’re going to make some changes, there are some times that it should require debate within this House.

There is vagueness and uncertainty. We’ve got terms in here such as “prescribed classes” and “prescribed considerations.” They’re not well defined. Worse than that, they could just be arbitrarily applied depending on who’s the one that’s deciding what they mean.

Then, as I was mentioning, there’s competency. I think the gold standard should be competency. When you get behind the wheel….

For those that get their licence late in life or come from an area at a later stage in life where they’ve never really been behind the wheel of a vehicle or sat in a passenger seat much, you learn things from the other drivers, such as simple courtesies, which often are not part of a test. Simple courtesies like letting someone merge properly, pulling over into the right-hand lane when you’re not passing — you don’t just blindly sit in that lane and drive forever — and letting people go ahead when a yield is really not necessary and is just common courtesy.

Look at the fights people get into at Christmastime trying to find a parking spot, as an example of the loss of common courtesy.

[2:00 p.m.]

Competency versus convenience. It shouldn’t just be because, you know what, we built this system, and now we don’t know how we’ve got so many wait-lists because we’re not managing it properly. We’re going to have to change the system just because we can’t manage it.

Maybe there are better ways of managing the system. Maybe the problem isn’t the process that’s in place but the fact that we never made accommodations to figure out how to manage it.

Then what we’re going to do is: “Well, we don’t know how to manage it properly, so we’re going to remove mandatory testing.” What’s that going to do? Potentially, drastically reduce and lower standards. We’re actually going to end up with, potentially, more dangerous drivers on the road than less, because what we’re looking for is expedience versus competence.

The impact on young drivers…. You know what? Lowering the self-application age from 19 to 18 — that’s okay. But part of that, in return for that…. I believe it should come with stronger training and monitoring if you’re going to do that.

Again, as I said, my wife often talks about this man, the guilt that was on him because he bought his son a car. The car had actually too much horsepower for a brand-new driver. He did what kids do, which is to push a limit, and it cost this child, this young man, his life. That father has to carry that burden.

We don’t want to lower standards. The goal is to actually make the roads safer. I believe that the focus should actually be on the competence of the person behind the wheel, not making it faster. If the system is too slow, and it’s not helping standards at all, then maybe we need to look at the entire system of that.

It shouldn’t just be time served, because who says you got behind the wheel of a car at all since you’ve had your driver’s licence and/or a completion of a course? The course may or may not be an effective course. They’re looking at figuring out what these driving schools are, what’s going to be included in the course. I believe that’s all good, but we need to figure out exactly what that means.

Now, then, you get into what’s fair and what’s equitable. All right. You have exemptions for those holding licences before this bill takes effect. Should we be looking at retroactivity in this bill? Now based on a dateline, you could all of a sudden have two classes of numbers.

You could have two children in the same family — because we have many, many blended families or twins even — one has taken the course prior to and has their licence, and one does not. That’s going to create some problems. Should we be looking at making this fair and retroactive so it’s not just a cold dateline? You end up with two classes underneath this law.

Then this government, I think, also has an obligation to explain why some drivers, which it mentions in the legislation, are going to be subject to stricter rules while others are just going to be grandfathered in. Again, it potentially could create two classes of drivers. If the goal is to make our roads safer, which this side of the House agrees with, is this really the proper way to do that?

This government has a history of not being the most transparent and lacking the ability to put in oversight. Let’s face it. That’s just pesky. That’s troublesome when you’re government. You don’t want that. You don’t want somebody peeking in your drawer to see how clean it is and what’s going on in there. “Hey, hey. Nothing to see here. Just move along. Just do what we tell you.”

It doesn’t work well for a lot of us. This bill leaves too many decisions to future regulations which are unknown, which, as we say, can be done by cabinet or by ICBC without any input from this House. Worse, there’s no requirement for any public consultation either.

[2:05 p.m.]

So you’ve got no public consultation. You’ve got no legislative overview. We’re just going to do it because: “Trust us. It’s going to work.”

How did that drug thing work out for everybody? We thought for sure that was going to solve all our problems. By handing out drugs to everybody, that was going to work out well.

There’s a reason why we have regulation, public input and oversight.

Then I go back to: what the heck does prescribed classes mean? Will that result in unequal treatment? That really doesn’t go by what we stand for in this House, to create unequal treatment. There needs to be fairness and equality for all.

One of those things could be: why are existing licence holders exempt from new distracting driving laws? I agree that you should not be using your phone while you are driving. It’s distracted driving. Now we’ve got a whole class that are going to be exempt from that, from the new stricter penalties.

Why is it only the new drivers that should do this? Should it not be for all drivers? There are exemptions now for certain professions, such as police officers and firefighters, who as part of their daily uses do those things. But for a new driver, I think we’re all in agreement. “Hey, put your cell phone down. You shouldn’t be using it. Put your electronic device down. You shouldn’t be using it.” Shouldn’t that be a standard that applies to everybody, not just new drivers?

On safety standards, where is the evidence that supports the claim that eliminating the mandatory tests will not reduce road safety? It seems counterintuitive.

Maybe what we should be looking at, like I said before, is that maybe we need to change the type of driving tests that we have. It should be based on some competency skills of what to do when things go wrong. When you really, really need to know what to do, one simple rule: the car is going where your eyes are looking.

You watch that on Canada’s Worst Driver all the time. It’s one of those things. Don’t look at what you don’t want to hit. Look at where you want to go, and your eyes will actually take you there. I don’t think that that’s actually part of a standard driving test right now, but it sure as heck should be if it’s about safety. And that’s what this bill professes to be about, safety, improving road safety.

The other thing is that if you’re going to change the rules, is the government now going to publish the annual safety data showing whether or not what they’re doing is actually working, or am I just going to have some spin doctor in the back room? Hopefully, we don’t include a six-figure joke writer to be able to go in with that, to help the Premier deliver that news. What are we going to do for that so that we know that what we’re doing is actually working?

At the end of the day, it should be evidence-based, especially something as simple as safety. If we’re trying to make our roads safer, are we actually going to publish the data so that experts can say, “You know what? What you’re doing here is working” or “What you do is…. You need to change this; you need to tweak A, B and C”?

This House will support this legislation. We believe that this legislation has the potential to make our roads safer. As I’ve said before, we want to make sure that it’s safer, but there are an awful lot of questions that this side of the House has that need to be fleshed out during the committee stage.

I hope that on something as simple as this, trying to protect novice drivers, new drivers, politics does not get in the way and we actually put our heads together and come up with good legislation that’s actually going to make our roads safer. In this case, lives will depend upon it.

[2:10 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar: The member for Surrey–White Rock apologizes. He’s stuck in a committee meeting, but he asked me to introduce and say hello to a group of students from White Rock Christian Academy. There are 26 grade 5 students and eight chaperones with them.

Right now we are debating Bill 12, which is changes to driver licensing rules which will impact, if you’re in grade 5, yourselves in just a few years. So things that we do in this chamber actually do have a direct impact even to the youth in our communities in a very real way.

I hope they do find the debate interesting, and I hope the House does make them welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed, welcome to everyone in our gallery today.

Debate Continued

Hon. Randene Neill: Hello to the White Rock Christian Academy students, grade 5 and 8, and your teacher, Lorraine Whitmarsh. Thanks so much for coming. I’m so interested to hear what you have to say about this piece of legislation that we’re debating today.

It is called Bill 12, and, as the member opposite suggested, it’s the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025. This government is making a commitment to make all of our roads safer for current drivers and all of our future drivers for the decades and years and years to come. We’re doing that by improving accessibility and modifying two driver’s licence programs. The first is called the graduated licensing program, known as the GLP. The second is the motorcyclist licensing program, known as the MLP.

As we know, B.C.’s population has grown incredibly, and we have not updated this legislation in the past 17 and 26 years respectively. That’s an entire generation of new drivers on the roads and an entire generation of increased road congestion, and we really need to keep up with the times.

The graduated licensing program is a multi-stage driver’s licensing system designed to reduce the exposure of new, inexperienced drivers to higher-risk situations, and it’s a cornerstone of safety in B.C. It’s proven to reduce crashes for new drivers.

We’re hearing also about increased barriers to accessing a driver’s licence, especially for Indigenous people, immigrants and people living in rural and remote areas.

A perfect example of that, and we hear it time and time again, is somebody living on the southern Gulf Islands, for example, or the Kwadacha Nation. You have to book an appointment, and then you have to go to the ferry terminal, get someone to drive you, take a ferry to Sidney and then travel from the ferry terminal to the driver licensing office. After the appointment, you have to get that person to drive you back to the ferry terminal and then take the ferry home.

If a driver does not pass their road test, they may need to wait 24 hours before doing it all over again. This is not a fair burden for a lot of rural youngsters who would love to be able to get their licences early.

These proposed changes will also align B.C. with evidence-based programs from across Canada as well as internationally.

Let’s talk about the second major change, to introduce a streamlined GLP for mature drivers aged 25 and over. Crash risk — we know this — is closely tied to age. While all new drivers start with a higher crash risk due to inexperience, ICBC insurance data indicates that new drivers aged 25 and older have an initial crash risk that is 20 percent lower than drivers aged 16 to 24. And given that lower crash risk, reducing the duration of learner and novice periods for mature drivers will help support this age group who are often juggling employment and family responsibilities as well.

This also creates a good pathway for smaller rural communities, Indigenous communities and new immigrants who may face multiple barriers to obtaining a driver’s licence.

Another really important thing is this will reduce the age of parental consent to access a licence to 18 years old. That aligns with the age of consent for getting automobile insurance and is consistent with most other jurisdictions in Canada.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is a fairness issue as well as a safety issue. We’ve heard that requiring parental consent up until age 19 may be a barrier to accessing a licence for youth in care and for Indigenous communities.

Motorcyclists — the safety of new and inexperienced motorcyclists is a long outstanding concern for this government. When I was a kid, I desperately, desperately wanted a horse. My dad who grew up on a farm with a horse suggested it was way too much work, so instead I had a little Yamaha YZ80 and spent the next ten years of my life, until I was 16, using that as a vehicle.

I went and got my motorcycle licence when I was 16 after driving on the dirt roads for ten years. I borrowed my friend’s bike, and I crashed. That was the last time that I ever rode a motorcycle.

We know motorcycle crashes are incredibly deadly compared to those vehicle drivers. Crash risks for motorcyclists are also closely tied to age, and while all new drivers start with a higher crash risk, ICBC insurance data indicates that new drivers, as well, aged 25 years and older, have a lower risk of crashing.

The proposed changes also recognize that safety riding a motorcycle is a skill set distinct from driving a passenger vehicle and that motorcycle riders are largely unprotected in the event of a crash. Riders sustain more severe injuries and are more than three times likely to be injured or killed in a crash in B.C. compared to those in passenger vehicles. The sad truth of it is 65 percent of motorcycle riders in crashes are injured and killed, and 34 percent of motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle crashes.

Under this current licensing program, 95 percent of people wanting to get a motorcycle licence can do so in 30 days. It’s difficult to learn these distinct and safe riding skills in just 30 days. So this proposed change will give riders more time to build the skills to ride safely and to support safer outcomes for new motorcyclists on our roads. I dare to say, had I had these new proposed changes, I would still be riding my motorcycle today.

Amelia Boultbee: This is, I think, a really interesting and important piece of legislation, as has been noted in this House already. Road safety, especially for young people, is a really important issue in British Columbia, and road injuries and fatalities, whether it’s in cars or motorcycles, is one of the leading causes of injury and death.

As well, I want to note that it’s great that the government is trying to streamline a process that, admittedly, is very backlogged. In fact, my constituency office has received many complaints from individuals who are trying to obtain a road test, whether it’s a first or second test, and have been waiting for upwards of six months, which can have a big impact on a person’s mobility, insurance prices, life. Even employability, in some cases, requires you to have a certain level of driver’s licence. So streamlining a backlogged system is very important.

However, there are some concerns about the way this legislation is drafted. In proposing to eliminate the second class 5 road test, which historically has been a critical safety checkpoint for new drivers, it’s unclear how to confirm that new drivers are expected to navigate complex driving situations without formal education, which could put themselves and others at risk. The impact on road safety, in the government’s claim that removing the second road test will not impact road safety, doesn’t seem to be, as of this stage, backed by sufficient data or evidence.

Driver education has been shown to reduce crash rates by 13 percent, yet only 4 percent of B.C.’s new drivers receive formal training, compared to 40 to 60 percent in other provinces.

[2:20 p.m.]

So when we’re talking about policy or legislation that could improve road safety, in my opinion, I would have done that first before I removed the second test just because it’s hard for people to access that second test. We will address this in committee, but questions remain for the minister related to policies that could incentivize such driver training.

In terms of cyclist safety, the removal of that formal driver education checkpoint in the form of the second test could also put cyclists at risk. As we’ve seen, more and more cyclists are on the road at all times. There are bike lanes and other forms of designated areas to create safety for them, but nonetheless it’s increasingly important for drivers to be aware of cyclists. That doesn’t seem to be addressed but could be through actual formal driver training.

Eighty percent of cyclist crashes happen at intersections, often due to driver distraction or failure to yield, and new drivers must be adequately trained to share the roads safely with cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

My understanding of the government’s position is that experience is one of the most important factors for driver safety. It’s hard to argue with that, because the statistics do bear out that the longer you drive the safer you are, with more experience.

The legislation says that if you go 12 months with a clean driving record, you don’t have to have the test. The problem that I see with the way that’s drafted is that we’ve all seen that there are plenty of really bad drivers out there on the road that aren’t necessarily getting caught every time they do something. It’s easily foreseeable that a driver of whatever age could go 12 months and engage in risky or inexperienced driving and actually simply not get caught. That’s why something like an actual test is an important safeguard.

In terms of the way the legislation is drafted, we have concerns about sweeping powers without consultation. Bill 12 grants the government sweeping powers to introduce fees and fines without any consultation with the public or relevant stakeholders. It’s unclear as to exactly what those fees or fines could look like, but it doesn’t even need to bear repeating how difficult the economy is on British Columbians today.

Something like expensive tickets, fees and fines, when most British Columbians are within $200 to $500 of bankruptcy at this point, is very significant. It shows a lack of transparency and accountability, and it’s not the best example of a democratic process to have a piece of legislation that imposes such sweeping powers without consultation. It’s something that we have seen recurring in other pieces of legislation from this government — that they often leave themselves a regulatory back door to make changes, either with cabinet powers or in other ways that avoid votes in the House.

There are financial implications associated with Bill 12, as it is expected to generate additional revenue through fees and fines, but it’s unclear how that revenue will be used. That’s another question that we would like to explore in committee. As of this time, it appears that there is no commitment to reinvest that potential revenue in road safety or driver education programs, which, as I have already said, have been shown to be one of the most effective ways to improve road safety.

Section 23, the driving experience requirements. This amendment allows the government to prescribe different amounts of driving experience to different classes of persons. There are no clear criteria or guidelines as to how this will be applied, which opens the door to inconsistencies in driver licensing and competence.

It is unclear what is meant by classes of person and whether this will result in arbitrary rule changes or potential unfair treatment. So that’s something we would like to also clarify in committee.

Section 25, the testing conditions and education, in eliminating the mandatory road testing, the secondary road testing, for novice drivers, expands the regulatory authority for ICBC to shorten or change waiting periods and conditions for new drivers.

[2:25 p.m.]

Section 25 also gives ICBC the authority to approve driver education courses and reduce wait times for drivers who complete them, which is something that we would support in order for efficiency. But there doesn’t appear to be any clear oversight, quality standards or evaluation mechanisms, which risks inconsistency and unfairness in how novice drivers are assessed or fast-tracked.

I will note that one of the motivations behind this legislation that I do really support is that…. It’s true that folks in rural areas and, disproportionately, Indigenous people are having trouble accessing these road tests, which is a problem. So there are people that we can identify that are disproportionately affected by it, but building in this same regulatory inconsistency could promote other forms of unfairness in how novice drivers are assessed or fast-tracked.

Section 25 allows conditions that can be imposed or altered by regulation to classes of persons, again without transparent definitions as to what that means, or accountability.

The graduated licensing program, as has been referenced by my friend across the aisle, is quite an older program. It was introduced in 1998, and I believe that Ontario is the only other province that currently has the two-step road testing, as British Columbia does. So it’s true that it is high time that we took a look at this legislation and we took a look at this policy.

But there was a reason that that second test was implemented in the first place, and that was not only to enforce that experience helps drivers have safety, but it’s a verification process. So my concern with the legislation is that it’s not actually increasing the conditions for road safety. It’s actually just eliminating the checkpoint that determines whether or not that person is safe on the road.

Some of the questions we would be considering in committee are: what has changed after 25 years, other than the fact that administratively there is a backlog? In my respectful opinion, that’s not a good reason to change legislation — just because you have an administrative problem. I mean, if safety is the issue, fix the administrative problem. Why is it now suddenly safe to drive with less testing and less training? Where would the data be showing that the original concerns about 16- to 25-year-olds no longer apply?

Questions that we will be exploring are whether police support the GLP model and the position of the B.C. RCMP and chiefs of police on removing the key parts. We’ll be reaching out to those stakeholders so that we can explore that further in committee.

Those are my comments for today.

Rosalyn Bird: It’s a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

Let me begin by acknowledging the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Minister of Transportation and all the staff and officials who worked to bring this bill forward.

The Motor Vehicle Act was last significantly updated in 1996. So after three decades, this modernization is both timely and necessary. This bill touches nearly every British Columbian, whether it’s a young person earning their first N, a parent teaching their child to drive, a tradesperson who depends on their licence to work or a senior that is renewing their credentials, as transportation connects all of us. Safe, fair and modern licensing rules are essential for both public safety and economic mobility.

Bill 12 aims to reduce the significant backlogs in our driver testing system. We’ve all heard the stories — month-long waits for road tests, frustrated families and lost work opportunities. By allowing ICBC to waive unnecessary testing and focus evaluations where they’re needed, this bill would help free up resources and shorten those long delays.

[2:30 p.m.]

These changes benefit all, especially those in rural and remote communities that have to travel to complete their road tests. This amendment gives cabinet flexibility to adjust the waiting period for novice drivers to move from an N to a full licence based on evidence and circumstances, rather than rigid timelines in law.

My concern, though, is: will cabinet establish a committee to determine benchmarks for said evidence and circumstances? As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility, competence and accountability. We support the principle that anybody operating a motor vehicle in British Columbia should be fully qualified and proven capable. So while streamlining is good, efficiency must never come at the expense of safety. Any exemption from testing must be grounded in demonstrated ability, not merely in the passage of time or a course completion.

This bill also grants ICBC and cabinet broader regulatory powers, particularly in comparing out-of-province licences and offences, approving driver education programs and defining waiting periods for novice drivers. These powers make sense in principle. However, we need consistency across jurisdictions.

With expanded power must come expanded accountability. Sections 23 and 25 of this bill refer repeatedly to prescribed classes of persons, yet there’s no definition of who those people are and how those classes are formed or what criteria will apply. That lack of clarity leaves room for unequal treatment and inconsistent regulation.

British Columbians deserve to know in advance how these powers will be used. Transparency builds trust; secrecy erodes it. So I urge the government to publish clear guidelines for consultation and regulatory development before these powers take effect.

One section I agree with is the expansion of the distracted driving prohibitions. The law will now prohibit electronic device use amongst new vehicle riders, classes 6L, 8 and 8L, joining class 7 and 7L novice drivers under a zero-tolerance rule. This change is welcome, as distracted driving remains one of the leading causes of preventable crashes and fatalities. If you’re learning to drive, your hands should be on the wheel, your eyes should be on the road and your mind should be on the task. No texts. No calls. No excuses.

However, those already licensed before the amendments will be exempt. That could lead to confusion. I urge the government to ensure clear communication and public education to make enforcement fair and consistent.

Bill 12 also empowers cabinet to recognize and approve driver education courses that can shorten wait times for novice drivers. That’s a good direction if the standards remain high, consistent and affordable. Driver education must never become a two-tiered system where safety and opportunity depend on income. Let’s make sure that training programs are accessible to all British Columbians, not just those who can afford the premium package.

I want to bring this discussion back to what truly matters, and that’s the human side of law. Six weeks ago our province was shaken by the death of a young 12-year-old boy, Xavier. He was struck and killed while roller-blading with his brother in the Cowichan Valley. The driver, a teenager. Speed was a factor, and a life was lost.

In the aftermath, Xavier’s family discovered that our current legal framework leaves no immediate protection from reckless drivers, no instant licence suspension, no guarantee for community safety. Their petition calls for immediate suspensions in extreme cases and for lifetime driving bans upon conviction for those found guilty of causing such tragedies. Their message is simple. If you kill someone through reckless driving, you shouldn’t be on the road — not tomorrow, not ever.

[2:35 p.m.]

Bill 12 begins to work on modernization, but it doesn’t yet close that gap. We can and must go further to ensure that reckless behaviour on our roads carries swift and certain consequences. No family should ever have to wonder if the person who killed their child is still out there driving. We already have immediate suspensions for suspected impairment even before the court acts, so why not for extreme reckless driving that causes serious harm or death?

We on this side of the House appreciate modernization. However, we remain cautious as regulatory power must not become regulatory overreach. Flexibility must not become ambiguity. Modernization must not come at the cost of public trust.

We will watch closely to ensure implementation is transparent, it is fair, and it is truly focused on road safety. At the end of the day, this isn’t just about tests or licences. It’s about keeping our communities safe. It’s about ensuring that every British Columbian who gets behind the wheel understands the responsibility that comes with it. It’s about honouring lives, like the young boy we lost, by doing better, by making our roads safer, our laws stronger and our system more just.

Sunita Dhir: As a parent of two young adult sons and as someone with close friends who ride motorcycles, I deeply welcome Bill 12 and the proposed updates to the graduated licensing program and the new motorcyclist licensing program. These changes reflect the realities of today’s drivers and riders, making the system fairer, more accessible and, above all, safer.

Learning to drive is one of the biggest milestones in a young person’s life. I still remember when my sons first got behind the wheel, equal parts excitement and nerves. Like many parents, I worried about their safety, not because they were careless, but because driving experience takes time. Experience cannot be rushed, and it can’t always be tested in one single moment.

That’s why the proposed bill to replace the second road test with the longer supervised period makes so much sense. It builds in more time for real-world learning and accountability without adding unnecessary barriers and costs.

British Columbia has long prided itself on high road safety standards, and these changes keep that commitment intact while aligning with the evidence. We are currently one of only two provinces in Canada that require a second road test to earn a full licence, yet there is no clear data showing that this extra test improves safety outcomes. What does improve safety is consistent, responsible driving over time, and that’s exactly what this bill emphasizes.

Under the proposed model, new class 5 drivers will continue to operate under restrictions for a 12-month period, during which they must demonstrate clean, responsible driving. If they incur a penalty or violation, that clock resets. This approach rewards good habits and reinforces safe behaviour far better than a one-time test ever could.

It also helps remove barriers for people in rural and remote areas where getting a road test can mean long drives, missed workdays and expensive travel.

As a parent, I know how much stress the current system can create. My eldest son, who works full-time and attends school, waited nearly three months for a second road test appointment. He was confident, capable and had already proven his skills by driving safely for two years. The delay did not make him a safer driver; it only added frustration.

[2:40 p.m.]

For many young adults juggling school, work or caregiving responsibilities, these barriers can stand in the way of independence and opportunity. Simplifying this process while maintaining accountability through a structured 12-month restriction period is a smart, compassionate move.

Equally important are the changes being proposed for motorcycle licensing. I have several close friends who are passionate riders. They often talk about how exhilarating it feels to ride through B.C.’s beautiful landscapes, but they’re also quick to remind me that motorcycling is unforgiving of mistakes.

One friend, a seasoned rider with over 20 years of experience, still wears full protective gear every time he rides, no matter how short the trip. He often says it’s not about looking tough; it’s about coming home safe.

The proposed motorcyclist licensing program with mandatory protective gear and zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol reflects the same philosophy. These measures aren’t about restrictions; they are about respect for the power of the machine and the vulnerability of the rider.

Too many families have been impacted by motorcycle crashes that could have been prevented with better training, protection or safety awareness. These new standards will help save lives while preserving the freedom and joy that responsible riders value.

Another important part of this bill is that it recognizes maturity and experience. Research shows that drivers over 25 are significantly less likely to crash than younger drivers. By adjusting timelines and requirements for old or new drivers, the legislation ensures fairness and focuses resources where they are needed most, on high-risk, inexperienced drivers. It’s a balanced, evidence-based approach that reflects how people actually learn and grow.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. I believe we are going to hear just for a moment from the member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar: Again, my fellow colleague from Surrey–White Rock apologizes. He’s in a committee meeting, but he did want to make sure that the students from White Rock Christian Academy, the second group coming through today, were recognized. Again, another group of grade 5 students and adults, and this….

Again, to the students…. Sorry, I just lost my track of thinking there, which does happen when we’re on the floor in this chamber from time to time, even for some of us.

Anyways, we are debating Bill 12, which is about driver’s licence licensing rules and how long you do or don’t have to have a learner’s licence and the number of the tests you would take. So obviously with yourselves in grade 5 and moving forward in life, this will start impacting you very shortly as you start to dream about getting your first driver’s licence. I hope you enjoy the debate.

Will the House please make them all welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome to the students from White Rock and to everybody in our gallery.

My apologies, Vancouver-Langara. Take it away.

Debate Continued

Sunita Dhir: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Ultimately these proposed changes are about building confidence, not just for drivers and riders but for parents, families and communities. They ensure that the path to a full licence is accessible, fair and rooted in real safety outcomes.

They also give ICBC and its staff the flexibility to manage testing demand, more effectively reducing backlogs while maintaining strong public safety oversight.

We have all seen how one moment of inexperience on the road can change lives forever. I have known families who have lost loved ones in crashes that might have been prevented with better training or more safety gear. Every measure that keeps young people, riders and all road users safer is a step worth taking.

[2:45 p.m.]

This legislation isn’t about making things easier. It’s about making them smarter. It modernizes a decades-old system to reflect today’s realities, aligning them with the best practices across Canada and beyond.

For parents, for riders and for everyone who shares the road, these changes bring peace of mind and a renewed commitment to safety. I wholeheartedly support Bill 12 and urge others to do the same. It’s practical, data-driven and deeply human, just like the roads and the people it’s meant to protect.

Hon Chan: I rise today to speak on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, and to share my questions and concerns about the direction that this government is taking with our motor vehicle laws, particularly with the changes that will affect every single new driver, every family and every community across British Columbia, especially when it comes to road safety.

On the government’s own release, it states the government of B.C. has introduced legislation to allow ICBC, in partnership with RoadSafetyBC, to modernize B.C.’s graduated licensing program, GLP, while maintaining a high standard of safety on B.C. roads.

Now, as someone from a younger generation, I fully support modernization. I welcome innovation, welcome efficiency. But my question is whether the claim “while maintaining a high standard of safety on B.C. roads” would truly hold up under scrutiny. What I’ve seen in this bill may actually weaken road safety and not maintain it.

