Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld: I’ve got a long list of introductions here. Six out of the nine siblings of my family are here today to visit. I come from a family of eight boys and two girls.

My younger sister Lydia is from Edmonton. She couldn’t make it. And the twins, David and Betty, could not join in as well.

I would like to ask each brother to stand when I mention his name.

The closest brother to me is my brother Herb. And Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm or deny that we got into a lot of trouble as teenagers.

My next brother is Walter. He played volleyball, and his volleyball team is inducted into the Volleyball B.C. Hall of Fame.

[1:35 p.m.]

Then my brother Henry played basketball at John Oliver against Lars Hansen from Killarney Secondary. He played in the NBA, and my brother was his good rival. So my brother Henry.

Then my brother George. He played volleyball and also coached a women’s team, and that women’s team is also inducted into Volleyball B.C. Hall of Fame.

Then the twin towers, Wolfgang and Werner, played football for John Oliver, and injuries prevented them from further playing football.

These men raised me, so if I get into trouble in this House, it’s their fault.

I would like everybody here to make them feel welcome.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s a pretty good day for J.O. there. That’s all right.

I want all members of the House to join me in giving a warm welcome to Clean Energy B.C., who are meeting with members on both sides of the House today.

Clean Energy B.C., interestingly, represents every successful proponent of the 2024 call for power. Many of the delegation, including First Nations clean energy leaders, are seeking to invest in the current call for power. It’s very exciting to have them here in the Legislature.

I want to introduce Kwatuuma Cole Sayers of CEBC, of Clean Energy B.C.; Jack Magnus, Ombrielle Neria, Lili Meier.

Chief Chris Roberts of the Wei Wai Kum and of Clean Energy B.C.

Councillor Stephen Rayner of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and CEBC.

Jose Auffray from Ecoener.

Andrea Kausel from Capstone Infrastructure.

Jonathan Turner from Elemental.

David Thornton from EDF Power Solutions.

Roslyn McMann from BluEarth Renewables.

Ina Gjoka from Innergex Renewable Energy.

Shoshana Pasternak from Invenergy.

Carlie Smith from Boralex.

Yuho Okada from Barkley Project Group.

I know the House is going to look forward to meeting with these people today, and I hope everyone in the House wishes them welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I see in the gallery today that we are joined by two individuals who have given so much to their communities. Mervyn and Terri Van Steinburg are here in the gallery to join us for question period today.

Mervyn is a retired member of the IBEW and a long-standing former labour coordinator at the United Way. Terri has been a longtime advocate in the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators and has served as president. They’ve served in numerous community organizations. They are such terrific community and labour advocates.

Thanks so much for being here today.

Would the House please join me in making then feel welcome.

Elenore Sturko: She’s not here today, but she is watching at home. I just want to congratulate my spouse, Melissa Sturko, who just returned this Saturday from participating in the World Triathlon Championships in Wollongong, Australia.

Melissa competed with Triathlon Canada’s age group team and competed in the aquabike. The kids and I are thrilled for her.

Would this House please join me in congratulating Melissa.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In the gallery today, we have members of the B.C. Notaries Association.

They are here to help recognize Make a Will Week, taking place from October 20 through October 26 in British Columbia. Make a Will Week serves as an opportunity to remind British Columbians of the importance of having a will in order to protect your wishes and your loved ones. During calendar 2024, B.C. Notaries completed or updated 19,989 wills for British Columbians.

I am pleased to introduce members of the B.C. Notaries Association board of directors in attendance. They are Rimpy Sadhra, board president; Cam Sherk, board vice-president; Jackie Tate, board secretary and treasurer; Daniel Boisvert, director and city of Delta councillor; Morrie Baillie, director; Kate Roome, director; and Chad Rintoul, chief executive officer and town of Sidney councillor.

Would the House please make them welcome, because making a will is really important.

[1:40 p.m.]

Ian Paton: The Minister of Transportation just beat me to it, but I want to personally introduce a good friend of mine, Daniel Boisvert.

He’s a Delta city councillor, but he’s also the past president of the B.C. Notaries Association and currently a director now. I met with some of his colleagues last night. He’s a resident of Tsawwassen, a constituent of mine and a proud member of the Delta city council.

Please make Daniel Boisvert feel very welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: It’s so rare that I get to welcome people from my constituency into the House. Today we actually have three people.

The first two folks that I just toured around the Legislature are JP and Rebecca from Baldface, one of the owners and the general manager. They absolutely loved seeing the Legislature. It was such an honour to tour them around.

Baldface is a cat-skiing operation just outside of Nelson. Nelson was named, I believe it was in the New York Times, as the global leader in heli-skiing and cat-skiing. They’re down today for the HeliCat conference.

We probably have more of my constituents really close to us here today in Victoria than on a normal day, because we have so many incredible businesses that do heli-skiing and cat-skiing right from the Kootenays and also from across British Columbia.

I would like to welcome Rebecca and JP, as well as everyone else from HeliCat.

For my second introduction, I would like to introduce Rachel Holt, who is here with us today. She is a PhD ecologist. She’s done work across British Columbia, and I like to call her a dear friend.

I would just hope that this House could make Rachel Holt feel very welcome.

Jeremy Valeriote: On behalf of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, I would like to introduce Chad Rintoul, a Sidney councillor and CEO of the B.C. Notaries Association.

Will the House please make Chad feel welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I wanted to welcome representatives from two organizations who were here on the precinct over the lunch hour to join the Premier and I in an announcement that we’ll be discussing in a moment.

Andrea Seale is the CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society, and Sue Whittaker is a volunteer and ambassador with the