Under the bill, if passed, drivers with a class 7 novice licence and a clean driving record will no longer need to take a second road test to graduate to a full class 5 licence. Instead, the change will be to a 12-month restriction period, during which a driver must demonstrate safe driving behaviours.

That sounds good in theory, but what does that actually mean in practice? So my question to the government is: how exactly is that going to be tested or monitored? What does demonstrating safe driving behaviour mean after the first and only test? Does that simply mean having no traffic infractions, no speeding tickets, no distracted driving tickets? If that’s the case, then the government is assuming no ticket automatically equals to safe driving. That’s a dangerous assumption.

That needs to be clearly defined and explained by the government because by removing the second road test, we lose a critical checkpoint, the opportunity to confirm that new drivers truly have the ability, the judgment and the discipline required to drive safely on our increasingly complex roads.

While the government framed this change as streamlining licensing and reducing administrative burden, what it actually does is remove one of the most essential safety safeguards in the GLP program, the second test that ensures that drivers have developed sufficient real-world experience and skills behind the wheel. A driver may technically have a very clean record yet still lack the reflexes, awareness and the split-second decision-making ability to handle today’s traffic conditions safely.

Let me ask a few questions. What if a person passed their first road test but rarely drives afterwards? They might barely drive once or twice a month, and after a year they automatically qualify for a full licence. Do ICBC or this government know how much that person actually has driven? No. There’s no mechanism to track their mileage, their experience or their exposure to the challenging conditions. Yet this new bill would give them the same full class 5 licence as every single person.

Now let’s consider another driver, a young person who drives every day, maybe to work or to school, logging over 20,000 kilometres in a single year. They have built real experience on the road. But one day they got a speeding ticket of 10, 15 or 20 kilometres over the limit on a downhill stretch. Under this new system, that single ticket would prevent them from graduating to a full licence.

Which of these two drivers do you think is actually safer? The one who barely drives and never got caught doing anything wrong, or the one who actually drives daily and made one small speeding ticket mistake? This is what the second road test was originally meant to assess, not whether somebody got a ticket but whether they have developed proper driving habits and competence over time.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let’s talk about what the second test actually measures, then. That test is where instructors and examiners look for fundamentals of safe, competent driving — things that a record system cannot measure. Do they shoulder-check every time they change lanes? Do they signal constantly when turning? Do they look ahead far enough to anticipate danger? Do they understand who has the right-of-way at a four-way stop?

Can they back into a parking stall without going back and forth ten or 20 times, becoming confused or panicking? Can they merge smoothly onto a highway without crossing two lanes as one? These are real-world skills that keep our roads safe, and these skills can only be tested in person, not by assumption or speeding tickets.

Now some may laugh that I’m just fearmongering or exaggerating, that I’m just making up scenarios. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. If you don’t believe me, I encourage every single one of you to go online tonight and look at these social media groups: “Metro Vancouver Learns to Park and Drive” or “Richmond Learns to Park and Drive.”

These pages are filled with daily photos and videos. I have some here. Too bad I cannot show you the videos, but I can show you some photos. Most of them involve legally licensed drivers. You will see cars stopped diagonally across intersections, drivers reversing down exit ramps, turning from the middle lane or driving the wrong way down a one-way street. These are not isolated incidents. They happen every single day. Go on the page and take a look. You will know.

These online communities document the realities of our roads. Collisions, near misses, reckless turns — endless examples of drivers who have technically passed the test but still lack the fundamentals of road awareness. A clean record does not equate to safe driving. It just means you haven’t been caught yet.

Let me share a few recent posts from these groups, all within the past few days. Twenty-one hours ago in downtown Vancouver, a person said: “Right turn from a middle lane, through a red light and through the crosswalk and bike lane. Must have been urgent business.” I have the photo here. I don’t know which one because there are too many here.

And 17 hours ago in Vancouver: “How to run a red light in safe manner.” This person is a new driver with a….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon Chan: Can I show that or not?

Deputy Speaker: I would prefer you didn’t. Our standing orders don’t allow for any kind of props at all.

Thank you, Member.

Hon Chan: All right. I will just say it out, then. Sure.

Yesterday at 9:42 a.m. in Richmond: “A driver made an illegal U-turn and gave me a middle finger. If there was a collision, he would be 100 percent liable.”

Yesterday at 8:26 a.m. in Vancouver: “The driver probably thinks they have the quickest car in the world, but it still causes a couple of other drivers, including myself, to slam on the brakes to avoid a crash.”

Two days ago at 12:43 p.m.: “How is this even possible?” A photo showed a car parked up on a curb.

Most alarming, two incidents just last month. A driver with a new-driver sign was caught driving the wrong way on the Sea to Sky Highway — the wrong way on the Sea to Sky Highway.

I have another photo, a video, of a new driver with a new-driver sign driving on a bike lane on the wrong way on Lougheed Highway in Burnaby. I think there are some Burnaby MLAs here. Maybe you want to take a look and make sure our road is safe. Thankfully, other vehicles on the road reacted quickly, and a major tragedy was avoided.

These aren’t stories that I made up. These are real-world stories right here in our province, on our streets, every day in your community.

Let me tell you another example.

My own Richmond constituency office is located right beside a bus loop, and every single day we see more than a dozen cars driving directly into that bus stop, ignoring multiple do-not-enter or bus-only signs. It has gotten to the point where Richmond RCMP and Metro Vancouver transit police now station officers there regularly to ticket drivers who make that mistake. Some might call it a good source of revenue for the province, but I care far more about safety than about how much money we can collect from the traffic fines.

The question is: how did these drivers ever get their licence in the first place? If we remove the second test, how much worse will this problem get?

We’re living in an era of increasingly complex road environment. From a public safety perspective, the removal of the second road test is particularly concerning in high-density urban areas. Metro Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, for example, present challenging traffic conditions where drivers must constantly navigate heavy traffic flows, dense cyclists and pedestrian activity and unpredictable roadway situations.

[2:55 p.m.]

A single initial road test is unlikely to adequately prepare new drivers for these realities, especially over a multi-month learner or novice period.

The second road test traditionally served as an essential checkpoint, confirming that drivers were not only accumulating experience but also applying their knowledge safely and effectively in real-world scenarios. The removal of this is eliminating this critical safeguard that helps prevent collisions and incidents involving inexperienced drivers.

We now face more cyclists and pedestrians sharing the road than ever before, more distracted driving from phones and touch screens and increasingly congested traffic in cities like Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey. Removing a second road test doesn’t simplify this complexity. It’s just ignoring it. It assumes that the absence of tickets is equal to the presence of competence, but as every single experienced driver knows, that’s simply not true.

What we need is more practical training and stronger verification, not less. We should be enhancing road safety education, not weakening it.

We all know that ICBC is facing a serious backlog of over six months for the class 5 road tests across much of British Columbia. In some areas, people have to wait for even longer just to get an appointment, especially in rural and Indigenous areas. I’ve heard from families, students and workers who are forced to delay jobs, schools and daily responsibilities because they can’t book a test.

Instead of fixing the backlog problem, the government has chosen the easy way out to rewrite the rules and removing the second road test altogether. That’s not modernization; it’s just admitting failure.

The government had many years to improve ICBC’s backlog and capacity. They could have hired more examiners, opened weekend testing hours, expanding mobile testing units to rural areas, etc. They could have invested in more efficiency instead of cutting corners today. Instead, after failing to shorten the backlog they created, they now use this backlog as an excuse to weaken one of the most important safety guards in our licensing system.

Convenience cannot come before safety. We cannot allow the government’s incompetence to become the reason to lower our standards. A six-month delay might be inconvenient, but a lifetime of regrets caused by preventable crashes is far worse.

Every single MLA in this chamber wants our roads to be more safe. I’m sure about that. Every parent wants their child to learn to drive with confidence and responsibility. We heard stories from our colleague yesterday. It’s saddening for police officers to go to their parents and say: “Your kid is not coming back today.” Every driver wants to trust the person next to them at the intersection is competent and alert, not someone who simply didn’t get a ticket for 12 months.

Bill 12 may have good intentions. I don’t disagree with that. But intentions alone don’t guarantee safety. Removing the second road test may reduce administrative costs for ICBC, but it risks increasing accidents, confusion in students’ claims down the road. Modernization should mean improvement, not simplification at the expense of safety.

Let me start with a simple question, one that I think every member in this chamber should ask the constituents. Do they feel that our roads have become safer than before? Many of my colleagues across the aisle are from Metro Vancouver — Burnaby, Vancouver, Surrey, Coquitlam, Richmond, Delta.

You drive on the same roads as we all do. You see what’s happening. I encourage you to ask your constituents tonight if they feel safer on the road today than they did a few years ago.

I asked that question in my riding in Richmond Centre. Do you know what I heard? Zero. Zero people told me that they believe the roads are safer. Not even one person told me: “Oh, I feel so safe now.” That’s not an opinion. It’s a reflection of reality.

When I talk to parents, seniors, professional drivers, delivery workers, they all say the same thing. Aggressive driving has increased. Road rage incidents have gone up. Basic driving courtesy has declined. And even law-abiding drivers no longer feel secure.

[3:00 p.m.]

If the government does not want to take the testimony from me, photos or videos from citizens online, let’s look at something they do trust, the poll and the data. According to a 2025 BCAA survey, 70 percent of British Columbians admit they have little or no knowledge of B.C.’s “Slow down and move over” law, the very law meant to protect roadside workers, emergency responders and tow truck operators.

Even more alarming, 81 percent of the respondents said they regularly see poor driving behaviour. People fail to slow down or move over when approaching stopped vehicles with flashing lights.

So if eight out of ten drivers are openly admitting they see unsafe behaviour every single week or day, what does that say about the state of driver education and awareness in our province? All of this isn’t only a survey showing a decline in driving skills and confidence.

In 2024, Ipsos conducted a survey on behalf of ICBC. They’re seeing a widespread lack of confidence among B.C. drivers, particularly when it comes to navigating multi-lane roundabouts. Only 29 percent said they feel confident driving through a roundabout with multiple lanes. That means seven out of ten drivers feel confused or unsure in these common intersections.

Male drivers reported slightly higher confidence at 34 percent. Female drivers were at 24 percent. Regardless of gender, the majority admit that they struggle with basic rules, including who has the right-of-way when entering a roundabout. Now imagine the same driver merging onto a highway, changing lanes at high speed or reacting to an emergency vehicle in rush-hour traffic.

Here’s another reality check. October 1 has just passed, the official start of winter-tire season in B.C. Yet I would bet, and I say this respectfully, that even in this very chamber, many of our members could not correctly distinguish between a winter tire and a snow tire or between an all-season and an all-weather tire.

If we, as legislators, struggle to even clearly understand something as basic as tire classification, what about the thousands of new drivers we license every single month? This is not a laughing matter, because when roads become slippery, when visibility drops and when somebody loses control, the outcome can be deadly.

That brings me to the heart of the issue, the removal of the second class 5 road test. Under the current GLP, a new driver must pass two practical tests. The first one is a class 7 road test which focuses on basic vehicle controls, traffic rules and awareness. The class 5 test, which comes about 24 months later, is designed to assess their advanced driving skills and real-world experience. And the test on the highway is something that’s not done in the first test.

But under this Bill 12, the second test will be eliminated. The government has yet to explain whether there will be any changes to the first class 7 test to make up for that loss. Will it become more challenging, more comprehensive or better at measuring real-world driving skills? And if so, would that mean more people will fail the first test? There’s nothing in this bill that clarifies any of these. No detail, no framework, no assurance.

It raises serious questions about how the government plans to maintain safety standards when one of the most important checkpoints is being completely removed. So now pause and think about what that actually means to remove the second road test. This is not just a bureaucratic change. It’s a removal of the safety checkpoint, a critical moment that determines whether a driver has truly matured and learned to handle complex, high-risk driving experiences.

Statistics from ICBC show approximately 33 percent of applicants failed their second road test, the class 5 test. In case you’re not listening, it’s 33 percent who failed the second test. That’s not a small number. That’s nearly one-third of the drivers under the current system are recognized as not ready for a full unrestricted driving privilege.

These are individuals who are still struggling with lane discipline, merging onto highways or maintaining awareness in complex traffic environments like intersectional school zones. Some may not yet have the experience to react properly to cyclists, pedestrians and suddenly changing obstructions.

By removing this crucial step, the government is essentially saying the extra layer of verification isn’t necessary anymore. Well, I respectfully ask: how are we ensuring those 33 percent will not get their full licence under the new bill? I believe most British Columbians would too.

[3:05 p.m.]

The original class 5 test is to protect all of us — drivers, pedestrians, cyclists alike — from the risks posed by inexperienced or overconfident drivers who are not yet ready for the full responsibility of a class 5 licence.

Let me share more important figures that highlight how essential this safeguard is. In 2021, roughly 25,000 people failed their second road test. In 2022, about 20,000 people failed the second test. That means every single year the original system prevented 20,000 to 25,000 drivers who believed they were ready, who have already been driving up to two years…. It was found by trained examiners that they’re not yet ready to meet the standards of full independent driving.

Think about it. Without the second test, these 20,000 individuals have been automatically upgraded to a full class 5 licence, allowing them to drive anywhere, anytime without restrictions to be on a road. That’s not modernization. That’s gambling with public safety.

Under this Bill 12, all of these drivers will pass automatically after time, not after skill. So when the government claims the reform will streamline the process, we must ask: at what cost? Are we willing to trade the safety of thousands of British Columbians for the sake of convenience?

The government argued that extending the 12-month period before full licensing will give drivers more experience. But experience alone does not equal competence. A driver can spend two years driving the same quiet residential route, never once encountering high-speed highway conditions, never once driving in the winter weather, and still be granted a full licence under this bill.

Without the second test, we don’t know. We have no way to verify that the driver has gained a well-rounded experience. We don’t know if the driver has correctly previously observed their weaknesses and developed the confidence and judgment needed for all complex situations on the road.

In other words, this bill will replace measured accountability with assumed readiness. The purpose of the licensing system isn’t just to test drivers; it’s to protect the public. It’s not about bureaucracy or delay. It’s about protection and prevention.

If 33 percent of drivers fail the second test, it’s not a sign of the failure in the system; it’s a sign that the system is actually working. It means examiners at ICBC are doing their job, ensuring that only those ones who are fully capable can earn the full driving privilege.

Let’s look at more statistics of what actually happened on our roads. In 2024, ICBC reported 303,593 crashes across the province. Out of those, 82,000 occurred in the Lower Mainland, a 6 percent increase from the previous year. Even under our current system, our accident rate has actually gone up.

Let’s be honest. The data does not support the claim that our roads are safer and that reducing the tests will improve the outcome.

All right, let’s talk about consultation. When the government is making changes to Bill 12, who have they actually consulted? Were the police consulted — the men and women on the front line who respond to collisions and see the real-world consequences of unsafe driving every single day?

Were certified driving schools and professional examiners consulted — the instructors who train new drivers and understand firsthand how essential the second road test is for developing real-world skills and confidence?

Were road safety researchers or trauma experts from our hospitals? Did you guys ask for their input, given that they deal directly with the aftermath of preventable crashes?

I would love to know that consultations have been made before the bill is being tailored.

In Bill 12, the government also proposed a shorter period of driving experience for drivers who are over 25 years old. If that change is approved, these drivers will need at least nine months of safe driving as a learner, then 12 months as a novice, removing the driver training incentive for new drivers aged 25 and older.

The government claims the change is justified because older new drivers are less risky, but again, that’s questionable. According to Transport Canada’s motor vehicle collision statistics, drivers aged 25 to 34 are among those with the highest rate of fatalities and serious injuries in collisions across Canada. In fact, that group consistently ranks alongside 16- to 24-year-olds in the collision data.

[3:10 p.m.]

I heard the minister speaking yesterday, and I don’t disagree that with the same level of skill, a 25-plus-year-old driver might be safer than a 19-year-old. However, without a test to confirm that skill and experience, a 40-year-old driver can be just as bad or even worse than a 20-year-old behind the wheel.

Now I do want to acknowledge one part of the bill that moves in the right direction, and that’s the new motorcycle licensing program. This portion introduces enhanced safety measures, including mandatory protective gear and updated training requirements.

As someone who personally holds a motorcycle licence, I can tell you that the motorcycle test is much more demanding, not because of physical control of the bike but because it focuses heavily on defensive driving and situational awareness. You’re trained to constantly assess risk.

I remember my instructor told me: “When you’re on a motorcycle, you have to assume everybody is trying to kill you.” That saved me from being in a hospital today. I hope in a new test, in a new system, we will see more comprehensive, more challenging and a focus on defensive driving, a test that can actually protect all of us.

I wish the same level of defensive training and testing, the class 6, can actually apply to all new drivers, because awareness, not just skill, saves lives.

I only have four minutes left, so let’s fast-track. There’s another layer to this issue, and it’s about accountability and legislative transparency.

Bill 12 may appear to focus on simplifying the licensing process, but, in reality, it does much more than that. It grants broad regulatory authority to ICBC and the cabinet to shape the future of driver licensing in B.C. That’s not modernization. That’s the delegation of power without transparency.

In section 23, it provides new regulation-making power that allows the government to prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons. But nowhere in the bill is there a clear definition of what constitutes a class of person. Does this mean different standards could be applied to drivers based on age, region, gender or even occupation? The absence of clear definitions opens the door to unequal treatment and policy inconsistency.

Meanwhile, section 25 goes even further by authorizing cabinet to make regulations regarding the issuance of a licence to novice drivers, including the power to prescribe minimum driving periods and training requirements.

Again, these are fundamental components of the GLP, elements that should be determined by legislation and evidence-based consultation, not by discretionary regulation.

Before, this government claimed it is maintaining a high standard of safety. I urge them to look again at the evidence, consult driving instructors and listen to the experience of British Columbians who see these dangers firsthand every day on our roads.

Go online. Go to the two pages. You’ll be amazed how bad and how dangerous our roads are right now. Make sure our licensing system doesn’t just produce drivers with clean records, with no speeding tickets or no distracted driving tickets, but that these must be safe, capable and responsible drivers who can truly handle the realities of British Columbia’s roads.

Road safety isn’t about efficiency; it’s about lives. Until we have those answers, this bill remains deeply flawed.

Korky Neufeld: First of all, I’m honoured to be back in the House with colleagues and the government across the aisle.

I’m here to speak today on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, a bill that aims to modernize British Columbia’s driving licence system. It also wants to reduce delays and enhance road safety. These are goals that we all share.

I remember when my father taught me how to drive in a four-door Chevy Biscayne. That’s a big car. I remember my first time going through the tunnel from Vancouver to Ladner. I gripped that steering wheel like a grim reaper, thinking those walls were closing in on me. I just cruised right on through, and I was so relieved to get to the other side. That was my first experience through that tunnel.

[3:15 p.m.]

The first time that my dad allowed me to take the car out by myself after I got my licence was to pick up my sister at Dairy Queen on Main Street. I pulled in there, pulled into a parking stall, waited for her. She jumped out of the Dairy Queen and into the car. I backed up, and I hit a newly installed steel bollard. I dented that beautiful chrome bumper. That reminded me every time I climbed into that car that I needed to pay more attention.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia supports reasonable efforts to streamline the licensing process to ensure that drivers on our roads are competent, that they are trained and that they are safe. However, while we support the intention, we are deeply concerned about the execution, specifically the broad and unchecked powers that this bill hands over to ICBC and cabinet and the lack of clear legislative oversight.

This bill, as currently drafted, risks creating a regulatory framework that is confusing. It is inconsistent and vulnerable to political manipulation rather than rooted in fairness, transparency and competence.

Now, I will probably be repeating themes that my colleagues have already raised and probably the ones that are coming behind me. I just want to thank my colleagues for their efforts to clarify some of the concerns that we do have.

Let’s start, first of all, with excessive delegation of power. There’s a similar theme here with previous bills that this government has brought forward in last spring’s session — excessive delegation of power. Sections 23 and 25 of this bill grant ICBC and cabinet sweeping authority to determine who must take a driving test, how long drivers must wait between licensing stages and even which groups of people will face different requirements — all of that without any clear legislative guidelines.

Cabinet could, for example, prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons. But the bill provides no definitions. It provides no limits. It provides no explanation of how or why these differences must be justified. In essence, the Legislature is being asked to hand over the steering wheel and simply trust that ICBC and the cabinet will drive us in the right direction.

This is not about opposing modernization; it is about maintaining democratic accountability. Regulations that affect tens of thousands of British Columbians should not be made behind closed doors without legislative review and public input. We must ensure that any changes to licensing standards are debated in this chamber. That’s why we were all elected, not to ram things through but to openly discuss issues and concerns for all British Columbians. It should be done in the day, not quietly prescribed by regulation at some future, arbitrary date.

Two, vagueness and uncertainty. The bill repeatedly refers to prescribed classes and prescribed considerations, yet nowhere in the bill does it define what these terms mean. This kind of vagueness leaves too much to the interpretation. It opens the door for arbitrary decisions where different groups of drivers could face different rules without any clear rationale. Regulations could be changed at will, leading to confusion for drivers, inconsistency across regions and frustration for young people trying to understand what rules apply to them.

When the goal is to simplify the system, we cannot afford to replace one kind of red tape with another.

[Interruption.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just pause right there for a moment.

Korky Neufeld: I reserve the right to speak.

Korky Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Calling the House to order.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs
Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports Bill 9 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Now, Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs
Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

The Speaker: Members, you heard that the question is third reading of Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, the AG Statutes Amendment Act.

In this House, I call continued second reading on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. Apologies for that brief recess.

Member for Abbotsford West, start where you left off, please.

Korky Neufeld: I just want to let those who are watching know that a fire alarm went off.

I want to thank the legislative chamber staff for your efficient way of dealing with your protocols.

We all feel very safe in these chambers under their leadership and direction.

I left off with vagueness and uncertainty. When the goal is to simplify the system, we cannot afford to replace one kind of red tape with another.

Three, competency and convenience. The government has said that this bill will help reduce road test blockages, and that’s certainly a good thing. But the solution cannot be to remove mandatory testing altogether. Testing exists for a reason, and it has for many, many years.

All of us can attest to our children having to go through these tests and what they mean. It ensures that every driver on the road has demonstrated their ability to operate a vehicle safely and competently. If ICBC is now allowed to exempt people from testing altogether, we risk lowering standards in the name of convenience.

So let’s be clear. Time served behind the wheel does not equal skill. The focus should always be competence, not convenience.

Four, impact on young and new drivers. This bill also lowers the self-application age for a full licence from 19 to 18 years old. That change is not necessarily problematic, but it must be accompanied by stronger training, education and monitoring requirements. We should not rush new drivers into full licensure without evidence-based driving education and oversight.

If the government wants to accelerate the licensing pathway, it should first prove that training programs are rigorous, standardized and effective, not simply approved by bureaucratic discretion. That is why the Conservative Party calls for clear, evidence-based driver education standards not regulated by decree.

Five, fairness and equity. Another concern is fairness. This bill allows exemptions for those who already hold certain licences before the law takes effect, effectively creating two classes of drivers under the same law. Why should someone who earned their licence last month face stricter distracted driving rules than someone who earned it last year? If safety is truly the goal, then the rules should be consistent and equitable. Government must clearly justify why certain drivers are grandfathered in while others are not.

Six, transparency and oversight. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Bill 12 is how dependent it is on future regulations, none of which have been tabled, defined or even debated. There is no requirement for public consultation, no mandatory legislative overview and no reporting obligations on how these changes will affect road safety over time. This is simply not good governance.

The Conservative Party calls for the government to commit to tabling all major regulations in the Legislature for review before they take effect and to publish annual safety reports showing the real-world impact of these changes on collisions, on violations and on road safety outcomes. If this bill truly improves safety, that evidence should be transparent and available for all British Columbians to see.

I have a series of questions. I’m sure these questions will also be asked during committee stage, but let me entertain you with some of them.

[3:35 p.m.]

Why is the government granting ICBC and cabinet such sweeping and unrestrained regulatory powers without any requirement for legislative scrutiny or public accountability? Specifically, what justification can a minister offer for removing oversight from this House and concentrating so much decision-making authority in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and cabinet appointees?

None of us got elected to abdicate our responsibilities to someone else. We have to be accountable. We have to answer to the public, and this does not allow that. Under this bill, ICBC and cabinet will be able to create and modify and exempt entire classes of drivers from licensing requirements, including determining who must take a test, how long waiting periods last and what constitutes an acceptable driver education, all by regulation, without debate or approval by elected representatives.

How does the government reconcile this approach with the principles of democratic transparency, equality before the law and responsible governance? Shouldn’t the people of British Columbia and their elected MLAs have a direct say in the rules that affect every driver in this province?

Question 2. Will the minister commit to ensure that all new regulations made under Bill 12 will be brought before this House for review, debate before they come into force? Given that this bill delegates broad powers to cabinet and to ICBC to determine licensing standards, testing requirements and driver education criteria without direct legislative approval, will the minister agree that such far-reaching decisions must not be made behind closed doors?

British Columbians deserve to know what rules are being changed, why they are being changed and who they will affect. Will the minister therefore commit to a process of transparency and accountability, tabling all proposed regulations in this Legislature, allowing members to scrutinize them and giving the public an opportunity to provide input before they are implemented? Does the government intend to move forward with major regulatory changes that affect every driver in this province without any legislative or public oversight?

Question 3. How will the government ensure that the creation of prescribed classes of drivers under Bill 12 does not lead to unequal, inconsistent or even discriminatory treatment among British Columbians?

The bill allows cabinet and ICBC to set different licensing rules, different waiting periods and different testing requirements for various classes of persons. Yet it provides no clear criteria for how these distinctions will be made or how they will be justified. Without defined parameters in legislation, what safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary decision-making or even regional inconsistencies or bias in how these classes are applied?

For example, could two drivers with identical experience and safety records be treated differently simply because they fall into different prescribed classes determined by regulation? Will the government commit to publishing transparent criteria, conducting equity assessment before implementing any such classifications, so that all drivers are treated fairly, all drivers are treated consistently, all drivers are treated without prejudice under the law?

Question 4. Why is the government exempting existing licence holders from the new distracted driving restrictions under Bill 12, while imposing stricter penalties and limitations on new drivers? If distracted driving is a proven safety risk, and government data shows it is one of the leading causes of serious crashes in British Columbia, then how can the minister justify a two-tier system where some drivers are held to a lower safety standard simply because they obtained their licence before the new law took effect?

Just because someone got a licence doesn’t mean they have driven. So a person could literally get a licence, sit on that licence, not even drive, wait for everything to change, and they’d be granted their licence without having any road experience at all.

Does the government believe that longtime drivers are somehow less likely to be distracted behind the wheel? If not, why is the government creating two unequal classes of drivers under the same law, one bound by tougher rules, the other grandfathered out of accountability?

[3:40 p.m.]

If road safety is truly the goal, shouldn’t the same distracted driving standards apply equally to everyone on the road, regardless of when you’ve earned your licence? Will the minister commit to reviewing this exemption and ensuring that all British Columbians are held to consistent, evidence-based safety standards?

Question 5. What evidence or data can the minister provide to show that eliminating mandatory road tests for certain classes of drivers will not compromise road safety in British Columbia? The road test has long been the objective standard by which driving competencies are measured. It ensures that every driver, regardless of background or experience, demonstrates practical skills and adheres to the rules of the road. By allowing ICBC to waive this requirement at its discretion, Bill 12 effectively replaces an evidence-based safety measure with an administrative judgment call.

What studies, safety analysis or pilot programs has the government reviewed to confirm that removing mandatory testing will not result in higher collision rates, more violations or increased risk on the road? If the goal is efficiency, that must not come at the expense of safety. It cannot and it must not.

Will the minister commit to publishing all supportive evidence, including comparative data from other jurisdictions, before implementing these changes? Will the government track and report collision and infraction data annually to ensure that this policy does not lead to a measurable decline in road safety outcomes?

Question 6. Will this government commit to publishing annual publicly accessible safety data directly tied to the licensing and regulatory changes introduced under Bill 12? If the intent of this legislation is truly to improve efficiency without compromising safety, then the government should have no hesitation in demonstrating that thorough, transparent, evidence-based reporting is required.

British Columbians deserve to see clear year-over-year data on how these reforms affect key indicators such as collision rates, serious injuries, fatalities and distracted driving incidents, particularly among new and novice drivers.

Will the minister, therefore, commit to an annual safety report tabled in this Legislature that tracks and evaluates the real-world outcomes of these policy changes? And will that report include comparisons between drivers subject to the new licensing rules and those grandfathered under the old system so the public can clearly see whether these reforms are making our roads safer or more dangerous? Without such accountability, this bill asks British Columbians to take the government’s word on faith. That is not good enough when public safety is at stake. Transparency must not be optional. It must be built into the policy right from the start.

Question 7. What objective standards or measurable criteria will the government and ICBC use to approve driver education programs that allow participants to shorten their licensing wait times under Bill 12? The bill grants cabinet and ICBC broad authority to recognize certain driver education courses as substitutes for traditional experience or testing requirements, but it does not define what qualifies a program for approval. Without clear evidence-based benchmarks, this could result in a patchwork of courses with varying quality, varying standards, varying effectiveness, potentially undermining consistency and credibility of B.C.’s licensing system.

Will the minister commit to establishing uniform, transparent criteria developed in consultation with industry experts, driving instructors and safety researchers to ensure that any approved program demonstratively improves driver competency and safety outcomes?

Further, how will ICBC verify these programs are delivered with measurable results, such as a lower collision rate or improved road test performance among graduates? Will the government require regular audits, regular performance reviews, regular public reporting to ensure accountability and prevent private training providers from being approved based on convenience or political favour rather than proven quality? British Columbians deserve confidence that these accelerated pathways are based on rigorous, data-driven standards, not discretion or administrative expediency.

[3:45 p.m.]

Question 8. How will ICBC ensure consistency, accessibility and measurable results across all driver education and training programs approved by Bill 12? If ICBC is being granted the authority to approve courses that can shorten licensing wait times or replace certain testing requirements, then British Columbians need assurances that every program, regardless of where it is offered in this province, meets the same high standards of quality and effectiveness.

What mechanisms will ICBC put in place to guarantee that driver education programs in rural and smaller communities are as accessible and comprehensive as those offered in larger urban centres? How will the corporation ensure that all approved programs are evaluated by consistent criteria based on objective safety data, not subjective, inconsistent interpretations by regional administrators?

Further, will ICBC commit to conducting regular performance audits, publishing publicly available reports comparing outcomes across approved programs, such as collision rates, violation frequencies or success rates among graduates, to prove that these courses actually produce safer, more competent drivers?

Finally, how will ICBC ensure that affordability and accessibility remain priorities so that accelerated licensing opportunities are available to all British Columbians, not just those who can afford premium private training?

Consistency, transparency, measurable outcomes must be the foundation of any credible driver education system. Otherwise, we risk replacing one form of inequity with another.

Question 9. Why does this bill rely so heavily on future regulations to be determined later by cabinet or ICBC, rather than setting out clear, logistic criteria today in this House? If the government already knows the policy intent behind these changes, why not define those standards openly and transparently in legislation, where they can be debated, scrutinized and amended by elected representatives?

Instead, Bill 12 delegates critical decisions, such as how long novice drivers must wait for their full licences, what constitutes acceptable driver education and how licensing exemptions will be applied to future regulations that have not been drafted, disclosed or debated. This approach effectively asks British Columbians to approve a blank cheque, trusting the ICBC and cabinet will fill in the details later behind closed doors. This is not how transparent democracy should function.

What assurances can the minister provide that these future regulations will not be politically influenced, unevenly applied or quietly changed without any public input? Will the government commit to publishing draft regulations for public consultation, legislative review, before they are enacted so that British Columbians can have confidence in how these powers will be used? Does this government believe that decisions affecting every driver in the province are best made by regulation and discretion rather than open debate in this Legislature?

Final question, question 10. Who will be consulted when future regulations under Bill 12 are drafted? Will the government engage drivers? Will the government engage industry experts? Will the government engage safety professionals, or will these critical decisions be left solely to bureaucrats behind closed doors?

The bill delegates broad powers to ICBC and cabinet to establish licensing requirements, set waiting periods and approve driver education programs yet provides no guidance or mandate on who must have input during the regulatory process. If these regulations are to affect tens of thousands of British Columbians, particularly novice and young drivers, then it’s essential that the process be inclusive, transparent and evidence-based.

Will the government commit to a formal consultation process that actively seeks input from (1) driving instructors and accredited training schools; (2) road safety and public health experts; (3) drivers themselves, particularly young and new drivers who will be directly affected, so that the regulations are informed by practical experience research, not simply administrative convenience? Does the government intend for these future rules to be drafted without meaningful public or expert input, leaving critical safety and licence decisions to a small group of unelected officials?

Our party, the B.C. Conservative Party, believes there’s a better and more balanced path forward. We support structured, evidence-based training programs that raise, not lower, driving competencies.

[3:50 p.m.]

We believe in mandatory testing requirements unless clear data proves that alternative methods are equally rigorous. We believe in legislative oversight for all major regulatory changes. And we believe, above all, in transparency and fairness for every class of driver in British Columbia. These principles ensure that modernization does not come at the cost of accountability or safety.

I remember the first time, at about 1:30 in the morning, when I got a call. My son called. “Dad, I had an accident. I went off the road.” I got my clothes on, drove the car. He had just taken a beautiful young lady on his first date with the family car, and he went off the road into a ditch.

I drove down there, and I could see what happened. I could see clearly what he did. He went around the corner and hit the gas. There was just a little bit of sprinkle of gravel, and he spun out. Luckily, there was a big boulder. That big boulder saved his car from rolling over. Well, the father of that young lady was there. Needless to say, that was the first and last date he ever went on with her.

I have helped my wife raise four children. Each of them went through a process to be allowed to drive. It’s not easy giving your child the car for the first time. “Here are the keys. Go out.” We need this to be rigorous so that young people are prepared and parents have confidence.

In closing, the Conservative Party will cautiously support the intent of the bill, but we do so with serious reservations. We support efficiency, safety and modernization, but we cannot support the erosion of legislative authority or the creation of a system where critical decisions are made without scrutiny or transparency. This bill could be an opportunity to make licensing more efficient and fair, but unless these oversight and fairness issues are addressed, it risks becoming a step backward in public trust.

We urge the government to amend this legislation, restore accountability, define key terms and ensure that every change to our driver licensing system is guided by evidence, by fairness and by the safety for all British Columbians.

We look forward to the committee stage where we will look for answers to these questions and more so that British Columbians can continue to have confidence in the process in this House for the safety of every graduated licensing of their children in British Columbia.

Larry Neufeld: I’m here today to address Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025. As my colleagues before me have stated, the Conservative Party of British Columbia does support the goal of modernizing our driver licensing framework and easing the backlogs faced by ordinary British Columbians.

That being said, we cannot ignore the serious risks posed by granting unlimited regulatory powers to the insurer and to cabinet. Efficiency must never come at the expense of fairness, competence or accountability. The bill in its current form risks creating a system that is confusing, inconsistent and creates a potential for political manipulation.

Road safety is the result of driver competence, not convenience. I know. I have three adult children. I believe I’ve spoken of it in this House before, but I do have a vacation property in the Pine Pass in northern British Columbia.

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: Well, no. Okay, okay. Fair enough.

Where I’m going with that story, though, is I taught all three of my children to drive through the Pine Pass. When I tell other parents that, they shudder. Many adults are fearful to drive through that pass in the wintertime. I forced my children to drive in that pass when they were learning, for the simple fact that I was beside them and I was able to correct things by grabbing the steering wheel, etc.

I’m very proud of the skill set that all three of my children have succeeded in. I will admit that I have had to grab that wheel when they were learning. I had to grab it more than once.

[3:55 p.m.]

The competency…. Again, when they received their licences, I was — maybe my children will hear this — exceedingly proud that they all received their drivers’ licences on the first try, their motorcycle licences on the first try. I will admit I didn’t take my motorcycle licence until I was in my 40s, and I did not pass on my first try. I will say that I do believe that the competence was there, and it was much more important than the training that was provided by the program that they went through.

I’ll also say that streamlining is definitely welcome. Removing testing requirements without clear performance standards risks eroding confidence in the integrity of our driver licensing system. That’s something that is quite important to me.

I will say that the official opposition believes in efficient government and also in responsible government. Every driver who earns a licence in British Columbia must be qualified beyond doubt. That qualification must be proven through skill, structured training and measurable performance.

This bill, in my mind, introduces troubling ambiguity. Repeated references within the text to prescribed classes and prescribed considerations appear throughout sections 23 and 25. Yet nowhere are these terms clearly defined. The lack of definition means future regulations potentially could apply differently to different groups of British Columbians. This has the potential for creating a two-tiered system of drivers under this law.

A licensing system must rest on clear, objective criteria. Without question, anything less undermines safety and fairness.

Section 23 empowers cabinet to prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different categories of drivers. Section 25 extends that authority even further, allowing the insurer to determine when and for whom testing or waiting periods apply.

In my estimation, this is a sweeping transfer of power from the Legislature to the bureaucracy. I know that I spoke of this on previous bills, and that’s something that I think British Columbians should be concerned about. Without oversight, such authority could easily lead to inconsistency, favouritism or politically motivated adjustments to regulatory classes.

The official opposition does not oppose flexibility, certainly and without question. What we do oppose is a blank-cheque authority that lacks transparency and accountability. Laws should be made in this House, in this place of honour, by those of us who are responsible to the electorate of this province, not by unelected bureaucrats.

We also must, without question, address the issue of fairness. Under this bill, the existing drivers are exempt from certain new distracted driving restrictions while new drivers face stricter penalties. This, in essence, creates two classes of drivers under one law. I would ask: why should a young motorcyclist or novice driver be held to a stricter standard than someone who obtained a licence under an older regime?

I’ll give an example here as well. I did mention that I do have a motorcycle licence. My wife does, my children do, and yes, we formed our own motorcycle gang. It was actually quite cute. We were quite pathetic. No one feared us whatsoever.

What I will say, though, through that experience, the existing motorcycle program…. I think my colleague who is no longer in the chamber did speak to this earlier. The existing regime under which motorcycle licensing is accomplished in this province is very onerous already. That, honestly, where I live, results in many people riding without a licence.

I can understand why. My wife and I went to the neighbouring province to take the 40-hour Canadian motorcycle safety training course. At the end of that weekend, every person with a driver’s licence from the province we were in had their motorcycle licence. When we came back to British Columbia, it didn’t count for anything. That being said, we had the skills under us, and we had 40 hours of training, which was at our own behest.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, that is my concern with this portion of the bill. We already have a disproportionate number of people — young people, potentially; I wouldn’t necessarily say all young people — who are, in fact, riding without licences. That’s because it is quite difficult…. In my part of the world, it’s very difficult to get an appointment, and it’s a very onerous course. It’s a very onerous test. If we do increase that further, I’m very fearful that we’re going to find people that are going to continue down that path of not taking any training whatsoever.

Having waited until my midlife crisis to get a motorcycle, obviously I was responsible enough not to do something incredibly silly, because I’m standing here today. Or maybe I was incredibly lucky. I won’t admit that I did something incredibly silly more than once.

That said, with 30-some years of driving experience under my belt, it’s perhaps something that I did get away with. Allow a 16- or 17-year-old to do the same thing without that level of experience with a motor vehicle…. I think it has been noted in this House earlier what the rates of fatalities and serious incidents are.

I would like to address that as well. Yes, these statistics don’t lie. Motorcycles, statistically, are more dangerous. I have no question. I still ride one. What I will say, though, is that in my experience, by far, the danger comes from motorists. I have had multiple times where motorists have pulled out left in front of me. In fact, I lost a colleague to that. He was killed.

Again, through the motorcycle safety training course, the 40-hour course, as I recall…. This was quite a few years ago, but my memory is pretty good. I want to say that 67 percent of motorcycle fatalities at that time were reported to be from motorists turning left in front of a motorcycle. I have had it happen.

In fact, I had it happen last year, with my wife on the bike with me. That’s not the cyclist’s fault, but as my colleague, who’s not here, mentioned, it made me a better vehicle driver. It actually did. You learn to look further ahead, and you simply ride with the attitude that everyone is trying to kill you. That is how it actually feels.

Well, I’m not trying to scare off any of the young ones that are looking at motorcycle licences. It’s still an amazing experience. But absolutely, the extra training and the need for the competency is not necessarily just a test. The competency embraces so much more than just a test.

We talked about the two classes of drivers under one law. Again, I’ve already gone into probably more detail than I should have around my experiences with motorcycles. Nonetheless, what I would suggest is that the law, in general, demands equality before the law, not arbitrary exemptions based on when one happened to be licensed.

I would restate the experience with my children. It’s their level of competency with a vehicle driving through winter and mountain road conditions that created skill. If they’re listening, don’t let it go to your heads. Obviously, we want you to still be here.

I’m very proud of my kids; they’re excellent drivers. I believe it’s because, as I’ve done with everything in my life and in my career, I kicked them off the end of the dock, and then I had a life preserver there to help them out if they did get a little over their heads.

On Bill 12, the impact on young and new drivers, lowering the self-application age from 19 to 18 is a reasonable modernization, but it must be paired with rigorous and high-quality training, which I’ve already spoken of. The official opposition supports expanding access for responsible young drivers, provided that competency standards remain strong and consistent across the province.

[4:05 p.m.]

An example I would like to use here is that, growing up in the North, in high school there were a number of students that actually had pilot licences before they had driver licences, through the Air Cadets program. The Air Cadets pilot’s licence is based on competency; it’s not based on age. I had several classmates who could fly a plane but could not drive a car. That is very real.

I would go on to say that accelerated licensing pathways can be valuable if and only if they are backed by evidence-based driver education and ongoing evaluation. I recognize the intent of Bill 12 to authorize cabinet to approve driver education programs in order to shorten waiting times. That makes a lot of sense. This could indeed assist in clearing the backlog.

That said, British Columbians deserve assurance that such programs will be independent, standardized and outcome-measured. I therefore call on the government to publish criteria for course approval, instructor certification and evaluation metrics before these provisions come into force. I think it’s very important that this is done beforehand.

Public confidence, as we all know, is the foundation of any regulatory system. In my opinion, Bill 12 leaves too many essential decisions to future regulation, with no requirement for legislative review or public consultation. I’ve already spoken to that. The fear is that we are downloading the legislative component to unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the public, at least not directly accountable. That, I think, is a slippery slope.

If this government is confident in the merit of these reforms, they should welcome scrutiny, absolutely. That’s the power of democracy — checks and balances, 100 percent. The official opposition therefore calls for mandatory tabling of all regulations under Bill 12 in the Legislature before they take effect and, secondly, for annual reporting by ICBC, the insurer, regarding safety outcomes and licensing fairness.

Now, we all know that ICBC has long struggled with efficiency, the level of bureaucracy and, certainly, a lack of public confidence. I would question if granting additional broad regulatory authority over who tests, who waits and who qualifies could expand these problems rather than solve them.

The official opposition urges the government to focus ICBC’s mandate on service delivery, not policy-making. That is the concern with Bill 12, in my estimation. The public insurer should implement regulations, not write them.

I’d also suggest that there is a question of balance. Streamlining licensing is necessary, without question. Efficiency — I live for it. I love it, but balance is essential. We can reduce red tape without reducing accountability. I truly believe that we can do that. We can modernize without centralizing power.

I would suggest that a good bill empowers people; a dangerous bill empowers institutions. With Bill 12 in its current form, I am concerned that it does, again, move down that slippery slope toward empowering institutions.

With respect to consistency and equality, the repeated references within the bill to prescribed classes raise yet another concern. In the absence of clear legislative definitions, regulations could be applied unevenly between urban and rural residents. It’s without question.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’ve described where I live, and it’s pretty rural. So I’ve railed against this my entire adult life. Those of us that live in the North and those of us that live in rural areas are equal. We deserve exactly the same health care. We deserve exactly the same services. We are providing a service to this province, and we are citizens of this province. We deserve the same treatment and the same access to services as anyone who lives in downtown Vancouver has.

The other thing that I would suggest is that there is the potential for division between commercial and non-commercial drivers. The official opposition calls for one standard, one set of rules and one expectation for every driver in this province, regardless of where you live, your age, your ability. Obviously, we are talking about that. But one set of rules, one set of expectations, one driver, no matter where you live.

Equality before the law must not become a regional or a bureaucratic privilege. The government claims that eliminating mandatory tests will not compromise road safety. I’m not necessarily arguing with that. What I would suggest is that if this is true, I would love to see the data. I am an engineer, and boy, I love data. I’m as geeky as they get, I promise. I love data. I would love to look at it.

Before I bought my first vehicle, when I started my first company…. A little bit of an aside as I’m looking at the clock. This is actually a true story. I was researching a vehicle when I started my first company. I went onto the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration webpage, where the raw data for vehicle crashes per million miles driven is published, and I researched that raw data. So I would question if anyone else here is a larger geek than I am. But I actually did look at the raw data, and I chose my vehicle based on that.

In addition to publishing the data, I would ask for provision of collision statistics, training results and graduated licence outcomes per year. The official opposition will support reforms backed by evidence. It’s a challenge to justify those that are put forward only for administrative convenience.

With respect to distracted driving and protective gear, as a motorcyclist, I support it. There’s no question. I went out, and I purchased…. Those of you that may not be motorcyclists may not be aware, but there are different levels — CE level 1, level 2. I went out, and I bought everything CE level 2. Yes, I could afford it. It was bulky and cumbersome, but you dress for the crash. You don’t dress for the ride.

I very strongly support implementing the requirements for protective gear into legislation. It makes me shiver when I see folks riding down the street in T-shirts and sandals. Enough said on that one. We won’t talk about that one. I do believe that that’s a very sound measure that protects lives. It protects people who….

I guess, since I do have some time left, I’ll throw in another little tidbit for you guys. My wife’s uncle was wearing steel-toed boots when he crashed a motorcycle. Even with steel-toed work boots, the injury was such that his claim to fame is that his foot is in a medical textbook. Again, I went out and spent a lot of money on gear, and I have no regrets to this day.

I would suggest that I should get moving. So I will say that clarity matters, without question. Where the law is precise, it protects. Where the law is vague, it confuses and it makes it a real challenge to comply.

With respect to regulatory expansion, I would suggest that clause 10 of Bill 12 grants cabinet a general power to make any regulation necessary to implement the act. Such an open-ended clause may seem routine to those that are watching us and listening to us and paying attention. While such open-ended clauses may seem routine, in practice, they erode legislative oversight. That is a great concern to me.

[4:15 p.m.]

They allow government to rewrite major elements of public policy behind closed doors and without scrutiny. The official opposition believes that laws should be made in this chamber, not by regulation in the back rooms of government.

We therefore propose that the government include in this bill a statutory requirement for legislative review of all major regulations within one year of enactment. That review should evaluate fairness, safety outcomes and public satisfaction. Accountability is not an obstacle. It is a safeguard that keeps democracy functioning.

Efficient licensing matters not only for drivers but for our economy. From delivery services to resource industries, skilled drivers keep British Columbia’s economy moving. The official opposition supports reducing delays that keep workers on the road and out of danger. But we must not replace bureaucratic delay with regulatory uncertainty. Investors and employers need clarity to plan for training and safety compliance.

This is a big one in my previous life. I worked in the oilfield. I owned a number of companies that provided to the oilfield. The safety level was extremely high. In order to manage and maintain those, it was very costly and very time-consuming but very worthwhile. It kept our employees very safe.

I would suggest that only transparency delivers that confidence to be able to invest and confidently create those programs and invest in your employees to execute those programs to the highest level. I’ve seen the benefits of it. I really have, over my many years of working in the industry.

Rural British Columbia depends on drivers for basic mobility. We’ve already spoken of the insistence that I would have, and very adamantly have, that rural folk are every much as equal in their rights and obligations as what folks that live in the city are. Our public transportation is limited. Licences are essential. There’s no question. Where I live, without a driver’s licence, it is a challenge.

Any new licensing framework must consider the unique barriers faced by residents outside of large urban centres. The official opposition urges the minister to commit that ICBC service standards, training availability and testing criteria, again, will be uniform across all regions of the province.

In the way of presenting a constructive alternative, I believe that there is a better path forward. I would propose that, as an amendment to Bill 12…. While I am supporting it, I would suggest that an amendment may be in order.

I would propose that structured, evidence-based training replace tests only where proven effective. I would further suggest that legislative review for all major regulatory changes occur. I would again suggest that public reporting on driver competency and collision outcomes be provided. I believe these are reasonable, measured steps that balance efficiency with accountability.

British Columbians want a government that works for them, not above them. When laws delegate too much authority to bureaucrats, citizens lose sight of who is actually in charge. Conservatives believe that the Legislature should set the rules and public institutions should implement them. That is the balance that Bill 12 needs to restore before I would suggest that it’s truly serving the people of this province to the best of its ability.

In closing, the Conservative Party of British Columbia supports the intent of Bill 12 to streamline licensing and enhance safety for drivers. How could we not? That’s a non-partisan, obvious issue.

[4:20 p.m.]

However, we do oppose legislation that hands unchecked power to cabinet and to an institution — ICBC, in this case — without legislative overview. I think that we’ve already established that. It’s a tenet of democracy.

We that stand in this place of honour are accountable to the people of this province. If we do a poor job, the people are going to let us know and they’re going to remove us from our position. That is how democracy works. We’ve all accepted it. It’s an amazing institution, and it’s a fantastic system to live under.

On this side of the House, we do stand for competence over convenience, accountability over ambiguity and fairness over favouritism. I’ll be…. Well, I won’t say that “p” word here now. I’ll say that this is the Conservative way — responsible, practical and principled.

Speaker’s Statement

Legislature Staff Thanked

Deputy Speaker: Members, I think there is the odd thing that we can agree on in this place. I want to just say that I think we all agree that we have the most amazing staff in Canada.

Not so long ago we had an alarm ring in here. Many of you were here. We didn’t know what that was. Fortunately, it was a false alarm, but it was clear to me that the Sergeant-at-Arms office, led by Ray Robitaille and, of course, Jan Davis and our crew inside this chamber, are very well prepared. Not to mention the team of Clerks, who obviously are led by Kate Ryan-Lloyd, did an amazing job to help us navigate the technicalities of the session.

Thank you very much to all of our staff. They really are the best.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Tony Luck: It’s a real honour to be back in the House after a summer break there, although it wasn’t much of a break. I think I worked harder outside the House than inside the House, and it’s kind of nice to be back here and get some order back in my life again. I think a few of us feel that way. It’s a pleasure to be back and working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I really appreciate that opportunity.

I’ve listened to a lot of my colleagues as they’ve spoken on both sides of the House and talked about experiences during their licensing process as we grew up as young people getting our licences. I had a couple of stories come to my mind.

I remember when I was getting my motorcycle licence. I was a young fellow, and I loved to ride. I had this process of going in every spring, getting my learner’s licence, driving all summer, putting the bike away and letting the licence expire. Next spring, I’d do the exact same thing again.

I never really got a motorcycle licence until much later in my years, when I finally was planning a big two- or three-week trip through western United States. I said: “I should really get my motorcycle licence and make sure that I’m competent enough to ride my motorcycle.”

I went and finally got the road test done, nervous as heck, just like all of us would be. I remember my foot shaking so hard on the brake when I was learning to drive a car and the same thing with my motorcycle. But I enjoyed it, and I’m glad I did it.

I probably look back over my life and think that maybe I should have taken some more of that training that they offer out there in the private sector or wherever it is and maybe up my game a little bit.

One of the things about a lot of us motorcycle drivers is that we’re very optimistic. We love getting out there and exploring the roads and everything. But one of the mantras we had is: “It’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when you have an accident, if you’re not careful.” That has happened to many of my friends. I’ve dumped a few bikes myself.

Would I have improved that if I’d had better training, better licensing? If I had gone to get my licence sooner, would I have been able to avoid some of the accidents that I had and things like that? I think it’s very, very important.

I love bikes. I love riding. I’ve had Harleys. I’ve had Hondas, Kawasakis, all those things. I’ve driven all over the western United States. I’ve been to Sturgis a couple of times, all those kinds of things, and I really enjoy that.

One day my two boys came to me and said: “Dad, we’re going to go out and get motorcycles.” I said: “What kind?” They said: “We’re going to get some Ninjas.” I said: “Over my dead body you’re getting Ninjas.” I’ve seen the way young people can ride those things, and it worries me.

Matter of fact, we have a grandson that went out and bought one. We call them crotch rockets. He drove it, and I understand he has dumped it twice now. They scare me. I love motorcycles, but to be honest with you, they do scare me.

I think it’s really important that we have the proper training in place for our young people to make sure that they are safe. Here I am, a seasoned motorcycle rider, and it scared me when my sons came to me. Every time I go out on my motorcycle, even to this day, my mom still sweats. It’s really, really important, I think, that we have the proper training and processes in place to save this.

[4:25 p.m.]

Having said that and a nice introduction around motorcycles and riding…. I think of those things. British Columbia, Canada’s third-largest province by population, is known for its breathtaking landscapes, vibrant communities and bustling urban centres. However, behind the beauty of its highways and roadways lies a growing concern for public safety, especially for our young drivers.

Recent national studies have placed British Columbia as the fifth most dangerous province in Canada for young drivers to get behind the wheel, with higher-than-average rates of collisions and fatalities and traffic-related injuries among drivers aged 16 to 24. These alarming statistics reflect not only the risks faced by inexperienced motorists and motorcyclists but also the urgent need for enhanced road safety measures tailored to protect this vulnerable age group.

In response to these findings and with a firm commitment to reducing preventable road tragedies, it appears that the government of B.C. has introduced Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. This legislation appears to implement targeted reforms to licensing, enforcement and education systems, ensuring that all young drivers in British Columbia are better equipped and better informed and better protected when they take to the wheel.

This is great. I think it’s great to move forward, as I’ve recognized already in my own life that maybe I should have done a little bit more road testing and more training. That would have been really good.

However, British Columbians expect their government to make our roads safer, our licensing systems clearer and our institutions accountable. They also expect that when government proposes changes as significant as those found in Bill 12, it does so with clarity, fairness and the public interest at heart.

This bill is presented as a modernization measure, a way to streamline testing, reduce backlogs and bring B.C.’s licensing rules in line with other jurisdictions. Those are worthy goals, and no one would argue that. No one in this House disagrees that the process of getting licences should be efficient and responsible. This side of the House stands for efficiencies and cost-effectiveness, so we are all behind that. Anything to make things less bureaucratic, more efficient, we are behind on this side of the House.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

When you look closely at Bill 12, what emerges is not modernization. Once again, it appears to be a quiet expansion of bureaucratic and political powers into areas that should be guided by law, evidence and transparency. As legislators, our first goal is to not rubber-stamp convenience. Even on this side of the House, we would not rubber-stamp convenience.

In that spirit, I rise today to express concerns that Bill 12 goes too far in delegating core legislative responsibilities to ICBC and cabinet and that it creates confusion, unequal treatment and lower safety standards for the people of British Columbia.

I don’t know if I’m going to go on and on. I think a number of our colleagues here in the House have already expressed numerous times some of the issues around some of this legislation and what that’s going to look like and how we’re taking the power out of this House, this building, the House that we were elected to, democratically, to oversee legislation.

The most consequential elements of Bill 12 are tucked in sections 23 and 25 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Under these amendments, cabinet, not the Legislature, may prescribe — now hear this — different rules, different waiting periods, levels of driving experience for different classes of people.

What does that mean, for heaven’s sake? At first glance, it might seem harmless. Flexibility can be useful. I don’t disagree with that. But flexibility without criteria is just another word for discretion. And discretion, when unchecked, becomes power exercised without oversight.

Clause 2 of the bill explicitly authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to describe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons. Well, what class of people? Whose class? People from 14 to 25, 25 to this, seniors, young people, old people, immigrants…. What are they talking about with “classes of persons” there?

Clause 3 goes further, giving cabinet and ICBC the authority to prescribe when and whether a knowledge test or road test is even required.

[4:30 p.m.]

This is a fundamental shift. The Legislature would no longer define who must demonstrate competence to drive. Instead, ICBC and cabinet could sit out or waive those requirements through regulation — not coming to this House, but through regulation. No debate, no committee scrutiny and no public consultation whatsoever.

We have seen this story before. Every time government concentrates authority in regulation instead of legislation, transparency suffers. We see that so many times in government, in the newspaper, in the last number of years, where you concentrate power and you change the way things are done. We lose the transparency that the public demands and should receive. The rules become harder to find, harder to challenge and easier to manipulate.

The NDP government insists that this is about efficiency, but efficiency should never come at the cost of equality before the law. British Columbians deserve to know what licensing standards are applied fairly, consistently and transparently, not according to shifts and regulatory mood.

Just a moment on why I think we should state that we have a robust legislation oversight that is needed. Even with the LGC’s power, relying on the LGC alone poses several potential problems. Let me quickly outline those for you.

An absolute lack of transparency. That is more than obvious. The LG order in council process does not involve the same level of public scrutiny and debate as passing legislation in the Legislative Assembly.

Democratic accountability concerns. Relying heavily on the LGC regulations limits the role of us as elected MLAs. We are the ones that were elected to oversee regulation and rules in this province.

Risk of overreach. Although the LGC’s regulatory power is limited by its primary legislation, insufficient legislative oversight could increase the risk of regulatory overreach and unintended consequences. There’s that word again: “unintended consequence.”

The problem with this government and what’s happened before is that there are a lot of unintended consequences in many rules and things they brought up, because we haven’t had enough collaboration, enough open discussion, enough things that have been able to counter and look at the legislation as it moves forward and how it can be changed or what can happen in the future. Unintended consequences are a real inhibitor to having good laws in the province.

Lastly, constitutional checks and balances. The different role represents the separation of powers inherent in Canada’s constitutional framework. It is important to remember that the provincial Legislature provides essential high-level democratic accountability and oversight by creating the laws that define driver licensing. As we look through here, we see a lot of vagueness and uncertainty within this bill and how it is being presented.

Another major concern is the bill’s repeated use of vague terms like “prescribed clauses” and “prescribed considerations.” These appear throughout the amendment, yet nowhere, nowhere, are they defined. What exactly constitutes a class of persons? Is it based on age, on geography, on driving history or whether someone took a course approved by ICBC? We don’t know. That is a major problem.

When legislation defers every important detail to future regulation, it becomes a blank cheque. It allows cabinet to make laws without ever returning to this House. Is this a slippery slope? Is this the way business is going to be done in the province from now on?

Such vagueness invites inconsistency. It could mean that one group of drivers faces stricter rules than another for reasons never explained to the public. It also opens the door to regional disparities. We already have regional disparities within the province. It’s a major issue for a riding like the Fraser-Nicola, where rural residents already struggle with access to testing centres and driver training schools.

If the government intended to treat people differently, it must define how and why. Otherwise, British Columbians are left with a system where fairness depends not on law, but on interpretation.

Competency and convenience. Let’s turn to the heart of the matter, the elimination of mandatory testing for novice drivers seeking their full licence. Bill 12 amends section 25 so people will only have to take a knowledge, road or signal test if required by ICBC. In practice, it means some drivers may progress through the licensing without ever having to prove their ability in a controlled, impartial test.

[4:35 p.m.]

Supporters call this streamlining, lowering the bar. I don’t want to draw a long bow here, but you know, if you’ve got a friend that’s in the testing department and everything and just kind of slides your application through, is that going to happen without proper testing, without the proper checks and balances in place?

Testing isn’t red tape. It’s the foundation for road safety. It’s how we ensure that the privilege of driving is earned through demonstrated skill, not just time behind the wheel, although I think that’s an important piece as well. But it’s really important to have that testing to make sure the time behind the wheel has been well earned and has provided the skills that the driver needs to be driving on our roads safely.

As I mentioned in the beginning, British Columbia has already faced serious challenges on our roads. ICBC’s own data shows that distracted driving remains one of the leading causes of fatalities. Collisions involving inexperienced drivers are disproportionately high. The answer to those problems is better training and higher competency, not fewer checks.

I acknowledge that reducing testing backlogs is important. Reducing red tape is important as well. Rural residents, in particular, know what it’s like to wait months for an appointment or to drive hours to reach a testing centre, but the solution to that problem is capacity, not complacency.

Hire more examiners. Expand testing infrastructure. Partner with regional communities to deliver local testing opportunities. Don’t simply scrap the test. We should be building a system where competence matters more, not less.

Bill 12 also lowers the self-application age for a full licence from 19 to 18. In principle, I have no problem with that. Maybe we should be looking at moving the age of majority from 19 to 18 as well. Many 18-year-olds are independent adults with jobs or college commitments that require driving. But if you’re going to extend that responsibility earlier, we must also extend the safeguards that come with it.

Young drivers are still learning not just how to operate a vehicle but how to handle distractions, fatigue and risks. The graduated licensing program was designed precisely to build those habits over time through structured tests and feedback. By giving cabinet and ICBC the power to waive those steps or shorten waiting periods based on undefined considerations, we risk undermining the very purpose of the graduated system.

This is especially concerning for rural communities like those in Fraser-Nicola, in places such as Merritt, Logan Lake or Hope. Young people often drive long distances on highways or mountain roads soon after getting their licence. They are not controlled urban environments. They are challenging, unpredictable, and they demand skills. Have you driven the whole Coquihalla in the winter?

When government removes clear testing benchmarks, it does not help those young drivers. It leaves them less prepared and much more vulnerable, both to accidents and to unfair judgments when mistakes happen.

If the goal is to modernize licensing for youth, let’s do it through evidence-based education. Approve high-quality training programs, ensure consistent standards provincewide and require data to show that those programs produce safe drivers before reducing testing requirements. That is what modernization looks like — not arbitrary rule-making but measured improvements.

Fairness and equity. Another issue buried in the details of Bill 12 is fairness or rather the lack of it. The amendments explicitly protect existing drivers from certain new restrictions, such as they expand the ban on electronic devices use for learners and novice motorcyclists. If your licence was issued before this law comes into effect, you’re exempt. If it’s issued after, you’re not. That’s fair.

That may seem minor. But in practice, it means two people doing the same thing under the same conditions will be treated differently simply because one happened to get their licence a month earlier. That is not fair. That is arbitrary law.

The government argues that this is to avoid retroactive penalties, but no one is asking for retroactivity. We are asking for consistency. If the restriction is necessary for safety, then it should apply equally to all relevant drivers. If it isn’t necessary, then it shouldn’t apply at all.

[4:40 p.m.]

What we have now is a patchwork, a rule that recognizes danger for some but ignores it for others. This double standard erodes public trust, as my colleague spoke about earlier. It tells British Columbians that government rules are not grounded in principle but in convenience.

The same concern applies to how ICBC may compare out-of-province licences. While harmonization can be useful, giving ICBC full discretion to cite equivalency without transparent criteria invites uneven treatment between jurisdictions. Drivers moving to B.C. deserve to know what standards apply and how decisions are made.

Fairness must be the baseline for any licensing system. Everyone, regardless of age, address or background, should be judged by the same clear standards of competence and responsibility.

Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in Bill 12 is the near-total reliance on future regulations to fill in the gaps. Time and again, the bill says that cabinet may make regulations on matters central to driving licences. Everyone here in the Legislature knows the importance of language. “May” means maybe, maybe not, from wait times to course approvals, from testing requirements to safety gear, yet it imposes no obligation for public consultation, reporting or legislative review.

In plain language, it means decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of British Columbians could be made by order in council, announced one morning, effective the next, with no input from this House.

This is not how a healthy democracy functions at all. Even well-intentioned governments need scrutiny. Regulations should be tabled, reviewed and evaluated, especially when they shape something as fundamental as who is qualified to drive in this province.

This is why the Conservative caucus calls for mandatory legislative review of all regulatory changes under Bill 12. If ICBC introduces a new licensing shortcut or cabinet alters waiting periods, those changes should be tabled here for debate. Data on safety outcomes should be published annually. The public deserves to see whether these reforms are making our roads safer or simply making life easier for the bureaucrats. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Transparency is not an obstacle; it is a guarantee that reforms are credible.

I want to bring this discussion home to the people of Fraser-Nicola. In large urban centres, it may be easy to view licensing as a minor administrative process, another box to tick on the road to convenience. But in the small towns and rural communities I represent, a driver’s licence is often a lifeline. It’s the difference between accessing work and being unemployed, between getting to medical appointments and going without care.

Starting in early 2026, drivers with a clean record who have held their N licence will no longer need to take a second road test to get to their full class 5 licence. This was a direct response to the disproportionate burden faced by rural and remote drivers, we believe.

When testing centres are far apart, when public transit is limited or non-existent, when internet connectivity makes online booking a challenge, rural residents already operate at a distinct disadvantage. They shouldn’t have to navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations on top of that.

A young driver in Princeton or Cache Creek deserves the same clarity and opportunity as one in Vancouver or Burnaby. A senior renewing a licence in Merritt should know the same rules apply as anywhere else in the province. Yet by delegating so much authority to ICBC and the cabinet alone, Bill 12 makes it harder, not easier, for rural British Columbians to have their voice heard.

Decisions about testing, waiting periods and education programs are made entirely in Victoria. What input will local communities have to the process? We need reform that listens to those on the ground — driving instructors, parents, students and community leaders — who understand the local challenges they face.

Another missing element in Bill 12 is evidence, specifically the absence of any requirement for data-driven evaluations. If the government believes that reducing testing will not harm safety, it should prove it. That’s not an unreasonable request. ICBC already collects detailed statistics on collisions, violations and claim costs. That data should inform legislative reform, not follow it.

[4:45 p.m.]

A responsible government would publish annual safety reports showing the impact of licensing changes — how many new drivers were licensed without testing, how their accident rates compared, what role driver education played and on and on. Without such transparency, we are legislating in the dark.

Safety on B.C. roads is not a partisan issue. Every member of this House wants fewer collisions, fewer injuries and fewer lives lost. But the way we achieve that goal matters. Competence cannot be assumed. It must be verified. When government replaces mandatory tests with bureaucratic discretion, it shifts from a standard of evidence to a standard of assumption. That is not progress. That looks like risk.

A Conservative vision. It is easy for government to sell bills like this as modernization. Who doesn’t want less paperwork and shorter lines? But modernization is not measured by how much power we hand to bureaucrats. It’s measured by how much trust we maintain with the public, the trust that is earned through three simple principles.

One is transparency. Rules should be clear, accessible and debated in this House before they take effect.

Competence. Testing and training must be evidence-based, ensuring that everyone on our roads meets consistent standards.

Lastly, fairness. All drivers, regardless of age, location or licence class, should be treated equally under the law. That is the Conservative vision for road safety in British Columbia.

We believe in structured, data-driven education that produces confident drivers, not in shortcuts that produce confusion. We believe in oversight that keeps government honest, not in blank cheques written to cabinet and ICBC. And we believe that reform must serve the people, not the process.

Bill 12 could have been a straightforward update, a chance to improve driver education, expand testing results and align B.C. standards with national best practices. Instead, it has become another example of this government’s habit of governing by regulation rather than by representation.

For residents of Fraser-Nicola and across B.C., driving is not optional. It is essential to the way of life, for work, for family and for life. They deserve a licensing system that is competent, fair and transparent to all of us.

I urge the minister and the government to reconsider the overreach embedded in this bill, bring those regulations into the open, commit to legislative review and ensure that reforms are backed by evidence and shaped by consultation with the communities they affect.

Modernization must never mean centralization. It must mean progress built on accountability, grounded in fairness and driven by the trust of the people we serve.

Kristina Loewen: It’s a privilege to rise in this House for the first time in the fall session, and I think it’s going to be a bit of a whirlwind, if I’m being honest.

Before I begin, I want to say that in my house, if you’re one of my four kids, your experience with getting your licence has probably felt like a completely different universe than your siblings.

My first daughter experienced the ultra-nervous parents. She was also pre-COVID but experienced the backlog of COVID when she was doing her second road test.

Our second had to fight for a road test slot like it was concert tickets, and then she lost all interest in doing her second road test for four years.

The third? Well, he’s gloating that he may never have to do that second road test.

The fourth? Let’s just say that up until a couple days ago, she thought that parallel parking was a mind trick and an ancient form of punishment. So you can all send her some good energy right now, as she’ll be taking her Class 5 in just a few short days.

This bill also stands to create some tensions between my daughter and her partner of five years. He’s been procrastinating, you see, and he still has his N at 24 years old. She was quite indignant to hear that it may just go away for him. Needless to say, I have a vested interest, both as a legislator and as a parent, in what is being proposed in Bill 12.

I first noticed the annoyances that the N created when I was a doula, coaching new moms in labour and with new babies. I began to notice how many moms in their late 20s and even their 30s still had an N driver’s licence. I thought: “What a pain.”

Potentially, these moms would have driven for ten or 15 years already, and they wouldn’t be able to drive their child around with two friends for a playdate. I did understand the increased safety measure, and I appreciated it, but I also saw the test as a huge bother to some.

[4:50 p.m.]

It was then and there that I decided to incentivize my own children to get rid of their Ns as soon as possible. If the government wasn’t going to provide enough incentives, I would. I’m happy to say that both of my oldest girls did their second road test, and they did pass on the first try.

The government’s goal is the same as my goal. At the heart of this bill is the government’s goal of reducing the growing backlog in our licensing system and removing the unnecessary red tape that prevents young people and, frankly, many new residents from getting fully licensed in a timely manner.

Let’s be clear. Streamlining the path to full licensure is a good idea. Making it easier and faster for competent drivers to become fully licensed, especially if they’ve demonstrated safe driving over time, is smart policy.

Under the current model, many young drivers wait well beyond the intended period to move from their N to their class 5 licence, not because they’re unsafe but because it’s another “have to” and the system can’t accommodate the volume of road test appointments. That’s frustrating for families, costly for individuals and unnecessary in many cases. If we can implement a model that recognizes safe, consistent driving behaviour backed by data and allows for progression based on competency, not just arbitrary timelines or test availability, that’s a win.

One of the most promising pieces in this legislation is the move to incentivize participation in certified driver’s education programs. Eight years ago, when I called my nearest driver-training program for my oldest, I asked the question: “What are the benefits of your program?”

I was apologetically told by the owner that he had been lobbying B.C. for years to no avail. He wanted benefits and incentives to do the driver training that would potentially impact insurance or the speed at which you can get licensed. He wanted to incentivize parents and young drivers to take his course and to be the safest drivers they could be, but B.C. did not allow this.

For years, parents have asked: “Why should I invest in driver ed if it doesn’t actually help my teen get their full licence faster?” Well, that’s about to change, and it should. By allowing approved driver education programs to potentially shorten the wait time to full licensure, we’re finally aligning incentives properly. We’re recognizing that proper training makes a difference in safety, and we’re encouraging young drivers and their families to engage in that process from the beginning.

Let’s not forget that data across Canada and other jurisdictions consistently shows that comprehensive driver training reduces collisions, improves hazard perception and builds lifelong habits of safe driving. Let’s reward that effort. Let’s give families a reason to invest in education over shortcuts.

We can’t lose sight of why the original graduated licensing system was brought in back in 1996, to protect young drivers and to reduce preventable crashes. It was built on the idea that time, experience and supervision were essential components of building safe drivers.

This bill removes the automatic requirement for a second road test. Now ICBC will determine if a test is needed. That could work, but only if ICBC has the data, the discretion and the transparency to make those decisions based on safety, not expediency.

We also need to ask: what safety data are we relying on to make this change? Are we tracking outcomes for those who progress without a second test versus those who do? What safeguards are in place if we do see a rise in incidents among new drivers who skip the final road test?

The purpose of the test wasn’t to gatekeep. It was to evaluate. If we’re removing that evaluation step, we need a solid alternative that ensures we’re not putting underprepared drivers on the road with full privileges.

In my day, in the ’90s, I had one friend who had really busy parents, and somehow, she passed her one and only road test with only five hours of practice. Driving with her for the first time was truly terrifying. I also witnessed a new driver just wing around a corner and crash into a parked car because he was simply reaching for a piece of gum.

[4:55 p.m.]

Personally, I also got rear-ended by a new driver. All of this occurred before my age of 19. At that time, I acquired whiplash, and that has caused years of headaches and pain. That young driver was just looking away for a second. Yes, having more experience, more practice, does make you a better driver. I do believe this.

The second test was a good checkpoint for new drivers. My question is: how will drivers’ skills be tracked? How will this government ensure that we turn out great drivers in this province?

There is another piece of this bill that gives me pause, and that’s the significant expansion of regulatory power being handed over to cabinet and to ICBC. Now, I understand the need for flexibility, especially in complex systems like drivers’ licensing. But this bill allows for sweeping regulatory powers under vague language — terms like “prescribed classes,” “other prescribed considerations” and “undefined authority” — to create different rules for different groups.

For example, section 23 lets cabinet prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons without defining who those classes are. Section 25 lets cabinet adjust the minimum waiting period before moving to a full licence and even waives the requirement for a test altogether, again with no clarity on how or when these rules will be applied or who will be consulted. This could lead to unequal treatment, confusion or, worse, inconsistent application of the rules.

If one of my kids was subject to one set of rules while another had a completely different pathway to the same licence just because the rules changed midstream, well, I’d have some questions. I suspect many parents would too. While I do support the intent of flexibility, we must ensure that oversight, transparency and consultation are built into how these regulations are developed and implemented. The public deserves to know how these decisions are being made and why.

On a positive note, there are provisions in this bill that take direct aim at road safety. The expanded zero-tolerance policy for distracted driving, now covering more novice classes, is a step in the right direction. Requiring protective clothing and equipment for motorcycle riders in specific licence classes is long overdue and grounded in evidence. Both of these amendments reaffirm a commitment to safety, particularly for vulnerable road users.

I am a fan of safety balanced with the right amount, not overregulation, and balanced with transparency. Will these new safety rules be enforced equally? Are they retroactive? These are questions we have. What messaging will go out to new and existing drivers so they understand what’s changing? Good policy means good implementation. Good implementation means clear, consistent communication.

At the end of the day, I believe every young person deserves the best chance at safe, confident driving, not just the fastest route to a full licence. I support a system that recognizes experience and safe driving behaviour, reduces unnecessary backlogs and bureaucratic barriers, incentivizes high-quality driver education and also insists on clarity, transparency and data-driven decision-making. If we are going to reduce testing requirements, then as legislators, we must know our safety data and exactly how this will affect our roads and the lives of British Columbians.

I hope the government and ICBC will work collaboratively with stakeholders, educators, parents and young drivers themselves as these changes roll out. Let’s make sure that the outcome isn’t just a faster system but a fairer, safer and smarter one. And when my youngest finally gets her N, hopefully in two weeks, I hope that I can finally get some therapy for my PTSD from having to teach four kids how to drive.

[5:00 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I’m not going to take much time here, just a couple of points.

Bill 12 is an interesting bill to try to solve a problem that may have, also, some unintended consequences. A bill designed to address the immense backlog of driver’s tests and other items but without proper data and statistical input may increase unsafe driving conditions.

When I consider my take on this bill, it comes from my mom lens. You see, I have an N driver in my home and also an L driver. My N driver failed her second test. Now, if you know me or if you ask my kids, you might consider me a well-involved mother, shall we say, meaning not a lot of business occurs in my home that I’m not aware of.

That said, I’m the first to claim that my kid is actually a really good driver. So when she failed at 20, it really, really annoyed me: (1) because it’s additional money she doesn’t have without being able to secure full-time employment; (2) because she also couldn’t book a follow-up appointment.

You see, she failed on a one-inch infraction on a white stop line. Now, I’ve done worse, and I’ve got a clean accident record at 49 years old. I’m quite sure all of us in here have done worse than rolling one inch onto a white line.

I’m all for thorough testing, especially when it comes to getting your N. What if that one-inch infraction was a pedestrian in a crosswalk? What if it was a less skilled driver who was too comfortable behind the wheel, slow-rolled through an intersection and hit a kid darting out from the sidewalk?

Getting rid of your N as a young adult is one of those last milestones into adulthood. I saw those frustrated tears from my kid at feeling failure when nothing even close to that is true. That said, there are other kids out there that have atrocious driving skills and absolutely should be put through additional testing. Kids who are at the height of their incomplete frontal lobe development make dumb decisions behind 2,000-pound machinery.

What evidentiary data is there that supports the elimination of a second test when it comes to training and competency? How will ICBC ensure that programs are consistent and held to measurable outcomes? How do we make it fair for seasoned drivers versus new drivers?

Another unfortunate trend in this bill is also this bucket general item, used in earlier bills in the spring, that again allows for cabinet’s sweeping regulatory powers. It’s so vague and, again, adds so much uncertainty to legislation that needs firm understanding. We need guaranteed transparency.

Much like my critique of Bill 15 at committee in the spring, why does the bill rely so heavily on future regulations instead of clear legislated criteria? Who contributes to future regulations?

Bill 20 dropped today. Same trend. I just spent my lunch time noticing the same theme when going through that bill as well, much of it delegated to regulations that we have no lens on.

When we rely on future regulations, we remove our ability to scrutinize them and debate them. The amount of time on this side of the House we have debated and relayed our frustrations at determining our support or lack of support of a bill because every detail is relegated to regulations is enormous.

Conservatives agree with streamlining. We agree to education, but we also want transparency and facts and data. That’s our position, and I hope this government considers those questions at committee stage and takes that into consideration for future bills.

[5:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I’m rising to continue our discussion on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I’m coming to this discussion, like many others, from personal experience. I happened to be among the first cohort of people who went through the graduated licensing program when it was first brought in.

I remember waiting for my road test, very carefully learning every rule and just thinking about every responsibility. I went through private lessons and had some pre-practice with my instructor and was ready to drive my mom’s cherry-red Chevy Venture minivan. And my instructor pulled the plug on me. He said I wasn’t ready, and for good reason. I was always having a hard time with those pesky shoulder checks that were a challenge.

I think that was a good experience. I went back to the drawing board and, of course, ended up getting my class 5. But that experience did leave a lasting impression. It’s how I remember the system because I went through it.

Really, we do need to treat drivers’ training and licensing very thoughtfully, just like my instructor did at that time.

Now years later, of course, I’m a parent. I think about my own kids. They’ve got quite a bit of time still before they’ll start driving. But we’ll get to that age, and I’m thinking about what system we are setting up for them. So that’s the lens I bring to the discussion today.

I think about all parents across B.C. Everyone wants their kids to be safe when they get behind the wheel. They’re wondering about what these rule changes will mean for their kids, for their safety. Will they have any increase in accidents? I think those are legitimate things for us to discuss as we’re looking to pass a significant piece of legislation.

When I worked in industry, we spent a lot of time talking about driving and driving hazards. Every single day we had a safety moment before pretty much every meeting we had. You could bring up almost any topic, but driving was one that was discussed the most, because it was recognized that it actually is one of the most dangerous things that we will do in our entire course of our day. There are unknown risks. There are challenges. You can’t plan all of the hazards ahead of time; those are unknown.

With the company I worked for, it was mandatory for anybody who was driving to actually take a defensive driving course. And I had to do a road test all over again and just went back to that phase when I was getting my class 5. I had to take a defensive driving class and pass it to continue driving for my employer. Obviously, defensive driving is something that you learn when you are taking some of the training, so that is something we need to continue talking about.

When we talk about changes to licensing, training or rules for young drivers, it’s not in the abstract concept. This is something that has real consequences. It’s personal, and it affects real families, communities and real results on the road. That’s something that I’ll be getting into a little bit.

Let me start with some of the positives. Conservatives support modernizing licensing and making it more efficient. Reducing the backlogs in testing is certainly a worthwhile goal. I think a lot of speakers…. You’ve heard them talk about this already. Nobody should have to wait months just to book a road test.

I know right now it is a little bit more challenging to book a road test because of the BCGEU strike. There are increased backlogs from that, but that’s a whole other issue entirely.

On this side of the House, we do support the focus on novice driver safety in particular, on proper training and on ensuring that the transition from learner to full licence is structured, evidence-based and, indeed, that it’s actually thorough. Those goals are important, and they’re something all members of this House can agree on.

At the same time, there are areas in this bill where more clarity, I think, would be of benefit. Again, that’s something that has been talked about.

[5:10 p.m.]

Sections 23 and 25, for example, give ICBC and cabinet significant authority to set rules by regulation. While I understand there’s a desire and a need for flexibility, these rules affect thousands of drivers — young drivers, old drivers, everyone who’s on the road across the entire province.

Drivers, instructors and law enforcement need to know how the rules will actually apply, and they need consistency of those rules. Terms like “prescribed classes” and “prescribed considerations” are left undefined. Without clarity, it’s hard for families, driving instructors and even ICBC staff to know exactly what will apply to each driver. We want to ensure that this flexibility doesn’t result in unequal treatment, where drivers in one area or of one age group face different rules from others, not because of safety considerations but because the law is too vague or the prescribed rules are too vague.

Another point in that I want to emphasize is really competence over convenience. I understand the pressure to reduce the testing backlogs. In northern and rural communities like Prince George–Mackenzie, road test delays can actually be a little bit longer than they are elsewhere, sometimes stretching for months at a time. That’s frustrating for learners, and it’s frustrating for families as well. But the answer is not necessarily to eliminate or reduce the quality of testing.

Driving is a skill, and like any skill, it needs to be measured and verified. Competence cannot be replaced by time spent or course completion alone. That’s why my former employer, as I said, had that requirement of every three years having defensive driving. That was the unique experience I had, and I was able to build my competence and skills. We need to make sure that we have some basis of that for our young people.

Accelerated licensing pathways can be beneficial if they’re done properly, but only if the programs are high quality, accessible and evidence-based. I’ve used the words “evidence-based” quite a bit here.

I think about our northern highways, where I live. Long stretches, winter conditions, limited cell coverage — these are just the realities that affect every young driver learning to navigate our roads safely. Competence is not optional here.

There have been concerns with some of the changes, and I think these are legitimate. They need to be addressed. Kate Harris, CEO and owner of DriveWise, has raised some of these concerns. She said: “Driver training works. We have the statistics to say that. People need to be educated. Now we’ve already decreased the first road test from 35 minutes to 20. We need to do something to make sure that these new drivers are being tested properly. We need them to stay alive on our roads.”

I think she makes a very good point. Competence is the key consideration there. Obviously, this is someone who has clear experience in that regard. That’s why we need to proceed with considerable caution.

I’m going to talk more specifically about the impact on young and new drivers, because that’s really where the risk is. Lowering the self-application from 19 to 18 may make sense in principle, but it has to come with strong training and strong oversight in what that looks like.

Young drivers are statistically at a much higher risk, and we have to ensure that safety is front and centre. According to ICBC’s own statistics, new drivers are actually eight times more likely to have a fatal collision than experienced drivers. That’s what’s at stake here. That’s how serious this actually is. Young drivers, among all crashes, are 1½ times more than the general population. ICBC also noted that the graduated licensing program itself had a 16 to 17 percent reduction in crashes overall. These are things that need to be taken into account.

I know that Ontario is one of the other jurisdictions to compare ourselves to. Their own GDL program had similar data, with reduced crashes as well in that jurisdiction.

[5:15 p.m.]

We want to avoid creating a two-tiered system. Currently transitional rules mean some existing licence holders are exempt from certain changes, like the new distracted driving restrictions, for example, while new drivers are held to updated standards.

I think it is important to look at these new standards. Technology is changing. It is something that…. Young drivers think distraction is something to take very seriously. They rely more on GPS or navigation apps. Our vehicles now are much different from how they were even ten years ago in that regard. I think, obviously, focusing on novice drivers can be well-intentioned.

I think these rules are well-intentioned, but it’s important that they’re clear and very practical. I hope that government can make it clear in discussion further, as this bill progresses through the House, what the rules will be.

Families and drivers do need predictable and consistent rules to be able to apply that to. As one of the last speakers said, having different kids going through different levels…. Just even in one household, keeping that straight is tough enough on a parent.

That brings us to…. I’m going to talk about the topic of transparency. That’s something that, because we haven’t been told exactly what all of the rules are…. Again, they’re prescribed by regulation. This is something that’s been talked about already, but I want to emphasize that we don’t know exactly what cabinet is going to decide behind closed doors here. We need transparency in how these regulations are actually going to be applied.

This is what I think would allay some of the concerns of the owner of DriveWise that I had mentioned. Let’s all hope that there will be proper consultation. I want to see some clear indication of what that consultation is going to look like, which experts will be able to provide meaningful input as these regulations are put into force.

As for myself, I’d like to see a fulsome public consultation when these regulations are drafted. In an ideal world, some of that would actually be done by a committee of this Legislature. Let’s have some legislative oversight and bring it back to the tools in this House, in committee work, to actually look at what these regulations could be. I think that would be the most transparent piece overall.

Then I think, overall, I also want to see regular reporting on outcomes of what these changes actually mean in effect. As I said, I mentioned these collision rates that ICBC is reporting from the graduated licensing program. We need to actually have this data in real time, and it needs to be reported publicly. Collision rates, test pass rates and driver performance — all these things need to be looked at very clearly. This is the kind of accountability that ensures that changes are effective, fair and, again, the words I use every time, evidence-based.

I want to emphasize again the realities of driving in northern B.C. I mentioned the winter conditions. Our roads can stretch for hundreds of kilometres with very few services along the way. Winter storms can be very unpredictable. Icy roads and limited visibility are all part of daily life for drivers in the North, especially young, inexperienced drivers.

When a learner takes a road test in a place like Prince George or in Mackenzie, it’s not just about passing on a quiet street. It might be in whiteout conditions that they’re actually doing a road test even, or just their regular daily commute. They have to understand, when they’re driving on the highway, how to manage those long highway stretches, navigate snow and ice, as I said, and stay safe even when emergency services are far away. These are actually practical things that are brought up in the course of discussions in the testing process and driver’s training, which is excellent.

These conditions make competence training and real experience even more critical, I think, than in urban areas. I mean, urban areas, the traffic congestion is its own risk, certainly, but the fact that wildlife collisions or highway collisions are something we’re talking about on northern roads is something that really needs to be thought about as we look to changes to this system. Any regulatory changes and, especially, accelerated licensing pathways must be practical.

[5:20 p.m.]

I also want to say that they need to be accessible for rural drivers, not just designed for the Lower Mainland drivers, as we’re looking at these rules. A driver education program that works well in Vancouver might not work the same for someone who lives in Fort St. James, and we have to account for that.

In rural and northern communities, part of the challenge is that there are fewer driver education schools. I talked about some of the other risks already in my private…. The lack of training is a bit of a barrier.

I go back to my work in the private sector. One of the projects I’d worked on was supporting to get more driver’s training into Indigenous communities. It certainly has been a barrier for Indigenous communities to get their driver’s licence.

I’d worked with Coast Mountain College on getting them a vehicle that they could use in driver’s training to deliver the training right on reserve, in Indigenous communities, in place. We have to look as a province on how to make sure that we are having accessible training to build those competencies, those skills, in those rural and remote and Indigenous communities where they may not be as easily available.

Any program that relies on courses, testing or accelerated pathways must ensure accessibility for some of these other parts of the province, not just urban centres. For example, if a program shortens waiting periods but is only available in Vancouver or Victoria, it doesn’t serve young drivers in the North, and quite frankly, I don’t think it’s good enough.

We should also consider any unique barriers that particularly the Indigenous communities may have and make sure that…. As I said, the consultation that happens needs to include consultation that takes into account their knowledge and needs.

I’m trying to wrap up a little bit of my remarks, but there are a few questions I hope the government will clarify at the committee stage.

I want the government to look at: how will the prescribed classes and regulations be applied fairly and consistently across the province? Again, that goes to speaking to answer to those folks in northern B.C. who may have questions.

The second I want to ask: will new regulations be made public and reviewed by the Legislature before they take effect? I’ve talked about that already. If it was something that was transparent, brought to a legislative committee, that takes care of that. But maybe that’s something that can be discussed in committee stage.

How will accelerated licensing programs be evaluated to ensure they maintain safety standards? That is, I think, one of the number one things we need to answer for those parents that are thinking about their kids who need to have those competencies in driver’s training.

How will rural communities and regions with limited access to driver education be supported? Again, I just talked about that lack of access.

Why are some existing licence holders exempt from certain rules while new drivers are not? I think it’s just making sure that there’s clarity so that we know what the difference is between novice drivers and experienced drivers.

These questions are not meant to be political at all. They are about ensuring safety, fairness and trust in our system.

From a Conservative perspective, I just want to say that we support evidence-based driver education programs. We support maintaining testing and competency standards in our driving and training system. We support transparency and legislative oversight. We support ensuring programs are accessible to all regions, including rural and northern communities. These are core for me in looking at this bill.

If these principles are followed, changes to licensing can achieve the goals we all share, safer roads and better trained drivers, but without compromising fairness or public trust.

Driving is an everyday activity, but it’s also one of the most safety-critical things that we do. I speak today as someone who obviously went through the graduated licensing program myself. I’m speaking as a parent. I’m speaking as an MLA representing a northern riding, where distances are long, roads can be challenging and safety matters every single day.

[5:25 p.m.]

I can respect the fact that Bill 12 has some positive intentions, but it needs careful attention to clarity, fairness and oversight. We need to proceed in this area very cautiously. With thoughtful implementation, consultation and strong evidence-based programs, we can ensure that British Columbians, young and old, urban and rural, are safe on our roads. We all want our kids to get the training they need and to have the safe roads for all British Columbians.

Brennan Day: When I was a new driver, I came through the first years of the graduated licensing program, much like my colleague here. Like a lot of young people, I was juggling school, a job and the freedom of finally having keys in my hand. At the time, the rules certainly felt strict. It was a new program with several hurdles and very different than many of the programs across the country.

Looking back, the message was pretty simple: earn experience, build good habits, get home safe, take a driving program and cut some time off your program time. This is the frame I want to bring to Bill 12.

Bill 12 amends the Motor Vehicle Act in a few important ways. It lets ICBC compare out-of-province licences and offences with our system, which I think is absolutely critical. Anybody that has transferred between provinces knows that that is quite burdensome.

It moves away from mandatory testing towards tests when only ICBC requires them. It allows cabinet to set different waiting periods for novice drivers and to approve driver education courses that could shorten those waits. It also lowers the wait age for self-application for a full licence from 19 to 18, which I think is a very positive step.

It also expands distracted-driving restrictions for motorcycle learners and clarifies authority to require protective clothing and equipment. Given some of the people I’ve seen driving around on scooters and on motorcycles this summer, I think that is an extremely good step and a regulation that certainly needs to be tightened, while many of my motorcycle-riding colleagues may disagree.

Before I turn to clause questions, I want to ground us on what people are actually feeling on the road. Traffic is substantially heavier. That’s not a talking point. I’m pretty sure, as most of the government MLAs are from very busy regions, it’s daily life. Actively insured vehicles have risen from roughly 3.6 million to about 3.7 million vehicles over the last year and licensed drivers from around 3.89 million to just under four million. More drivers, more vehicles, more interactions, and that translates into more potential for conflict if skills and habits do not keep pace.

The Fraser Valley is an excellent example. Operating speeds on Highway 1 between Langley and Abbotsford can drop to about 20 kilometres per hour at peak. That’s not just inconvenient. Stop and go creates decision points every few seconds. Merge or wait? Brake or roll? Signal or squeeze in? The more of those decisions that we stack up, the more we test judgment and patience, especially for novice drivers and riders.

We also know congestion does not exist in a vacuum. Transit demand has also grown, and driving trips have nudged up as well, which means even a small percentage of increase piles onto a network that is already stretched thin.

I’m not here to dramatize everybody’s morning commute, but I will be blunt. I recently drove up to Chilliwack and the volume was real. Long, heavy congestion, lane changes regularly, frequent shockwave braking from drivers a few hundred metres ahead. Anybody who does that during busy times knows exactly what I’m talking about. You can feel how quickly one distracted glance, one late merge or one misread of a brake light can ripple through a line of traffic.

That’s why Bill 12 needs to be more than housekeeping. It needs to keep our eye on competence under real-world conditions.

A few numbers to keep close. If we had eliminated distraction in British Columbia, we could save around 79 British Columbians every single year. And while fatality rates have declined over the long term, motorcyclist deaths nationally have increased over the past decade. That combination matters for the sections of the bill that tighten device rules for learners and contemplate minimum protective gear for riders.

With that context, here are the safety questions I think British Columbians want answered as we work through Bill 12.

First, on pathways and waiting periods for novice drivers, the bill allows ICBC and cabinet to set different waiting periods and pathways. Done well, that can target risk and reduce backlogs. Done poorly, it can breed confusion.

What evidence will guide these waiting periods? Will the public see that evidence? How will we ensure a driver in Courtenay or Comox is treated consistently with a driver in Burnaby or Fort St. John, unless there are clear, published safety reasons to do otherwise?

[5:30 p.m.]

Second, on testing, moving from mandatory retests to tests when ICBC requires them is not automatically a step backwards, but we need a clear trigger list — collisions, violations, repeated device offences, documented risky events. If we reduce routine retesting, what replaces it as a matter of competence? Anybody that’s driven on the road has seen people that should likely be retested.

Third, on training, the bill allows approved courses to shorten waiting periods. That is reasonable if the training actually improves hazard perception and decision-making, not just test-taking.

Traditional classroom instruction on its own is mixed on crash reduction in young drivers. Targeted hazard perception training, where drivers learn to scan, to anticipate and to spot latent hazards, shows promising improvements in the skills that matter on the road. If we’re going to reward training, let’s reward what measurably changes behaviour.

I’m going to digress here slightly to discuss school bus safety, which is notably absent in these changes, despite B.C. sitting at the back of the bus on school bus driver training and standardization. Rather than freelance, I’m just going to read into the record a letter that I recently sent to the Minister of Transportation.

“Dear Minister of Transportation,

“British Columbia prides itself on putting safety first. Yet when it comes to school bus safety standards, we are not meeting the expectations families rightly hold. Across Canada, provinces like Ontario and Alberta have already set clear provincewide benchmarks for licensing, training and the proper use of safety equipment such as stop arms.

“In British Columbia, these responsibilities are still left largely to the discretion of individual operators and drivers, resulting in inconsistent standards from company to company and district to district.

“If we were grading ourselves, we would have to admit that B.C.’s school bus safety is still at an emerging level. That is not a grade any government should accept when the lives of children are at stake.

“To underline the differences, the following comparison illustrates where we stand against our peers. No mandatory provincewide bus-specific training program for class 2 or class 4 school bus drivers. No enforceable provincial standards for the operation of stop arms. No requirement for regular retesting or provincially overseen refresher courses. No consistent public education campaign to ensure motorists understand school bus safety rules. No standardized audit and inspection program to enforce compliance on these rules across districts.

“The result is that the safety of a child boarding a bus in one district may not be guaranteed to be held to the same standard as in another. That variability is unacceptable.

“Minister, I’m urging you to take action to move British Columbia forward. We should not be sitting at the back of the bus on school bus safety. We should be setting the standard. That means mandating provincewide driver training and licensing requirements, establishing clear and enforceable rules for stop arm use, requiring ongoing retesting and launching a provincewide public education campaign.

“Families in every part of British Columbia deserve to know that their children are protected by the same high safety standard no matter where they live or who operates their school bus.

“I look forward to your response and to seeing B.C. take its rightful place as leader in this critical area.”

“XOXO, Brennan.”

No? I was just checking if anybody was listening.

If we’re making safety changes, I would encourage the ministry to seriously consider improvements to school bus safety.

We recently ran a campaign in my riding, and it was clear, through talking to the bus operator, the school district and the regional district, that standards were not consistent. I would encourage the government and ICBC to push for increased safety standards in this area.

Moving back to Bill 12, on age. Lowering the self-application age for a full licence from 19 to 18 reflects the reality that many 18-year-olds are working, paying rent and carrying family responsibilities. The question is not the number itself. It’s what surrounds it — strong night driving rules in the highest-risk months, careful limits on peer-aged passengers until experience is built and a straightforward path back to a test or additional training if violations occur.

Canada’s long-run trend for young driver fatalities is trending downwards. We should lock in those gains by keeping the guardrails up where they matter the most.

Fifth, on distraction. The bill clarifies that learners, including motorcycle learners, cannot use electronic devices, even in hands-free. That makes sense because habits set in early. If distraction is costing approximately 79 lives a year, the learner stage is the exact moment to build the reflexes of eyes up and phone away.

I will sidebar here. It is rather ironic that you cannot touch your cell phone while you’re driving, but you have a big screen TV now attached to your dashboard.

[5:35 p.m.]

Will the ministry commit to an annual public reporting of collisions and violations by licence stage, so parents, instructors and riders can see if the changes work? Transparency is a safety tool.

Sixth, on protective clothing for motorcyclists. The authority to prescribe clothing, footwear and equipment should be paired with a process that brings riders, safety researchers and trauma clinicians to the same table. Helmets save lives. Beyond that, armoured jackets, pants, gloves and boots are associated with reduced injury risk and lower odds of hospitalization in a system that cannot stand further burden.

The aim is not to police fashion. It’s to reduce harm when crashes occur. If we set standards, we should publish the rationale and then measure outcomes against it.

Now I want to speak directly to the reality of heavier traffic and why training matters under those conditions. Let me use a couple of clearly marked examples to illustrate the kinds of situations people face every day. These are not formal statistics. They are scenarios that instructors and families will recognize.

Example 1, the merge under pressure. We can see this fail every day. Imagine a novice driver on Highway 1 approaching an on-ramp near Abbotsford during the afternoon peak. Operating speeds have already dipped to around 20 kilometres per hour in sections.

The driver checks the mirror, signals and sees a long line of vehicles in the right lane with minimal gaps. Do they stop at the end of the ramp and risk a hard brake behind them? Do they accelerate into a too small gap and risk a sideswipe? Do they hesitate and force a last-second decision?

Good hazard perception training teaches that driver to scan early, adjust speed and communicate intent with signal and lane positioning. That’s all teachable, but that needs to be on-the-road experience. And it does reduce risk.

Example 2, the shockwave brake. Picture a motorist travelling westbound. Several cars ahead, someone taps the brakes too hard. The wave moves backwards through the line like a slinky.

If our driver is glancing at a message, even on a mounted phone, they lose two seconds of cushion they needed. A minor error becomes a rear-end collision, one we see all too often. One driver goes to hospital. Two vehicles end up in the shop, costing our ICBC substantial money. Three families have their weekend disrupted.

Eliminating that single look down is the difference between a near miss and a long insurance claim. That’s why the device rule for learners matters. It builds the habit early.

Finally, example 3, a rider in mixed traffic. Consider a learning motorcyclist in Chilliwack on a warm evening. The road is dry, visibility is good, and traffic is dense but moving. Without armoured gloves and boots, a low-speed slide that would’ve been scrapes becomes tendon damage and months of rehab. With proper gear, the same slide is a bruised ego and a scuffed jacket. The physics don’t care whether we’re experienced or not. The gear shifts patient outcomes.

Training is certainly not a silver bullet, but in heavy traffic, it acts like a seat belt for judgment. It tightens up the slack in our decision-making when the environment gets noisy. If we’re going to recognize training in law by shortening waiting periods, then we should also recognize it in insurance by offering a modest, time-limited discount for drivers who complete an evidence-based program and maintain a clear record. If collision and claim data show a benefit, great. If not, we would be able to adjust quickly.

Process matters too. Bill 12, as my colleague pointed out, leaves a lot to regulation. Flexibility has value, but the public needs a line of sight. I would like to see draft regulations posted for comment, plain-language summaries tabled here before they take effect and an annual outcomes report with regional breakouts — collisions, injuries, violations, licence stage, training pathway. If the curve bends down, we will all see it and celebrate. If it doesn’t, we’ll see that, too, and be able to adjust for a better outcome.

There’s also a rural and regional reality we should respect. What works in downtown Vancouver is not identical to what works on Highway 19, the Coquihalla or two-lane routes across the North. The rules should be consistent, but implementation can listen to people who drive long distances for work, medical appointments or family responsibilities.

The province runs hundreds of permanent and short-term traffic counters. We should use that data to tune our approach without compromising safety.

I’ll circle back to the start. More drivers and more vehicles were on the roads than a year ago. New vehicle registrations in British Columbia were in the neighbourhood of 200,000 last year as part of a national rebound increase. Even with a welcome shift to transit, key corridors remain tight at peak hours. Mix in phones, fatigue and impatience, and the margin for error shrinks. Bill 12 can help if we keep our focus on competence, clarity and measurable outcomes.

[5:40 p.m.]

We need to make sure training counts. We need to approve programs that improve hazard perception and decision-making, not just classroom completion. Ensure that we’re funding correctly so that we recognize completion, with a modest insurance incentive tied to a clean driving record. Pull approval quickly if the data doesn’t show a safety gain.

Guard the novice months. Keep strong night and passenger limits where risk is highest. Make the path to corrective action simple and educational when mistakes happen. Publish the scoreboard. Set a baseline now and report annually by region, age and licence stage. If collisions and injuries fall, good. If not, we need to ensure that the system is flexible enough to adjust.

Let’s make sure we keep riders in mind. If we set protective gear standards, do it with riders and clinicians at the table. Explain the why. Track the results. Refresh the standard as technology improves.

Let’s measure distraction honestly. If the estimate is that roughly 79 lives a year could be saved by eliminating distraction, then let’s track whether enforcement, technology and culture are closing that gap. Pilot device-blocking features for learners with proper privacy protections, and publish the results. Keep what works, and stop doing what doesn’t.

As a side note, if we get the balance right, we make the system less confusing for families, more predictable for industry and safer for everyone who shares the road. If we get it wrong, we erode confidence, and we risk lives. The good news is that this House, with whatever party we sit in, can choose the safer path. We can ask the hard questions now so that the regulations reflect them later. We can pair flexibility with accountability, and we can focus on the outcomes that matter most, to ensure that everybody gets home safely.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to my colleagues opposite for that very warm welcome. It is genuinely greatly appreciated.

I’m coming at this speech today with a couple of different perspectives in mind. First of all, my son is 15½ years old. He’s very keen on entering the driving world, shall we say.

You know, where I come from in the East Kootenay, the testing, after a year of having a learner’s permit, is quite a challenge. Many of our communities are quite clogged up with some of the bookings. Often folks have to travel great distances in order to find an appropriate time slot available, whether it’s travelling from Invermere to Golden or to Kimberley, what have you. It can be well over an hour, just because we simply don’t have the testing numbers in place.

So in spirit, I really support removing those, because I think for a lot of people it is a bit of a barrier to them, especially if they fail their first test, because it can be several months to be able to get in line to do it again. But as a father, I would really love to see my son take a driving test before he’s actually let loose on the road.

I’ve really had the honour and the privilege of being an educator for my entire professional career before this. There’s really nothing more exciting than watching a young person enter that driving world and the look on their face and the pathway of freedom that lies ahead of them.

I also want to point out that I think, and I’ll speak to this in a little bit more detail moving forward, the value of driver’s education is extremely important for young people, but it can also be a tremendous barrier for some. It’s definitely not free. You know, that can be very cost-prohibitive if we’re talking about a system that’s available for everyone.

As we dig into the bill and move into committee stage in the coming days here, I would like to look at a discussion around including some of that driver education in the school curriculum. I think it could be something that is done and available for everybody. Cost wouldn’t be an issue, and it could easily be funnelled in through career education, health and safety, physical education, for those that really can’t potentially afford that driver education.

[5:45 p.m.]

As we’re talking about this, too — I know many of my colleagues have mentioned this — we live in a wonderfully diverse province with many different seasonal variabilities, which does really affect the way that people drive.

I know that in the East Kootenay, in Columbia River–Revelstoke, animals are a big problem on the road. It’s rare that you are driving at dusk or at dawn, first thing in the morning, and you don’t see a herd of elk on the road or, unfortunately, an animal that has been hit not a long time previous to that.

There has to be some awareness around some of these variable factors based on regions. We get a lot of really cold weather and black ice.

What I want to address when we go into committee stage is having that awareness and that education for drivers, regardless of the testing regime, maybe something that’s a little bit more robust for teaching students how to drive defensively and accordingly for those variable conditions. For the most part, these are our children and our young people, and we want to give them the best opportunity to be safe.

As we’re speaking to the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act here, I really do commend the intent behind this bill. Obviously, as opposition members, we always look for ways to streamline and modernize legislation. That’s obviously really important, but there are some legitimate questions to ask here so that we don’t have more questions than answers as we move forward. We don’t want to create an environment where we have much more risk, again, to new drivers.

As we look at this bill, we may not have tests that are required for certain drivers, and there’s regulation authority regarding some of this novice licensing. It potentially allows for conditions to be imposed on entire classes of people. I think we just really need to dig into, as I read, the amendments to the legislation being a little bit vague at times and just really narrowing in on what some of that regulation would look like for specific individuals. I think that’s really important.

What we don’t want to do is lower the bar here. We don’t want to be risking safety at the expense of making things more streamlined. We really have to make sure that we get this right. I know my colleagues and I generally support the streamlining, but we want to have that valuable discussion, as we have with many of the bills here in this fall session already, to make sure that we’re looking at this in the right way.

When we’re looking at determining when a test is waived, what are the criteria for that? Who, essentially, is going to be accountable for those decisions? We want to make sure that we have that clear for everybody involved.

I’m really a proponent of driver education. It’s something that I went through as a young person, and it definitely helped me become more aware and a better defensive driver on the road. But as I mentioned earlier, I think it’s really, really important that we try our best to make that available for those that may have barriers in their way, whether it’s regional restrictions, cost restrictions, etc.

The restrictions on night driving based on classification…. What’s the class of persons that we’re talking about? Age, geography, driving history…. We just need to really dial that in and make sure that we’re looking at things in the right way here.

Clause 2 of the bill is looking at cabinet having the authority to prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons. I agree that flexibility is important at times, but we don’t want to be too ambiguous with this, because it could become quite dangerous as an unintended consequence. You know, legitimate questions like: what is sufficient experience? We really need to hammer that out.

[5:50 p.m.]

With somebody that’s perhaps a new Canadian that has decades of driving experience, will they be treated the same or differently than a teenager with six months behind the wheel? I think we just need to look at some of these variables when we’re discussing this in more detail.

I really want to urge the government that we work together for establishing these clear, evidence-based criteria for the experience equivalency, with driving records to be mentioned, jurisdictional comparisons, completion of certified training, etc. I also think we have to have really good regulations that separate those that potentially need a little bit more practice from those that are ready to head out onto the road.

The motorcycle safety and protective gear is an interesting one when we’re looking at clause 5. Again, I think it’s something that…. We have to look in detail here with this. We’re talking about having protective gear — clothing, footwear, equipment — when operating and riding a motorcycle, which I completely agree with.

I know in Columbia River–Revelstoke, there are individuals that prefer to drive their motorcycle in the summer with no shirt on or with shorts, and I always think about how awful it would be if there was an accident with that. So I totally support bringing in those safety measures for this.

I think we need to hash out what that protective gear is. Who are the manufacturers? Things of this nature. Is it required that somebody riding a motorcycle wears chaps, for example? Leather boots — to what standard? Specific helmets that are meeting certain standards.

I think those are things that we need to have discussions about, which we’ll, I’m sure, come to an agreement on as I know the members opposite value safety as much as we do here in the opposition.

Another challenge, however, with this specific piece of the legislation, the amendments to the legislation, is enforcement. It’s always an issue with some of this stuff. As we know, especially in rural communities in British Columbia, our RCMP members are already stretched relatively thin. I think they’re busy enough.

When we’re asking them to make sure that people are wearing the right protective gear…. Just so that communication is also clear with the members, that they know what to look for but also so that enforcement is done in a way that’s reasonable. If somebody, perhaps, is not abiding by those regulations, that they’re not taking up too much of our valuable police resources to do that.

It’d be great to have a public awareness campaign in schools. I see so many more young people now that are riding electric…. They look like dirt bikes, but they’re electric bikes of some sort. If we could have a public awareness campaign in schools that looks at dressing for the slide not the ride, so that we can have young people learning this early on in their life — to wear the protective gear that’s necessary to avoid very, very serious injuries.

I always think about costs to things because people are stretched right now, and we want to be really mindful of that. If we’re introducing regulations, which I agree with, around proper safety equipment for riding motorcycles, let’s dig into things like…. Perhaps people are given tax breaks for purchasing some of that new gear that perhaps they can’t normally afford, especially young people or those in lower income brackets. I think there are creative solutions to not break the bank for people to meet the safety standards at the same time. So I’m looking forward to some of that constructive conversation around that.

Now, when we’re talking about electronic devices, I have to say it’s quite concerning. I know we’ve obviously had quite a public awareness campaign over the last number of years, and the enforcement, I think, has been good around not using cell phones in vehicles. It’s very, very dangerous, and I think the fines that are in place, which are steep, are appropriate to get people off their telephones and be hands-free when they’re driving.

I had a discussion with one of our local ICBC repair shops not that long ago. We were discussing, and he said business has never been better, which is kind of a catch-22 because obviously that means that there are a lot more accidents happening than there have been in the past.

[5:55 p.m.]

He really did attribute that, in his professional opinion, to again the screens that are now in vehicles. We just bought a new vehicle, my wife and I, and it’s extremely distracting, I have to be honest with you, with the map and changing the music or the podcast or whatever.

Perhaps not directly related to this, I think it’s a discussion that we have to have around some of those larger screens being in the vehicles, which are extremely distracting. And perhaps there’s a way to educate young people and to put regulation in place where young people can operate vehicles that don’t have those distractions in their vehicles.

Again, I just want to talk really quickly about a couple of other pieces here. Transition rules for new electronic device restrictions and the reclassification of class 7 and 8 licences, class 5 and 6, respectively, must be communicated very clearly and broadly to the public. What we don’t want to have here is a situation where the public is confused about some of these things.

I think we have a responsibility in government as a top-down way to really focus on educating the public about what these changes are going to be, so that there are just really no surprises for the public. I think that’s extremely important because we see frustration and malaise sometimes when that’s not communicated clearly and then people are surprised. In this case, there would be various penalties to be paid. Again, there are lots of ways we can do that with social media and things like that, but I think that’s one of our responsibilities that we have here.

When we’re talking about insurance premiums and reclassification, how is that going to be affecting rates? Will drivers who are going through these reclassifications be protected from unexpected hikes to their insurance? I really hope that’s something that we can discuss. Insurance is very expensive, and we want to make sure, again, that we’re being mindful of affordability throughout this whole process.

We just want to be very targeted in the language here that we move forward. I know my colleagues and I will be presenting some sensible amendments, which I hope we can discuss in more detail at the committee stage around several of these clauses and sections of these amendments to this legislation.

We just want to make sure that as we go forward, we’re also reviewing some of these changes to make sure that they’re working. Legislation is always a set of working documents, and we want to make sure that we’re evaluating the progress as we move along here, to ensure that these decisions were the right ones.

Generally speaking, I support the idea of updating some of this legislation, but just keeping in mind, I really, really want to keep safety at the forefront in doing this in the right way. So again, when we’re going through this in committee stage, let’s look at being transparent with one another, prioritizing safety not only for drivers. Let’s keep in mind pedestrians and cyclists and those that we share the road with, who are equally as important on the roadway.

With that, I just want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about this today.

Lynne Block: I love driving. I absolutely love driving. My first beater was held together with duct tape, rope and four different door colours, but it got me up to Whistler and back. It had a slant six engine. It was like a battering ram. I could go anywhere with that.

Then I had my little yellow sports car named Buttercup. I loved to race her, and I always won. I did.

Then I had my 4Runner. And why a 4Runner? It was the only SUV that had a square back that would fit my two Great Danes, Szar and Faith — together, 300 pounds.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’re here today to look at Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025. Now, it does present several sweeping changes aimed at modernizing and streamlining the province’s licensing and driving regulation system.

While the bill includes positive intentions — such as reducing bureaucratic hurdles, thank goodness; accommodating experienced drivers from other jurisdictions, great idea; and encouraging driver education — we must also be vigilant. We must ensure that in our effort to make the system more efficient, we do not compromise road safety, transparency or fairness.

In its current form, Bill 12 has some serious flaws — some technical, some structural and some that touch the very core of responsible governance. That’s what we’re here for, responsible governance. For simplicity’s sake, I will outline five critical flaws in this bill and give a few examples and reasoning as to why they are flaws. But to help this government moving forward, I’ve made some positive suggestions for amendments that could address each of these five flaws. That’s the teacher in me, I guess.

Flaw 1. Discretionary testing powers for ICBC can lead to inconsistencies and inequities. One of those fundamental changes in Bill 12 is that ICBC is no longer required to mandate testing for licensed applicants or novice drivers. Section 25 now gives the discretion to ICBC to determine whether road tests, knowledge or signs and signals test are required.

While this may appear efficient on the surface, it opens the door to arbitrary decision-making and inconsistent treatment of applicants. Two individuals with similar driving backgrounds could be subjected to different standards, with one required to take a test and the other not, purely based on subjective interpretation or even regional policy differences within ICBC offices.

Let me give you an example. Consider two novice drivers, one from rural B.C. and one from Metro Vancouver, both with 18 months of clean driving under an N licence. Under the current amendments, ICBC may waive the second road test for one while requiring it for the other, based on internal risk models or administrative criteria that are not transparent or publicly accountable.

Why is this a flaw? Without clear, publicly available criteria for these decisions, this discretion undermines fairness and predictability. In a system where public trust is essential, perceived or real bias could erode confidence in ICBC and the broader licensing framework.

What is my suggestion to address this flaw? The legislation must require ICBC to publish clear, consistent guidelines governing when tests are required and ensure those decisions are subject to appeal or review. That’s the first suggestion.

Flaw 2. Regulatory power given to cabinet undermines legislative oversight. Another major issue lies in the broad regulatory powers granted to cabinet under clauses 2, 3 and 10. These amendments allow cabinet to set the minimum experience required for various classes of licences, determine the wait time before novice drivers can upgrade and even approve driver education programs that can shorten the path to a full licence.

While flexibility is important, these powers represent a significant shift of authority from the Legislature to the executive. For example, a future cabinet could, by regulation alone, reduce the novice period from 24 months to 12 months without public consultation or legislative debate — that’s what we’re doing here today — perhaps in response to political pressure or lobbying by private driver training schools.

Why is this a flaw? This undermines democratic accountability. Such major changes to public safety policy should not be made behind closed doors or left to regulation. The Legislative Assembly should have a greater role in reviewing and approving any reductions in safety-related standards. Amendment 2: include a provision that any changes to key safety timelines, such as the novice driver period, must be subject to legislative review, not just cabinet regulation.

[6:05 p.m.]

Flaw 3. Insufficient safeguards around out-of-province licence equivalency. I know cases where people have bought licences in a certain part of Vancouver, and they drive with those licences. They’ve not gone through any of the accreditation, none of the driving schools, nothing. They’re bought. That’s what they use, and they drive on our roads.

Bill 12 grants ICBC the authority to compare and assess out-of-province and even out-of-country driver’s licences against B.C. standards to determine equivalency. This power is critical as British Columbia sees thousands of new residents each year from across Canada and the globe. However, there is no clear benchmark or oversight outlined in the bill for how ICBC is to make these determinations.

For example, a driver from a U.S. state…. In some countries, they can buy their licences. They don’t have to go through any rules, any regulations — just buy them. And then they can come here with their driver’s licence from there and get their driver’s licence from here, assuming that they’ve had all the registration, all the lessons, all the equivalent hoops to jump through. They haven’t, but they get that here.

Bill 12, again, grants ICBC the authority to compare and assess out-of-province and even out-of-country driver’s licences against B.C. standards to determine equivalency. This power is critical as British Columbia sees thousands of new residents each year from across Canada and the globe. However, there is no clear benchmark or oversight outlined in the bill for how ICBC is to make these determinations.

For example, again, the driver from a U.S. state, where road testing is perhaps minimal and driver education is not mandatory, may now be granted a full B.C. class 5 licence without any testing, simply because ICBC deems the licence comparable.

Why is this a flaw? Without publicly accountable criteria, this system could lead to unqualified drivers being granted full privileges in B.C., putting public safety at risk. Furthermore, international driving standards vary widely. What is acceptable in one country may be dangerous here, especially given B.C.’s terrain, weather conditions in the rain and what our winter road conditions are like, perhaps, in the mountains, as well as in the valleys and wherever you’ve got. And road hazards too.

What would I suggest for this amendment? The act should include minimum standards for out-of-province equivalency, require public reporting of equivalency decisions and allow for periodic audits by an independent oversight body.

The fourth flaw is a loophole in electronic device ban for existing licence holders. Clause 8 of the bill introduces a grandfather clause that exempts current holders of class 6L, 8 and 8L licences from the new electronic device use ban, provided those licences were issued before the law comes into force.

While it’s understandable to avoid retroactive penalties in this case, the safety implications are serious. For example, a young rider with a class 6L motorcycle learner’s licence obtained last year can still legally use a hands-free device while learning to operate a motorcycle, despite overwhelming evidence that any device used, including hands-free, significantly distracts new drivers and riders.

[6:10 p.m.]

Now why is this a flaw? This exemption undermines the very purpose of the amendment, which is to protect inexperienced road users from distraction-related accidents. Road safety laws should apply equitably, especially when public safety is at stake. My suggestion for amendment here: remove the grandfather clause and ensure that all novice or learner drivers, regardless of when they were licensed, are subject to the same distracted-driving rules.

Now I want to come back to the motorcycle bit. I used to ride and drive a motorcycle. But before I drove the big one, I went and took the motorcycle safety course, which was excellent. I think all motorcycle riders should take this course before they get their licence.

Why? It was great. I learned how to do skids. I learned how to go up and down teeter-totters, in and out of pylons, brake to a stop, do wheelies even. It was fantastic. It was 175 cc, so it was more like a little motocross motorcycle. But it was great training.

On the roads today, I see motorcycle drivers racing by. I can tell whether they really know how to ride the bike by where they’re riding it in the road. If they’re riding down the middle of the lane, they have not taken the safety course. Why? It’s because we were taught to ride on the left, close to the line. Why? Down the middle of the road is where the oil leaks. So what happens is that that gets really, really greasy and slippery, and that’s the worst place for a motorcyclist to ride.

From the 175 ccs, I went to a 650 Yamaha road hog. She was great. I had a great time. That was many years ago.

Would I drive a motorcycle today? No. Too much traffic, and you’ve got people who don’t understand bicyclists, much less motorcyclists. So I would really emphasize that this is an area which I would love to see strengthened.

The flaw in this particular part is that it needed to have the removal of the grandfather clause so that all novice or learner drivers, regardless of when they were licensed, are subject to the same distracted-driving rules, and I would really emphasize that all motorcycle riders do take the motorcycle safety course.

Last flaw. The lack of an evaluation framework for driver education programs. I don’t know if anybody here watches Marketplace, but that program is fantastic. A little while ago, they were checking on private driving schools. What they found was that quite a few of them were not even having the drivers in and showing them how to drive, to park or anything to do with driving a car. They were selling the driving licences, as well as that they had finished the driving school.

If you have a look, it’s really interesting and fascinating. I would suggest very strongly that the example of where a private driving school can offer a fast-track program that technically meets regulatory requirements but does not improve safety outcomes, does not teach defensive driving or does not prepare young drivers for winter conditions and still allows them to skip the second road test….

Why is this a flaw? Without performance metrics, we risk turning safety into a commodity. Approving education programs without evaluating whether they actually reduce crashes or improve driver behaviour defeats the purpose of their integration into the licensing process.

My suggestion for amendment on this particular area is this. Require that all approved driver education courses undergo periodic evaluation, including accident rates, retention of safe driving practices and independent audits.

[6:15 p.m.]

I love the independent audits. I think that’s really important to ensure that they are genuinely improving driver competency and that they are legitimate driving schools.

Fellow MLAs, while Bill 12 seeks to modernize and streamline our motor vehicle legislation, we must not allow speed and convenience to come at the cost of safety, equity or democratic accountability.

The five flaws in this bill I’ve outlined today, from discretionary testing and unchecked cabinet powers to loopholes in distracted driving laws, lack of transparency in licensing equivalencies and insufficient oversight of driver education programs, are not small oversights. They represent structural gaps that, if left unaddressed, could have real and dangerous consequences for B.C.’s drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

Let us take time to review, amend and strengthen this bill before it becomes law. Let’s ensure that our roads remain not just efficient but safe and fair for all.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you move adjournment of the debate?

Lawrence Mok: I reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of today’s debate to tomorrow.

Lawrence Mok moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Susie Chant: Section A reports Bill 10 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

The Speaker: Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 10, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 10, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Kelly Greene moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs
Recovery Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We are on clause 2.

[1:40 p.m.]

On clause 2 (continued).

Brennan Day: Good afternoon, Minister and staff.

We’ll move along on section 2. Will this nullify existing contractual agreements in effect prior to this bill’s passage?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No.

Brennan Day: Thank you. I think we’re all wrapped on section 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Brennan Day: If we could just start…. If the minister and staff could just explain the purpose of removing the six-month deadline generally, and then we can get into some more detailed questions.

Hon. Josie Osborne: What this amendment does is enable government…. If government is not able to file — for example, if government is not notified and misses the existing six-month window — then government has to file on its own, and that costs time and money. So this really is about being more efficient and prudent with resources.

Also just noting that actions can go on for years and years. It’s not uncommon that an addition is made more than six months later — 12 months or 18 months later, something like that. Really, the intent here is to avoid having to file a direct action on its own, for government, and enabling the existing process that’s taking place and being able to beyond that.

Brennan Day: Is the intent here a bit to give the government more flexibility to join ongoing lawsuits later than was possible before? I guess, under which circumstances does the government foresee using this flexibility?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, in this case, when the parties fail to properly include government — they haven’t notified and included government — there is a six-month timeline. If that’s missed, then the court almost always permits government to subrogate, but it involves an application. It involves court time. That comes at an expense of time and money.

What this does is extend the timeline so that the parties can repair their own pleadings. This is not an action…. It is the responsibility of the party to notify. But when they don’t, we have a six-month window right now. By extending this well beyond six months, up until the time the court makes a decision, it enables government to more easily be able to be subrogative, as it should be in the first place, but the parties failed to undertake the responsibility that they already had.

Brennan Day: Can you quantify how many claims have been lost or dismissed because of this six-month window? Is it extremely common? Is there any information on that?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I don’t have specific numbers, but I can say that it’s not uncommon that government has had to file a direct action to preserve its claim. Again, that comes at an expense of time and resources.

Brennan Day: What does the government expect to see in terms of increased efficiency in time frame and savings when these are avoided?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s difficult to answer that question because we just can’t predict exactly how many claims are going to come forward in a year or whether the parties are going to fail to notify government. It’s not possible to really put a fine point on that.

Anna Kindy: Does this change expose defendants to indefinite uncertainty or late-stage cost claims from government lawyers? Again, thinking about, as well, uninsured people, small business operators, mom-and-pop shops who maybe aren’t sitting in this room aware that this is happening….

Hon. Josie Osborne: No, it doesn’t. This is about tightening up certain aspects of the legislation, enabling the clarification that is needed so the public understands and defendants and plaintiffs understand their responsibilities and ensuring that there’s a clear understanding of what an insurer is and what an uninsured defendant is.

This changes nothing about the intent of the act in the first place. If action is taken against a company or an individual for recovering the costs of health care that are the result of their omission or their error or their wrongdoing, the defendant remains liable. Nothing about this changes that core fact.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, if you don’t mind, Member.

[1:50 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: I would argue that point a little bit, since we’re removing the time frame, which gives predictability to the defendant. Suddenly that time frame is removed, so I’d argue the opposite. It doesn’t tighten it. It actually loosens it so that it gives government a larger time frame to be able to continue doing what it’s doing.

The other question is: has the minister received feedback from the legal community regarding the fairness or predictability of the amendment?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I just want to address the first statement that she made, because I think there may be some basic misunderstanding. I want to be as clear as I can be that by extending the timeline…. What this does is really the opposite of creating uncertainty. It is allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to correct their error — i.e., if they do not undertake the notification within the six-month window, government has the opportunity to take direct action.

This avoids that so that the defendant doesn’t have to face two separate actions taken. In fact, it makes it more efficient because government, subrogated, is enabled to be part of the court action that the plaintiff has taken against the defendant. Again, just to comment, the liability remains. Nothing about the timeline alters that fact.

I forgot to answer the second question. The actual question that the member asked is: did we consult with the legal community? We did consult with the judiciary, because ultimately this is about court process. So yes, we consulted with the judiciary.

Brennan Day: I guess what you’re saying is that you don’t expect any unintended consequences here that might in fact create more backlogs. This seems to put sort of a hard deadline. By removing that deadline, I understand that this allows the government the opportunity to join the suit at a later date when it’s required.

Doesn’t this also remove the impetus on the government to act quickly? Could this not have the unintended effect of not motivating them to file in a reasonable amount of time?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to notify government. What this does is remove the possibility of having two actions being taken against the defendant. It always has been the responsibility of the plaintiff to notify.

Anna Kindy: I’m not sure if this question is from this section, but it’s just for my own mind, to clarify things. For example, in WCB cases, there are ongoing medical costs, sometimes years down the line. Having had this bill implemented, is this a similar situation, where if somebody is injured for life, the insurance company is therefore liable, for the life of that person, for their medical care for that injury?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member is correct. This isn’t relevant to this clause, and this bill does not touch on or have anything to do with WorkSafeBC. I think I’ll just leave it at that.

Scott McInnis: I think, at this point, we are finished with section 3.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Scott McInnis: Just looking at section 4.1(1), it says: “Within 21 days after filing a third-party notice in relation to a proceeding referred to in section 4 (1) or (1.1), written notice of the filing must be given to the government by the party who filed the notice.”

Can I just get an explanation from the minister and staff, if I may, of why they settled on 21 days being that optimal window, please?

Hon. Josie Osborne: If the member refers to section 4.1 in the existing act, he’ll note that there is a 21-day notice permit for several other things, and this is really just to be analogous with that.

Scott McInnis: Could the minister clarify, just for the record, who specifically would make that referral to the government within the 21 days? Is it the defendant? Could the minister just quickly clarify that for the record, please?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, it is the defendant that has to file that notice.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

Just painting a quick picture here of potentially a situation where we have — I mentioned this in my debate speech yesterday — a smaller operator who’s operating maybe a seasonally intensive business. They may not….

I’m thinking specifically of, let’s say, a guide-outfitter that’s a single person or maybe a family business, and there is a claim made. So 21 days may be a very strict timeline for them. These folks can spend at least a couple of weeks at a time remotely, out of cell service, things like that. They don’t necessarily have the capacity to make that claim within the 21-day notice.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’m just wondering here if the minister could clarify. Missing that 21-day window…. What are the potential consequences for the defendant for failing to meet that deadline?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I just want to begin my answer by being clear that this bill, this proposed legislation, is agnostic to the type or size or seasonality of a company or a defendant and that this really is, again, about the principle of who should pay for the health care costs in the case that someone is found to be responsible for injury by their wrongdoing or omission.

To the member’s specific question, adding a third party to their defence is something that requires an amount of paperwork and work to be done. What we are requiring them then to do is to file one more form within 21 days to notify government that they’ve added a third-party defence.

To follow on the member’s example, let’s say a guide-outfitter is sued by a participant in one of their activities for an injury. The guide-outfitter says: “You know what? Actually, it wasn’t our fault. We hire a contractor to run these outings. So we’re going to add the contractor to the defence.”

They have to go through a lot of paperwork to do that. The lion’s share of that is already done, so in this case, they would need to then take that one extra step which, arguably, could be done at the same time of filing a form notifying government that the third-party defendant has been added.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I think that’s a very fair answer, and I appreciate that.

Just as far as that process goes, is there an avenue that a defendant could take to apply for an extension, if needed, to that 21-day window?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No, there isn’t a process for extending that 21 days.

I didn’t answer the member’s question previously. I think he had asked about what the legal ramifications are of failing to miss that.

[2:05 p.m.]

I will say that deadlines are missed from time to time. There isn’t a way to really describe exactly what would happen, because it depends. It’s a case-by-case basis of what the circumstances are. Ultimately, there’s usually time for the party to repair its error. I think, for the most part, that’s going to be given the space to happen, to have that repair happen. But it is clear, and it will obviously be clear through the process, that the expectation is 21 days.

Anna Kindy: Comparing the tight deadline for the defendant versus an unlimited deadline for the government I think is sort of an unfair playing field here. Just a thought that maybe we should extend the deadline. So 21 days in the reality of an injury, a serious injury, when you’re a business owner, is a very short deadline.

Would the ministry have a consideration of extending the deadline in view of the fact that the government has extended their own deadline to indefinite, versus the defendant now has to claim within 21 days, which is, if you’re running a business and you’re busy, not a lot of time to fill out a claim.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, maybe to clarify some misunderstanding, this is not about government extending its own deadline. This is about ensuring that government can be subrogated up until the time a court makes the decision to avoid the situation of having to have two separate actions taken — i.e., government learns past a six-month deadline and then takes direct action itself. So this is not government extending its own deadline. This is ensuring that the responsibility of the party remains that of the party up until that time the court makes a decision to subrogate government.

Coming back to the 21-day deadline for notification of a third-party defendant being added. Again, this is one form that is added to the mountain of paperwork that’s already been done to add that third party to the defence. I don’t think…. We’re not expecting that’s going to be an onerous requirement in any way, shape or form.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that from the minister. I know, as opposition members, we’re about government efficiency, etc. But because there’s no avenue, potentially, for a short window of 21 days to notify governments as a defendant, particular to subsection (1), I’d now like to propose an amendment to extend that to 60 days.

[Clause 4, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underline text as shown

(1) Within 21 60 days after filing a third party notice in relation to a proceeding referred to in section 4 (1) or (1.1), written notice of the filing must be given to the government by the party who filed the notice.]

The Chair: Okay, we are going to take a short recess at this time to get copies made of the amendment. I have 2:08 on my watch. If everybody could be back at 2:15, please, ready to start. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 2:08 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will call the meeting back to order.

We have an amendment to clause 4 put forward by MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I have found it in order, and I will recognize him to speak to it.

On the amendment.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see you in the chair.

Just very briefly…. I know it’s just a clerical change here, very simple, and I’m not going to take a lot of time. I just think, because there’s no mechanism to potentially extend that notification…. I totally get that the heavy lifting of the paperwork has already been done. I just think that 60-day buffer provides a little bit of flexibility for the defendant to file notice with the government. That’s all.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite.

I’m going to speak against the motion. I appreciate the intent here but point out that the existing subsections in the act 4(1) and 4(1.1) already point to a 21-day notification requirement. To add a 60-day notification requirement for one part of possible action, which is the notification of a third-party defendant, is inconsistent and could create its own set of unintended consequences.

I also want to point out that in the B.C. Supreme Court civil rules, the time to respond to a claim is 21 days. This is a very tried-and-true period of time that is used for court action, and we would not want to see stepping outside that.

The Chair: Any other members wishing to speak?

The question is the amendment to clause 4.

Amendment negatived.

The Chair: We will now return back to clause 4.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Brennan Day: Why must this be written and not digital?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you for the question.

The form can be received digitally. In fact, the form itself, on the bottom, says: “This form is sufficiently served if scanned and emailed to the following address.” Then it supplies an email address. So for these purposes, that is considered written notice.

Brennan Day: Absolutely fantastic. We’re starting to see health care move away from fax machines. I’m pleased to see it.

Why must it include a copy of the third-party notice?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Quite simply to verify who the third party is, what the circumstances are and all the relevant information that will be required by government and by the court.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Brennan Day: What exactly does it mean in this context that the government’s right is subrogated?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Subrogation means that government participates in the action without having to file an independent claim. This entire act is about the fact that government is subrogated and that government participates in these actions.

To go back to an example we were talking about earlier, with an outfitter who names a contractor as a third-party defendant, if, in the end, it is found that that third party, the contractor, is the one responsible, then government is able to recover health care costs from that contractor.

Anna Kindy: How will this subrogation work in practice if the injured person doesn’t sue the defendant at all?

Hon. Josie Osborne: If there’s no court action, then there’s nothing to be recovered.

Anna Kindy: So why is the government granting itself automatic subrogation rights instead of requiring judicial approval?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The government is not ramping up subrogation rights. That subrogation is part of the act. It’s from 2009, from the inception and implementation of the act when it was brought into force, and it remains the same.

[2:25 p.m.]

What this act does is amend certain sections of the act to tighten up, to clarify and to avoid some of the procedural challenges that we’ve experienced since 2009.

Anna Kindy: Can the minister table the estimated number of cases where automatic subrogation would have applied had this law been in force since 2009?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Subrogation always would have applied. As to however many cases have gone through, I don’t have that number at the tip of my tongue, but it is there, evident in every single case.

Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

Anna Kindy: Clause 9 adds the definition of an “uninsured defendant,” and it allows the minister to request the insurer or uninsured defendant to cooperate with the government to recover past and future costs, whenever and however many times the minister deems necessary.

With the uninsured defendant now bearing the same requirements as the insurer, how does this even the playing field? Insurers are often more sophisticated, and, like we mentioned before, it’s placing a heavy burden on the individual.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The uninsured defendant remains in exactly the same position if these proposed amendments are passed, compared to since 2009, when the original act was brought into force. These amendments don’t change that situation at all for the uninsured defendant. I hope that helps to clarify.

[2:30 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: If you can excuse my question, just a comparison with Bill 12, which was paused. Bill 12 was the public health accountability bill, a much broader bill, and it was paused. Part of the reason was, I think, that the business confidence was really impacted because of the unknown liability from government lawsuits for health care recovery.

I’m wondering. With this bill, and not being a lawyer, do you think it might also impact businesses as well — that they might have some concerns here?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No, I don’t. These amendments, again, are very technical in nature, and they really are to clarify definitions, to clarify roles and responsibilities of the parties, to enable the public to understand that better. But it does not change the underlying tenet of the act around liability, which remains.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the opportunity. I’m not sure that this is the right place for the question, but I wanted to bring it up.

I come from the outdoor recreation sector — my previous hat. One of the big pieces of work that we did as a provincial association in that role was providing insurance for our operating of our snowmobile and other outdoor clubs, including skis clubs, mountain bike clubs, all of those things.

I’m just wondering, with the uninsured third party, whether government would be pursuing recovering health costs from those organizations that are providing public recreation and non-profits.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The act is agnostic. Whether it’s a business, a person, a non-profit, a big business, a small business, a recreation business, a retail store, the act is agnostic to that. It is, again, fundamentally about being able to recover the health care costs from a defendant who is found responsible for injury so that the taxpayers of British Columbia do not have to bear that expense. Again, this is what the purpose of the act has been since its inception in 2009.

These amendments, again, clarify definitions. They tighten up exceptions. They make it more efficient, through the notification process, for government to be part of action and avoid some of the paperwork costs and time delays that could have happened otherwise.

Donegal Wilson: So the defendant could, theoretically, be a non-profit club and/or recreation group offering public recreation opportunities on Crown land in B.C.?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, it could. If it is doing so, then it is the responsibility of the organization, be it a non-profit, an individual or a business, to make its decision about what type of insurance it ought to carry.

Again, when a party is found negligent, in the wrong, has omitted something that has resulted in personal injury and those injuries incur health care costs…. This is about, fundamentally, again, the principle that it is the wrongdoer who should pay for those costs, not the government of British Columbia and, ergo, the taxpayer of British Columbia.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarification, then. Those groups also are provided insurance by the province. So would the province be basically going after itself for the medical costs? Those non-profit recreation groups with partnership agreements and park operators all have insurance through the province.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I can clarify that government would not pursue itself.

[2:35 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: Why is the government imposing notification and disclosure obligation on individuals who lack insurance coverage?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think the simplest way to answer this is that the failure to have insurance doesn’t absolve wrongdoing.

Anna Kindy: What are the records and information and evidence that now must be provided to the minister?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think this is clause 10, so I don’t know if we want to pass clause 9 first, and then we can move to the member’s question.

Anna Kindy: Sorry. I do apologize.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Anna Kindy: I’ll ask the question here. What are the records, information, evidence that now must be provided to the minister?

Thank you for that. Thanks for allowing the opportunity.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: As the member has asked around what types of records or information or evidence might need to be provided, to be clear, this clause enables, through the future development of a regulation, the requirement to provide such information.

Right now there isn’t anything that government intends to do. But this really future-proofs so that, again, should there be a type of information that is required, we don’t have to go back through a legislative amendment to do so. It’s done through a regulation-making power.

To be clear, section 11(2)(a) of the act sets out the information or evidence related to the beneficiary’s injury or health services claim that must be provided at the minister’s request. This includes the nature and extent of the beneficiary’s injury, treatment, condition and prognosis, rehabilitation, the cause and circumstances of the injury, and the health care services that have been provided or may be required.

Anna Kindy: It seems open-ended a little bit when the regulation hasn’t yet been specified as what is needed. You know, health care can be quite the…. The other question, as well, is: who falls under the duty to cooperate with “persons assisting the government”?

[Interruption.]

The Chair: We will take a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:41 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the meeting back to order. Just to remind folks, we’re on clause 10.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The answer to the member’s question about who falls under the duty to cooperate is the beneficiary or their legal representative.

Anna Kindy: Under section 3.2, the minister may make information requests as often as necessary. What oversight exists to prevent excessive or intrusive demands?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you for the question from the member. Government takes very seriously when you’re asking for information, in cases like these, that you don’t want to overly burden the people being asked. So obviously, we’ll only ask for that information which is needed.

I do want to be clear that it is very defined, the scope of what kind of information can be requested, to aid the action and the defence that’s being taken. That is strictly limited to the nature of the injury, the health care that has been applied in that case and those pertinent details. Information is treated confidentially, of course. It would always be government’s intention not to abuse that ability to be able to require information, only the information that’s necessary, and to do so as wholly and fulsomely as possible at that time.

Anna Kindy: How will the ministry ensure compliance with privacy laws, including FIPPA, and does the ministry plan to collect information via indirect channels?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, I just want to be clear that this question is not part of the amendments that are being proposed today. I will quickly answer it, though, to say that the ministry, of course, takes those obligations incredibly seriously, is subject to and obligated to follow FOIPPA, and does so, not just as part of this act but as part of the ministry’s entire actions.

I also want to just be clear that information as part of a court action is disclosed in litigation. That is part of the process where information about a person’s injury or the health care that they’ve received can become part of that litigation and openly discussed.

Anna Kindy: Section 10 does ensure that an uninsured defendant provides the same amount of records and information as imposed on insurers. There are potential case scenarios where, again, a small outfitter…. Someone is injured, and the person that is injured does not want to pursue liability and does not want to disclose their private medical information.

That’s the scenario I’m thinking about when I bring this forward.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just to comment, if an injured person chooses not to pursue court action, then they would never have a need to disclose any of their information.

Anna Kindy: Just to clarify in my own mind, if that person does not pursue legal action, the government does not proceed with health care recovery actions as well? Is that what you’re saying?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Government has a right to pursue action. But in practice, it’s extremely unlikely if an injured person does not pursue court action that government does.

Anna Kindy: Rare doesn’t mean never, and there still needs to be protection for privacy for a person that has decided not to pursue legal action.

Is there a way of making an amendment here, considering that scenario, which is a very real potential and, again, part of the unintended consequences of privacy of medical records?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m advised that that question is entirely outside of this act.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Brennan Day: What is required currently to be provided and what additional information will have to be provided based on these amendments?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is a consequential amendment to section 10. I’ll just quickly revisit the answer that I previously provided, which is the information around the nature and extent of the beneficiary’s injury, treatment, condition and prognosis, rehabilitation, cause and circumstances of the injury and the health care services that might have been provided or may be required.

Brennan Day: How will the ministry determine what constitutes relevant information under these expanded powers?

Hon. Josie Osborne: To clarify, this is simply adding the uninsured defendant as a person who would need to provide the information. This isn’t actually about the nature of the information itself.

Again, clause 11 is a consequential amendment, consequential to section 10, requiring uninsured defendants to provide the records or information. While the existing provision already actually includes “other person,” it is important to really specifically list and enumerate uninsured defendants because the beneficiaries and insurers are enumerated as well in that section of the act.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Brennan Day: Could you explain why this section needs to be changed in this act?

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, this is a consequential amendment. It’s actually just pluralizing “subrogated right” to “subrogated rights” in reference to sections 7 and 8 of the act.

We already had a subrogated right to a beneficiary’s claim, but we are adding a third-party defendant. We’ve talked about that already this afternoon. So this is a pluralization.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Brennan Day: This section clarifies that interest is payable to the government, which is a change to this act.

First question would be: why is the government giving itself the ability to charge prejudgment and post-judgment interest on health care cost recoveries?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, this is a normal part of litigation, and I want to point out that personal injury claims can take years and years to settle. By doing this, government is ensuring that the actions we take are consistent with other kinds of civil litigation and that interest is payable.

Again, the reason that prejudgment interest is collected is to compensate a successful claimant for being deprived of the money that was owed to them, potentially for these years and years, between the time that the claim arose and the judgment is rendered. This is similar to what is done in Alberta and Manitoba. It’s not that this rule didn’t already exist. It’s that these amendments make it crystal clear that it does.

Brennan Day: With the possibility that the delays are due to government…. Is there any mechanism within this bill or these amendments that would pause that interest if the delay is due to, say, the health care delays in transferring documents, things of that nature?

Can you clarify when the clock starts ticking and when that clock stops ticking?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We’re hard-pressed to think of an example where government would be the cause of the delay. In fact, if the act is complied with in its entirety, then it’s very, very unlikely that that would be the case.

It’s probably worth pointing out that government doesn’t have to seek prejudgment interest and that, should some extenuating set of circumstances apply, there’s the ability not to seek that prejudgment interest.

Brennan Day: Has the ministry modelled how much additional revenue this could potentially generate annually?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I answered this question previously, but I’ll give a short answer now. No, because the intent of these amendments is not to generate revenue. Again, these are to tighten some of the exceptions, to add clarification to definitions and the roles and responsibilities of the partners.

The fundamental principle of this act, since its enactment in 2009, is around the fact that those who are responsible through their own wrongdoing, omission or negligence for a personal injury are liable for the costs that government incurred to care for the person who was injured. Because the number of claims will vary from year to year, and the specific circumstances of each claim are different, it’s impossible to predict what that would be.

Anna Kindy: Just a question related to the interest rates, because the interest rates aren’t clarified. Interest rates can be credit card–like interest rates, which are way above a bank option. Again, I’m thinking of the uninsured person added now to this claim. That can be a significant cost to the uninsured person.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The Ministry of Health has no control over interest rates. In fact, they are set by regulation under the Court Order Interest Act and would apply to any circumstance of prejudgment interest across government.

Brennan Day: One of the unintended consequences here…. Because health care recoveries take priority as debts due to the government, will this reduce the compensation available to victims who settle claims?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I just want to note that this is not part of this clause, or part of the act, in fact. Beneficiaries’ interests always come first. To answer quickly, if funds are limited, the priority is always the beneficiary.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

[3:10 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: The government must reimburse the insurer or uninsured defendant for the cost incurred in complying with records requests, which, on the record, I don’t think is a bad idea. I actually think it’s a good idea.

Has the ministry budgeted for this new indemnity expenditure? I mean, if they made $6.6 million for 2023-24, we’re not talking big moneys.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Rarely, if ever, is there actually a cost associated with this. The amount is so inconsequential that it’s accounted for within the ministry’s existing budget.

Clauses 14 and 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Brennan Day: Why does clause 16(2.3) exclude several major sections of this act from applying to legal proceedings commenced before the bill’s passage?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Big picture, this is a transitional provision. That means the new sections of the act do not apply to actions that are underway — i.e., not changing the rules of the game halfway through.

The reason why certain of the new sections are exempted from here, as the member is asking about, is because they are very consequential amendments. We spoke previously about pluralizing a word and that kind of thing.

Brennan Day: Is this clause intended to protect the government from liability for past administrative errors under the act?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No, not at all. This really is about orderly transition.

Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: I recognize the minister.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thanks very much, Chair. Well done on your first chairing experience.

Thank you to the members opposite for the questions and the discussion.

I just want to say a big thank-you to the staff who’ve supported me throughout this committee debate.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:15 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:32 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 10 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On clause 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to introduce my team, maybe before we start, that’s sitting here. I just am grateful for the work that they have done to put this bill together, and it’s from different areas of my ministry.

Welcome to Anita Nadziejko, director of policy and legislation division; Tegan Dean, senior policy analyst; Adrian Rockwell from Pensions B.C. We also have Isobel McIntyre, senior policy analyst; and Tarynn McKenzie and Serena Toora, both senior policy analysts.

Thanks and welcome.

Steve Kooner: First of all, it’s an honour to be back here in the fall session to have another committee stage of a bill with the Attorney General.

I also want to thank the staff that’s here today. I know you guys work really hard to put this…. There’s a lot that goes behind preparing these bills and getting the bill ready for committee stage, so I thank you for your time.

In regards to clause 1, I have some general questions about the bill. I know there’s some latitude to that that’s provided on clause 1. I’d like to ask some general questions about the bill starting off. The main theme from the second reading of this bill was that, in principle, this bill was supported by the official opposition, but there were some concerns over consultation. I did state in my second reading speech that we’d be asking consultation-related questions in the committee stage, so that will open up my first question.

Can the Attorney General outline the consultation process used to develop Bill 10 in an overall manner?

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you, Chair. It’s your first day, so welcome to the chair for the first time.

I guess maybe I could ask the member if we could do it from a different section. It’s just that each section of the bill is made up of very distinct not only statutes but also stakeholders and what the consultation would be like. I would say, just generally, that at this stage every section of that with the different statutes had a different consultation process and different stakeholders.

Maybe I’d suggest to the member opposite that if we can go through that as we go through the bill, it might just be easier than describing it all at once.

Steve Kooner: The official opposition is amenable to that idea, Chair.

I’ll just get into the Judicial Compensation Act that gets amended by this bill. In regards to the Judicial Compensation Act, I understand the purpose is to adjust pension calculations for judges with prior non-judicial service.

The first question I have in regards to this…. I guess I just asked it earlier as a general overall question about consultation. In this, specific to the Judicial Compensation Act, the amendment from this bill, what consultation process was done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As a principle of judicial independence in our democracy, it’s very important that this process, or anything related to judge compensation, is kept independent and non-political. As is the normal course of things, what happens is there’s a commission that is set out to review judicial compensation on a regular basis.

It consists of two members that are appointed by government and two members that appointed by judiciary. Then they jointly appoint one member, so there’s a five-member commission, and they receive submissions. Anybody who wants to can make a submission related to judge remuneration and compensation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Generally, government and the association that represents the judiciary does, along with whatever submissions, create a report. And as is the case with judicial independence…. We had this debate; it wasn’t a debate. Generally, government accepts or rejects the report. That’s how it shows up. We don’t make determinations of compensation because it can’t be political. That was the process that led to this recommendation that you see before you.

When we were drafting the legislation, we did do consultation. In the drafting process of the legislation, there are certain people that you would have to include in that. That would be PSEC, the actuarial organizations that would know about the pension-related aspects of it; the judiciary; the association of judges; and Indigenous leaders. I think that’s the list of the people that were reached out to in the making of the legislation.

Steve Kooner: Just in terms of a clarification in regards to this commission, how often did this commission meet? Does it meet on a regular basis, or is it on an annual basis? What’s the frequency of the actual planning here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s every four years, and the next one is coming up in March 2026.

Steve Kooner: The commission meets every four years, but how long is that process of consultation or the study period? Is it a year? What is the time period?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The timeline is set out in the Judicial Compensation Act. It’s very clearly indicated. Once the commission is set up, they have a year from the date of the setup to deliver their recommendations. Then following that, set out in that act are the timelines required for government to respond.

So it’s very clear and transparent what that process is.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General stated earlier that the new commission time period is coming up. That suggests that the last commission rendered their report probably four years ago. Is that correct? Is my understanding correct?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was, I guess, a delay. According to the legislation, every four-year period…. It would have been 2022 that was the last time the commission made the recommendations through the report that we’re acting on through this legislation.

Because of COVID, it was delayed. So we had a delayed report and a delayed…. The cycle was off of the four years. But it would start again four years later, so that would be March 2026.

Steve Kooner: The recommendations that we’re looking at right now in terms of the amendments are the recommendations from 2022, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: An important thing to understand about this process is that under the Judicial Compensation Act, if the Legislature makes a decision not to reject, then the content of the recommendations prevails even over legislation.

This is deemed a housekeeping amendment because the changes have been implemented as a result of the legislative action of the Judicial Compensation Act and how it prevails.

The way it would happen in the timelines is the commission was in 2022. The report is a year later, so then we’re talking around November 2023. It was delayed by six months because of COVID. Then it would have been the next opportunity that we had as a Legislature to either accept or reject it, and we have to be sitting for that. Those are all the steps that were in between that.

This current change that’s in this clause has already been implemented. This is a matter of cleaning up the statute.

Steve Kooner: I understand there were recommendations back in 2022 or a report was done in 2023. The next question is: if there were recommendations, were all of the recommendations adopted or some of them?

Hon. Niki Sharma: All of them.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer. I appreciate that.

There are a whole bunch of numbers and dates in this amendment. I just would like some clarification in terms of the dates and the percentages, why they are what they are. They’re so precise.

When we’re looking at clause 1, we have the date April 1, 2018, and then we have the date January 1, 1966. Can the Attorney General elaborate on those two dates and why those exact dates are chosen? What’s the reasoning behind that?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This all gets very complicated very quickly, so I’m going to try to explain some of the dates in a holistic way. That will maybe help guide the conversation if we go into other dates.

The whole goal of these changes was based on a recommendation that said that if you were a judge that did public service beforehand, and you became a judge, you should be entitled to the same public service pension as somebody else.

These changes are to line that up. The public service pension plan went through different phases of change. One phase of change was April 1, 2018, and you see that date before you. That phase of change…. The reason for the change in the date that you see there is to align with those changes that were made at that time.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for the explanation. Further in clause 1, we have certain percentages. The first one shows up in 1(b) as 1.85 percent. Why that specific percentage?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this was in line with changes. If we think about it at a high level, it was to align this particular very small group of people with access to the same pension that they would have gotten under the public service pension plan.

At that time period on April 1, 2018, as I mentioned, that rate of 1.85 was set in that pension plan. This is to align that amount. It just goes straight from that time in 2018 to the percentage that was set by an actuary, and it applies it to this group of people.

Steve Kooner: Also, throughout this particular amendment under the Judicial Compensation Act, the reference is made to non-judicial service continuously. I think the Attorney General is alluding to public service under a certain plan, and that’s what seems to be included in non-judicial service. But I just want to clarify that definition.

What all is included in that particular definition of non-judicial service?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just as an aside, these are the people that I’m usually very sad to see go. They go from the AG, because they’re lawyers, to the bench. So we lose the talent in the AG, but we get the talent in the judiciary. That’s usually what’s meant, because they are lawyers that go to the bench by the public service that they’re doing.

Steve Kooner: That makes sense. That definition makes sense.

Then my next question is that if we have public servants, and they go to the judiciary, and now their non-judicial pension gets included, is there anything that is comparable that runs side by side with this for the lawyers that were practising in private practice that got appointed to the bench?

Is there anything comparable? I don’t know if maybe some of them would have had pensions, or maybe some of them would not have had pensions. Is there something comparable there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They wouldn’t…. If it’s a private practice, somebody practising in that realm, it would be up to them to arrange their affairs to see what their pension plans would be in accordance with whatever policy, if they do have one. That would be their choice. But this is just for the public pension.

Steve Kooner: Moving throughout this clause towards subsection (c) that modifies (f), there’s another percentage, 2 percent. Is that just taken from another comparison, as well, just like we had 1.85 come from a comparison and parachuted into this legislation?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to point out that the effect of what this bill does is repeal that percentage, so the (c), and it adds the (b). So it would replace that 2 percent with what is included in what is before the bill as 1(b).

Steve Kooner: Earlier at the start of this clause, the Attorney General mentioned some sort of actuarial analysis that was done. When we have calculations and when we’re looking at pensions, there are some fiscal implications.

Can the Attorney General elaborate on that actuarial analysis that was conducted to determine fiscal implications of a change on this judicial pension plan?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just note that this is actually a very small group of people.

My team informs me that there were two analyses that would have been done by an actuary. The initial one in 2018, obviously, was not related to this, because it was to do with the pension plan generally. That’s an alignment exercise then.

Then the next part about it was that when we made these changes to the amendments, we hired an independent actuary, and they reviewed the joint submission to determine there is no fiscal implication to government or our public pension plan.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: Further to the questions around dates that I was asking on clause 1, we’re now on clause 2. There’s a new date here, which is “before April 1, 2006.” Could the Attorney General elaborate on that particular date?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Same reasons as before. This happened to just be phase 2 of the process where the public service pension plan was changed. This aligns that with that date.

Steve Kooner: In clause 1, I also asked questions about percentages. Then in clause 2, there also are percentages. There’s one at subclause 2(b)(e.2), 1.65 percent. Then there’s another one, at (g.1), that states 0.35 percent. Could I please get an elaboration on those two percentages?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Also an answer in line with the one I made before, which is that that would have been determined in the phase of changes in 2019, that were to the actual plan, that we’re just aligning.

Steve Kooner: Also in this particular section, an age is actually referred to. In subsection (g.1), we say: “An amount, payable until the earlier of the member reaching age 65 and the death of the member.”

Is that pretty standard? I understand 65 is pretty standard, but is that pretty standard in terms of looking at pensions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can’t comment on the standard in the entire industry, but this is, again, an alignment exercise where we…. At that point in 2019, as I mentioned what the phase 2 was, that was the decision that was made at the time for the public service pension plan. This provision aligns those entitlements that were available there with these individuals to make sure that they are also entitled.

Steve Kooner: We had some discussion about actuarial analysis on clause 1, but we’re on clause 2, and we’re talking about these other numbers here. The Attorney General’s response was that from the actuarial analysis that was done in clause 1 and the calculations, there were no fiscal implications. Is that the case in this clause 2 as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can confirm that also. There are no fiscal implications.

Steve Kooner: Just on a first-blush read of this act, and looking at the pension and percentages and calculations and seeing that you are now including non-judicial pension, the natural inference that comes about is that there has to be some sort of increase in payouts. So when I hear the answer that there are no fiscal implications, how does that reconcile with the increases?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to start by saying that these individuals also would have paid into the plan while they were in their non-judicial working days at the public service.

Then the second part of that is that this just is a matter of really excellent plan management. At the different times that the decisions were made, there was a surplus because of, probably, good investment decisions in that pension plan and good management.

So those are some of the things that lead us to say or, from that independent analysis that was done, to show that there’s no fiscal impact.

[4:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Now, just thinking about this situation where we have public service employees, say from the Attorney General’s department, going to the judiciary…. But another situation comes to mind.

What if somebody worked for another…? They did public service, but they were involved with the public service federally, or they were involved with the public service in another province but then they came to work here in public service. Would that be counted in non-judicial pensioned time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s nothing about these amendments that speaks to or contemplates extraprovincial public service and whether it’s included or not. That would be dependent on many factors outside of these legislative changes about the terms of the pension that that person was under and whether it’s transferable or not.

Steve Kooner: I believe the Attorney General referenced that there were recommendations made, and that’s where all the changes came from. There was a report back in 2023.

Is that something that gets tabled that the opposition can have a look at, or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. As mentioned, the Judicial Compensation Act, because of the independence needed for the judiciary, sets out very clearly all of the steps that are taken when it comes to judicial compensation or any changes to it. That includes the transparency aspect of it, so it’s very clear that it’s not politically driven.

Part of that is tabling that in the Legislature and the timelines associated with that. So yes, it was.

Steve Kooner: I think I’m done with this clause. I’ll wait till the next one.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner: In regards to clause 3 here, another date, April 1, 2022…. That’s different from 2018 and the other dates that have been documented.

Can the Attorney General just mention what this particular date of April 1, 2022, references?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member has just identified phase 3. That time period is associated with the phase 3 of the original analysis that we were talking about, the changes that were made to the pension plan.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Then going further, in clause 3(b) referring to (e.3), the number here is 1.95 percent. I take it that’s similar to all the other numbers? They were taken from a plan that’s comparable, and they were just inserted in here, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: All right. I think we are done with clause 3.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Clause 4 repeals and substitutes the following clause here: “A member is entitled to a reduced pension under subsection (1) and is entitled to receive pension….”

[4:15 p.m.]

Anyway, going further, there’s another percentage. It says: “for judicial service, reduced by 5 percent.” Can the Attorney General elaborate on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just maybe explain the purpose of this section, and that will help answer the question.

The existing section also contains the reduction of 5 percent if you retire pre-65. It’s a pretty common part of a pension plan that if you retire early, your payments are reduced by a certain percentage. That exists in the current act. What the bill proposes to do is to take into account non-judicial time versus judicial time that’s pensionable. That’s the reason for the changes, but that 5 percent was pre-existing.

Now, you’ll see in that subsection (2) a difference between judicial service…. Then, if you go down to (c), you’ll see non-judicial service. It helps to align the non-judicial service with the public service pension plan for that time.

Steve Kooner: There is a phrase in here, “contributory service.” When we think about service, there’s…. In different capacities of service, somebody could be full-time, somebody could be part-time, or somebody could be on call, casual, all that kind of stuff. So when we read “contributing service,” I would like to know what this definition includes.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The definition of this, or the understanding of what it means for contributory service, is in the public service pension plan rules. I’m told that those rules set out — it doesn’t matter if it’s casual work or whatever — that if you contribute at any portion of a month, you get that month counted as contributory service, and it’s calculated in that manner.

Steve Kooner: Going towards the end of this clause, there is another percentage that’s a little different than the rest of the percentages. In clause 4, subsection (c)(i), it refers to 6.2 percent. I just take it that that number was also taken from a reference point, just like all the other numbers.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I was describing the section before, the reason for these changes is to align the non-judicial service with the public service pension plan. So that’s the reason for that percentage under (c).

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Steve Kooner: Now we’re getting into the amendments to the Land Title Act, and we’re in clause 5 here. I asked a question earlier when we started the questions around the Judicial Compensation Act. I started off with consultation, and I’ll ask the same question here.

This concerns changes to the Land Title Act. What consultations were had in regards to the changes to the Land Title Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is the list of organizations that were consulted. Of course, the Land Title and Survey Authority of B.C., because these would be consequential to their operation. The modern treaty Nations were also notified, along with Indigenous leadership organizations.

Steve Kooner: As a part of that consultation, what were some of the concerns that they may have had that the government was asked to take into consideration for these amendments?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No concerns.

Just to put that in context, these actually are changes that will make it easier. It aligns two pieces of legislation, our wills and estates act with the Land Title Act, and allows somebody who’s a court-appointed administrator to interact with the Land Title Act as long as they have the authority. That’s something they didn’t necessarily have the power to do before, which is just, obviously, a frustrating thing.

Steve Kooner: This refers to certain…. There are, actually, two clauses in here. It talks about filing certified documents in this particular…. Well, I guess that’s in the next clause.

We’re talking about filing certain documents, and the Attorney General said this would make the process a bit easier. But there are dates that come into context here in regards to pre-1947. Then there are issues about…. Whenever you’re looking at wills and estates, you’re looking at dates and what periods of time you are referencing. You’re also looking at how complicated estates are, so how old they are and how complicated they are.

How do the changes in this provision here — and, actually, in this whole section — reconcile complicated cases? Will these provisions be able to deal with the complexity of some estates? Was that a part of the consultation process, and were there any concerns?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to maybe explain this a little bit, the change is, actually, on the list of things we do to legislation, extremely minor. It was, I think, from the viewpoint of the legislative drafter and the team, just an easier way to put the statute together.

If you’ll see, we repealed the section. The clause that we’re on right now is a full repeal of that. But if you go to the next one — I’m sure we’ll get to 6 — it’s added in that subsection there. That’s just for ease of understanding and composition of the bill.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for explaining that consultation was had with the Land Title and Survey Authority of B.C. as well as modern treaty and Indigenous groups.

At a period of my time as a lawyer, I practised a little bit of real estate law, filing documents at Land Title and all that kind of stuff. I know even some little changes can really affect how you file things. Is there a reason why legal professionals were not consulted in the process, such as lawyers, notaries and estate professionals? We have a list of three organizations that were consulted, but I did not hear that legal professionals and estate professionals were consulted.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think what the member’s question is getting at is: what would be the front-facing changes, if any, to lawyers in the area? The answer is there would be none.

There was a situation that was occurring where there was a lack of clarity in the law when you didn’t have a probate or estate investment analysis. At the time, it was required to have that, or there was a grey area whether it was required. So the land titles and survey agency had a workaround under a practice directive to just allow for a court-appointed administrator to be able to do things before they had those documents. So on the face, from the lawyers’ perspective, nothing would change.

What this does is provide legal clarity to that practice directive, so it fixes the issue finally.

Steve Kooner: That’s it for clause 5.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Steve Kooner: In clause 6, there are a couple of definitions here. Death of a will-maker and…. Well, let’s just focus on “a will-maker.” Can I get elaboration on that definition? Is that taken from the wills and estates act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, it is a very interesting term. It’s defined in the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, and it’s defined to mean a person who makes a will.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation of that definition.

Then the next phrase is “intestate.” I take it that’s from the Wills, Estates and Succession Act as well.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Also defined under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act.

[4:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: We have discussed this date before, earlier in clause 5 — April 1, 1947. I still don’t clearly understand why we have this date in here. Was there a different situation on how land title operated before 1947?

Hon. Niki Sharma: An interesting thing in the law, as Anita put it, and which I thought really captured it. We change forward and not backward when it comes to this stuff.

At the death of a will-maker before that period of 1947…. Apparently it does exist. It does happen that for somebody that has died that long ago, there’ll be an estate issue. You go back in time to the documents that were necessary during the time of that person’s death.

It makes sense on the paperwork side, because maybe sometimes the paperwork that’s around now just wasn’t used back then. You kind of have to pin it in time. That’s how the law works, and I think that’s just the way it is in this area.

Steve Kooner: Another thing that comes to mind, in addition to the date in this clause…. We have the use of the terms “application” and “application to register a transmission of land,” and then we have the wording “filed in the land title office.” Now, there has been a great digitization of filings and applications with the land title office.

If we’re saying that you’ve got to register specific documents, are we talking about registering the physical copies, the actual certified copies? How does this address the electronic filing situation?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to start out, nothing in the proposed amendments will change the normal course of the Land Title Act on how you would register and the methods of doing that. Of course, a lot of things are online, and I’m told with this one you must do it digitally.

Steve Kooner: To the latter part of clause 6 here, we have subclause (b). What’s the reasoning behind having subclause (b) here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Can you maybe help us out with telling us which section, again, that you were referring to?

Steve Kooner: I was referring to clause 6, and then I was right at (b), at the bottom of the page.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was a drafting choice to make sure there was absolute clarity about the effect of section 269, which is about joint tenancy. When there’s joint tenancy, there are different requirements.

It’s contained, as you could see, in the changes under 6(a)(0.2): “Except as provided in section 269….” Then the drafters thought it was best, for absolute clarity, to also copy that and put that in…. I guess it would end up being subsection 6(b), the one you’re referring to. Then that clause of 266(1) would also say “except as provided in section 269.”

Steve Kooner: Just the whole of this Land Title Act…. It applies to the next two sections as well. I was told that consultation was had with three entities. What led to formulating all these amendments? Why did the government decide to do them?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was a request by the LTSA.

Steve Kooner: When did that request happen?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The request was made in 2022. Just to mention, before, we talked about how there was a practice directive in place that they had, I guess outside of the legislative changes, to remedy the situation or at least handle it in terms of their operations. But that was when they made the request.

Steve Kooner: Was there any report that was made by the Land Title and Survey Authority in regards to the changes? How did it happen? Was it a letter that was sent to the Attorney General’s office?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They sent a letter.

Steve Kooner: In that letter to the government, did the Land Title and Survey Authority mention why they were asking for that change? Is there a specific reason that prompted them to ask for that change?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned earlier, there was a lack of clarity in the law related to what their practice should be for a particular requirement of documents or not and with the requirement not being actually available to the court-appointed administrator. So they created a practice direction as a workaround, but they wanted us to do what we’re doing right now, which is to make sure that the law was clear.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General aware how long the Land Title and Survey Authority was operating with a practice directive instead of a legislative provision? Does the Attorney General know what the time period was of just following a practice directive rather than having a legislative provision?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify the background that this sits in. I think it really points to why this is more of an administrative change rather than anything else, just to align our laws with what the practice was out there. The wills and estates act was changed in 2011 to allow for a court-appointed administrator. We were, I think, aware of, certainly, the letter of 2022 about this, the issue from the Land Title and Survey Authority, that this was an increasing thing that was happening.

The practice directive…. What they did in practice was say that when you get your court-appointed administrator, the order from the court, they required a section in there that says you have the authority to do X or Y with that land. The land title survey act used that authority under that court order to do what we’re exactly adding to the legislation right now, to make it clear that that was the case.

That’s kind of how this has evolved to the legislative changes that we’re putting in place.

Steve Kooner: The Land Title and Survey Authority was using a practice advisory since 2011. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t have the exact date on me, but the letter was 2022 when they identified the problem to us.

Steve Kooner: Looking forward, if there are further changes that are required, is there a plan in place to deal with the Land Title and Survey Authority to make sure they’re being more proactive?

[4:55 p.m.]

If there are things that are falling through the cracks procedurally, is there a plan in place so that they can let the government know faster and the legislative provisions can actually be brought to the House faster, so there’s less of a time where there are these practice advisories in place for the future? Is there some sort of a framework in place for that?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are, I’m told, in regular communication with…. Where we hold legislation and there’s an agency that’s affected by it, that’s regular communication with our team.

I would also say that with the regular miscellaneous acts or bills that the AG brings forward over the years, oftentimes there are these pieces of good governance, as you would say, to clean up statutes and make sure that any legal authorities are clear.

There’s also always an assessment of risk. When we put our team into the higher priority legislative changes, you think about that. What is the highest risk? What are the ones that we move on? This wouldn’t have been determined to be one of those.

The important thing to say is that when they started to notice this was something that needs to be changed, they communicated with us, and this is part of us changing it.

Steve Kooner: I understand it’s a procedural change. It’s meant to make things easier. But there are some concerns. Throughout the province, there are places where there are not enough notaries. With doing filings at land title, it’s usual that people hire professionals.

According to the Attorney General, will there be a need for getting additional professionals involved in any way, getting another notary to kind of deal with the change or anything like that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. Again, just to make it clear, this will not be a front-facing issue for anybody. This was something that was…. Basically, lawyers or notaries or anybody interacting with the Land Title Act will not notice a difference. This is about legal clarity.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Steve Kooner: Clause 7 is a pretty long clause. It provides for section 266.1. Perhaps the Attorney General can just explain the inner workings of this particular clause or this section.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is the key provision that brings into effect what we’ve been talking about on these amendments, so just to talk through it. Section (1)(a), the order that it refers to under section 103 and 132 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act — those are the sections that appoint that administrator that we were talking about.

Then this next one is that the order would vest them in the administrator title to the land or charge. That gives the clear legal authority by that order, and then that’s subsection (b).

Then when you go to (2), that is what the registrar would look at to see, basically, what they would need in order to know that that person satisfies the ability to do what they’re asking to do. That is the conditions set out in (1)(a), the ones I just talked about — that they have the proper legal authority to do so and that they (b) correctly describe the land or charge affected.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Steve Kooner: Clause 8 talks about amending by striking out sections 265 and 266 and substituting section 266. Can the Attorney General just explain this particular clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Because of the removal of section 265, it’s a consequential amendment to make that clear.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Steve Kooner: We’re now into the amendment to the Libel and Slander Act, and we’re at clause 9. Just like I asked for the previous two acts that we were discussing, we’re discussing consultation. When the amendments were being made by the Attorney General’s department to the Libel and Slander Act, what consultations were had?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, the consultation was done with the B.C. Provincial Court, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, court services branch, the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, First Nations Leadership Council and Métis Nation B.C. No concerns were raised related to that.

Steve Kooner: What led to and what precipitated going about to actually make these changes? What started the process?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is also in the category of housekeeping and good governance, and it’s to do with changes that happened to the Supreme Court civil rules in 2010. As a result of those changes, there needed to be a whole range of consequential amendments that were mostly related to terminology, like a switch between this one, an issue of a writ and a notice of civil claim. Notice of civil claim is the current one.

This provision was missed. It didn’t have any consequences because it was changed in other areas, so this is just a matter of cleaning up that piece of legislation to make sure it’s clear that it’s a notice of civil claim.

[5:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I actually precisely remember when the changes happened in 2010. It’s quite burdensome to switch from having writ of summons and statement of claims and then changing the process to have notice of civil claims. But that was quite long ago. That was back in 2010. We’re now in 2025, 15 years later. We’re now making the change 15 years later.

Is there a reason why we waited 15 years to actually get this change done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear, there were a whole bunch of changes. As the member noted, it was a big change that was made, that we’re changing terminology.

As happens when we have really complicated changes, sometimes things are missed. These sections were noticed as not having the right terminology, and as often happens when you have miscellaneous statutes, you add these kinds of changes to them. So it just cleans up the laws that we have in our province.

Steve Kooner: The Libel and Slander Act is our statute that deals with defamation law. Defamation law deals with protecting people from being defamed and also balances that with freedom of expression.

A lot has changed in regards to defamation law or defamation situations, especially in the last ten, 15, 20 years with technology and a lot of online forums. There are community groups like Facebook community groups. People just instantly post stuff. There are online reviews that happen. I know that there was a bill that we talked about…. In Bill 4, we talked about online reviews.

A lot of that digitization is happening, and we’re making one technical change here to the Libel and Slander Act. But at this time, when the ministry was actually looking at making this change, was there any further discussion or will there be a further discussion to look at this act more in a wholesome way? There have definitely been significant changes in the digitization world and how that affects this area of law.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I think the member raises a very important point. Just to say that although this is contained in a very discrete, miscellaneous bill, it’s part of the normal course of business to add these changes regularly. We’re always looking at broader changes to respond to the times we’re in related to online harms. Recently I just introduced changes to the Intimate Images Protection Act through a bill that I hope will go through the Legislature that starts to address some of the harms.

I would say that there’s a broad scope of things that not only are we working on but that we need to work on as a country. One of the things I’ve advocated for at the federal level is federal legislation that covers the whole country related to this stuff, because they have tools related to this that we don’t have at the province.

But yes, just to agree, there are bigger policy and legislative projects than the ones that you see before you that our talented group of people are undertaking all the time.

Steve Kooner: Going back to this Libel and Slander Act, there was obviously some awareness that shed light to the government to actually make this change. Was there any further discussion about anything else — whoever was asking for this change, that there need to be other changes as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This section is a bit different than the one we talked about before with the Land Titles Act. This was not something that, I think, people were asking for. It was just a matter of, like I mentioned, the regular course of business of us making sure that we’re cleaning up these things that we find in our statutes.

Steve Kooner: I think the Attorney General addressed this, but I’m not quite sure.

[5:10 p.m.]

I understand it’s a procedural change, a technical change. I just want to confirm. As a result of making this change, it’s not going to affect substantive law practice at all.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it won’t.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Steve Kooner: Clause 10 deals with section 7, which amends, strikes out and substitutes. Can the Attorney General elaborate on this and just explain the clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it’s a cleanup clause. You’ll note that there’s a change from striking out “of the writ” and substituting with “notice of civil claim.”

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Steve Kooner: This clause seems to be quite self-explanatory, as per my second reading speech, but if the Attorney General could just elaborate on the explanation on this clause as well.

Hon. Niki Sharma: These proposed changes reflect a decision by the legislative management committee to withhold the statutorily authorized increase to salaries of members scheduled to take effect April 1, 2025. The amendments in here just bring legislative effect to accompany that decision.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Steve Kooner: This next clause affects the Police Act, and it does actually make a significant change. It’s not totally technical. It involves introducing a deputy chief civilian director at the independent investigations office. I have some questions in regard to that.

The first question, like the ones on the other statutes, is: what precipitated leading to actually drafting these amendments in here? Was there a concern? Was there a situation where something had happened to a deputy and then, all of a sudden, they didn’t have somebody to substitute? What led to that situation, leading to this particular amendment?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very specific change that was related to a recent example where our chief civilian director wasn’t available to perform the duties. What we discovered through that is a flaw in the legislation about appointing a deputy chief civilian director in that situation. So it just gives the legal authority necessary for the chief civilian officer to do that.

Steve Kooner: To the next question, I’m now understanding what precipitated the change. There was a situation where there was a substitute lacking. In creating this position, what consultation was had, and with which groups? What was the extent of that consultation, and, as a result of that consultation, what was said? What was asked for?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This change was brought about because of a direct discussion with IIO and the needs that they have to fulfil the functions of their operation. That was the most important one, but we also discussed this with Indigenous leadership groups, treaty organizations and the Ministry of Public Safety.

Steve Kooner: Now that we’re adding a new position, which is the deputy chief civilian director, how will this position be filled? What I read was it’s going to be through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, meaning that it’s going to be done by cabinet. That’s my understanding. The appointment is going to be through cabinet.

What sort of process will be involved? Will there be any public, merit-based competition, or will it just be strictly that somebody will be chosen?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Our chief civilian director is a very important position. They head what is our police oversight agency, so it’s very important that that position is led by somebody that is independent and has very strong qualifications. Like anything, there’s a merit-based process and a hiring process to do that, and there also would be for the deputy chief civilian director. That would be part of the requirements also, what the qualifications are, listed in the act.

The next thing to say about that is the reason that it’s an appointment by the LG is because it helps to make certain that there’s that level of independence for that position and to make it clear through following those processes to get there.

Steve Kooner: What specific qualifications or experience will be required for this new position?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The legislative requirement set out is that they can’t be a former police officer, so that’s clear. The IIO works with the PSA to set out a job description, and that would be public at some point. But it would include a very rigorous, I’m sure, type of qualifications that would lead to that job.

We’ve had some pretty stellar people in that role in the past that have had very good experience when it comes to oversight and an understanding of the important role of police oversight.

Steve Kooner: When a deputy chief civilian director gets appointed and, say for example, something happens to the chief civilian director, and then the deputy chief civilian director kind of takes over, what happens in the succession plan?

[5:20 p.m.]

Does the deputy chief eventually just become the chief, and then you’ve got to look for another deputy? Do you look for another chief and then put the chief in that spot and put the deputy back where the deputy was?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to think about the different scenarios that the member brings up, to explain the changes that we’re making…. The first one is the appointment for a new position, and that would be the deputy chief civilian director. That’s an organizational change in the sense where there’s somebody in the job that’s a deputy at this stage.

Then there’s the appointment of an acting one, which comes up later. The acting one was the problem that we were trying to solve initially, to create these changes, that in the event that the chief civilian director is unavailable, you could put somebody in place as an acting director. So they’re two different things.

The member asked about whether it’s temporary or permanent. What the bill would do is if the chief civilian director is somehow unavailable for a long period of time, you could put in place an acting one. Now, if that became permanent, like there was something that happened where that person was saying, “I’m leaving the job; I can’t do it anymore,” then it would trigger, obviously, a different thing, which is the search for a new chief civilian director. Maybe that acting person decides to apply, but that would be a separate process.

Steve Kooner: Just going back to the…. By default, the deputy would become acting chief civilian director temporarily, and it would revert back unless, say, the deputy applied for the chief civilian director position.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, solving two problems again.

One is that by having a deputy chief civilian director, the chief civilian director would have the authority to delegate things. They wouldn’t necessarily have to sign off on everything. So that creates a structural change.

Then, in the scenario where the chief is unavailable on a temporary basis, you could appoint an acting. Those two people don’t have to be the same people, the deputy and the acting. The bill is not set up for that as an automatic thing, that the acting person would be the deputy.

I mean, you could speculate that it’s probably unlikely that the deputy wouldn’t be the acting in that scenario, because they would have the right skill set and be embedded in the organization. But that is a choice that would have to come up at that time.

Steve Kooner: Now we’re talking about an acting chief civilian director and putting that person there. How would the acting person be put in? We talked about putting a deputy chief civilian director in place. Where would you find this acting chief civilian director if it’s not in the structure right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to say that we’re on clause 12 of this section. It does come up later on. I’m happy to talk about it when we get to that clause.

Steve Kooner: Okay. What’s the estimated budgetary impact of adding this role of a deputy chief civilian director?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The IIO is expected to manage within their current budget related to this. This is an organizational change and gives more, different structure and authority. But they would manage within their existing budget.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General mentioned earlier that this would be an organization change to add the deputy chief civilian director position. Since this is an office, would this require additional staffing to staff the deputy chief civilian director?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear, it’s very important that the IIO operates independently of government. Although we have communications with them, and we make sure that they have the resources they need to do their job, I do not make their decisions related to staffing or who they hire or how they structure.

This was a necessary thing to give legislative authority to certain roles, because there are consequential decisions that the chief will make that have legal consequences that we need to make sure have proper legal authority in the act to do so.

Other than that, I mean…. They manage within their budget and make those decisions.

Steve Kooner: The independent investigations office serves a very important role in British Columbia, overseeing deaths that may happen as a result of tragic situations. It was mentioned earlier that the IIO would work within its own budget. If it’s going to work within its own budget for a new position, will there be cuts somewhere else to the IIO to find money for this position? That’s an important point, because the IIO serves a very important role.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Making sure the IIO is properly resourced to do the very important investigations that they’re tasked with is very important to us.

[5:30 p.m.]

They were given an increase of $2 million in 2023 to make sure of their speed to investigation and that they had the resources they need. It’s something that is now, just to make it clear…. Maybe something that I said already was that this is about a reorganization and giving a specific legal authority. They are expected to manage within their budget, which has increased.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate the Attorney General told me that the independent investigations office is also independent of government, so there is only a certain amount of information that goes back and forth with the independent investigations office.

Can the Attorney General shed any light on, because we are adding a new position, how adding this new position would actually improve timeliness, transparency and efficiency in IIO investigations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is about improving their system to be better and more efficient by giving them the tools they need to do that. For example, because of the way it was set up before these changes that, hopefully, go through, the chief civilian director had to do a lot of the things on their own. They had to make…. There was no delegation authority. You can imagine that having that all on one person could create some kind of a backlog.

With these changes, the chief can delegate to the deputy certain functions. That’s very important in terms of getting their work done more efficiently. We expect that this would improve their ability to do their job, and it was something certainly they’ve asked for.

Steve Kooner: Now, to get into the crux of clause 12 here, before we move in, can the Attorney General briefly explain how this section works and what was the purpose behind this specific clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a very discrete thing what this change for this clause does, and that is just to include the deputy chief civilian director in the description of the staff complement.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Steve Kooner: For clause 13, if the Attorney General can just provide an explanation of this clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a result of a new drafting convention, and drafters are very serious about these changes. This would be a change from using the number 2 to “second.”

Steve Kooner: It’s a grammatical thing, like just using the numeric “2nd” versus the written form of “second.”

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: It seems to be very technical in how this is just put in here. If we would have just kept it the same, would it have made any difference?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would have made a difference to the drafter.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Steve Kooner: Now we’re getting to clause 14 here.

It’s a little bit detailed here. It refers to the deputy civilian chief director, the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It talks about appointing this chief.

[5:35 p.m.]

We talked a little bit about the qualifications. It would be a merit-based appointment. We talked a little bit about how it shouldn’t be a former police officer and how a person who is current may not be appointed.

Then (3): “The chief…director may, in writing, delegate to a person appointed as the deputy of….” Okay, I guess the first two are pretty self-explanatory.

The third one, sub (3), is actually fairly detailed, but perhaps the Attorney General can explain the whole section so we can understand it better.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This enables the appointment of a deputy of the chief civilian director, and it sets out the requirement that it may not be a former police officer. It also allows the legal authority for the chief civilian director, in writing, to delegate to the person appointed as the deputy the power and duty that they have, subject to any terms and conditions.

Then, on the acting civilian director, it clearly states that if the chief civilian director is temporarily absent, and the word “temporary” is very important there, because of illness or another reason, or if there is no chief civilian director, the LG can appoint a chief civilian director and the duties are given to that acting. Again, the person cannot be a former police officer.

Steve Kooner: A couple of questions.

The first one, I guess, going back to…. I asked this question about an acting deputy, and the Attorney General asked if I could wait until later on in a particular section, in terms of how the acting chief civilian director would be put in the position that they would be put in. I see here it says through the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

First thing is that it would come through cabinet, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General elaborate on that process? We went through at a little bit of length talking about the deputy chief civilian director and how they would be appointed. We talked about qualifications and all that.

What would be the process for cabinet, keeping in mind that the Attorney General just told me earlier there’s a little bit of a distance between the government and the independent investigations office?

There’s only a limited amount of information that goes back and forth, and the government would like to keep themselves independent from the independent investigations office. But here we have a cabinet appointment, which is directly from the government.

How do those safeguards come into play when the government is trying to keep themselves independent yet they’re appointing an acting chief civilian director?

[5:40 p.m.]

The Chair: At this point, it’s 5:41. We are going to take a ten-minute recess. I will see everybody back at 5:51 in your seats, please.

The committee recessed from 5:42 p.m. to 5:51 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call this committee back to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question I think we left on was the balance to maintain the independence of the office, which is very important. One of the ways you do that is by establishing clear authorities and roles in legislation. That’s done in a transparent way, so it’s set out very clearly where the roles are. It’s generally the case that appointments are made by cabinet related to various things, but it’s after a merit-based process.

I’ll just note that there’s a very particular situation with the acting chief civilian director. That’s more of an emergency situation where you have…. There’s been an absence, for whatever reason, and somebody needs to take on that role quickly. So it would probably be in that scenario that you wouldn’t have the time to do the merit-based process that you would do in any other scenario. But of course, everybody would see that that’s for a temporary time period that’s set out in the way the appointment is made.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that explanation.

Do we know what the different duties that…? I know there’s a separation between what the acting chief civilian director does, essentially what the chief civilian director would do…. But now we know that we have a new office that is the deputy chief civilian director office. We were told earlier: “Well, this is a completely….” This is an organization change, so the deputy chief is going to be doing some of that work as well.

Do we know exactly what the deputy chief is going to be doing versus, like, the chief civilian director and acting chief civilian director?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In consultation with the IIO, the wording that’s in here is with respect to the independence of the chief civilian director. So you’ll see that in 14(3), it says that “the chief civilian director may, in writing, delegate to a person appointed…the power or duties of the chief civilian director, subject to terms and conditions a chief civilian director considers appropriate. You could see that we give the discretion of that delegation to the chief civilian director in respect of the independence that they have.

[5:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Earlier we talked about consultation that was had, and then a position needed to be filled because it was a situation where nobody was there to deal with the absence of the chief civilian director.

I know that’s the way that happened in the past, where you had somebody missing from a position, and I know there’s a certain level of independence between the government and the independent investigations office. But is there a procedure…? We’ve talked about, in some of these other acts covered by this statute, how there’s been a commission, or there’s been some sort of committee, or there’s been…. Sometimes when there’s something lacking, a certain government authority sends a letter.

Is there some sort of mechanism of review that is available to the government to know what is going on with the independent investigations office, moving forward, to make sure the office is functioning properly? Is there some sort of accountability or some sort of oversight or some form of audit? Is there a commission, something like that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are various kinds of informal and formal ways that happens, to what the member asked.

First of all, there’s the requirement of an annual report that’s published publicly. Then there’s the Treasury Board oversight of financials that would happen just like with any organization that receives public funding. That’s through various mechanisms. Then there’s also the informal side of it, which would be the communications that happen between my ministry and the chief civilian officer.

Also, I have made a point of having semi-regular meetings with them, as the Attorney General. At that point, they can tell me what they’re experiencing, what’s happening, things we might need to act on — of course, respecting their independence.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the report…. I believe you said there’s an annual report. What does that annual report have in it? Does that report talk about the infrastructure of the organization? Does that talk about the evaluation of the organization? What does that report have in it? Is that report available to the opposition as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think this question, although I understand the need for the member and the curiosity, is not related to the clause that’s before us. I’m happy to figure out a way to provide him information in his critic role, related to the questions he’s asking about the annual report, but I don’t think it pertains to this clause.

Steve Kooner: I think what I was trying to get to the bottom of is that in this situation, what we had was…. We had to kind of fill holes after the fact. It was a reactionary decision to fill a hole because the chief civilian director was no longer available. So now when I ask a question about a report, I ask that question about the report so we can be proactive rather than reactive.

That’s why I’m asking what is in the report. Would that help us towards the future? Say, rather than dealing with a staffing issue after the fact, could we determine that this is going to be a need, moving forward, before we actually get filled with a void?

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m being proactive here, and that’s why I’m asking the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I mentioned all the informal and formal ways that the communication happens between the two offices. What I will say pertaining to this particular clause is that an acting chief civilian director is likely not going to be something that would show up or be predicted through an annual reporting process.

As it mentions, it’s because of a temporary absence, because of illness or another reason, which leaves there to be no chief civilian director. As happens with the course of life, with people that are in positions, sometimes you get in a position where for that person, something happens, and they’re not available. That’s not something that an annual report would be predictive of.

Steve Kooner: Okay. The next question I have on this particular clause…. This type of position excludes a police officer from being hired, or a former police officer. Now, when we look at police officers, sometimes we see terminologies such as “peace officer,” and sometimes those are police officers. Now, when we’re looking at policing — I don’t know — there could be bylaw officers as well. There could be intelligence officers, say, working for CSIS.

In this exclusion, does this pertain, specifically, so that it cannot be somebody that is in a local municipal police force or that may be in an RCMP position, but it does not catch other people? Is there a broad inclusion of who a police officer is, according to the definition in this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member is correct that, in the narrow application of this provision, it’s a member or a former member of a police service or the RCMP. It’s not related to what’s often a broader definition of “peace officer,” which contains more people.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Steve Kooner: Clause 15 deals with four subcategories, (a), (b), (c) and (d). Perhaps the Attorney General can explain and elaborate on this whole clause, including (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Hon. Niki Sharma: This provision is just really to clarify the remuneration and reimbursement of expenses and pension entitlements for the deputy chief civilian director. You’ll see in the provision that it adds that title of deputy chief civilian director to those entitlements.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General explain clause 16?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is making it clear that the deputy would have the powers that are needed to perform their functions. That includes the same powers that are given to the chief civilian director and the IIO investigators and the powers to use the immunities of a peace officer. That carries out through the jurisdictions throughout British Columbia, so that clarifies those.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Steve Kooner: Similarly for Clause 17, can the Attorney General explain what was the intent behind that as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is something that the chief already had the power to do, to appoint a civilian monitor to review and assess the integrity of an investigation. This just allows that to be delegated to the deputy.

Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

Steve Kooner: Clause 21 refers to the Small Claims Act. Maybe the Attorney General can explain what precipitated that change, what consultation was had and then, maybe, just explain what this does.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of consultation, the B.C. Provincial Court, which actually requested the change; the court services branch; the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations; First Nations Leadership Council and Métis Nation B.C. were consulted, and no concerns were raised by any of them.

Basically, this is just the very specific housekeeping matter of removing section 56.3, that reference, which relates to a process that’s no longer in use about issuing a notice of an objection to a CRT ruling. That is now needing to be removed.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

Steve Kooner: Okay, so clause 22 deals with the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. Maybe the Attorney General can just explain what precipitated this change and what consultation was had.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There wasn’t any external consultation required for this one because the members of the public and certain financial professionals have been reaching out about this change.

A very small but important thing is that the first home savings account, as defined in the Income Tax Act, was added, and it was needed to be added under the definition of “benefit plan” for the functioning of the act.

You’ll note that another change was that the regulation-making authority — you see it right below — was moved to that section to make it clear that legislative change is not necessary if there’s a new benefit plan. You could do it by regulation.

Clauses 22 and 23 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to thank the team that cycled in and out to give me their support and advice and all the work they did on the changes here. I appreciate it.

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 6:12 p.m.

Contents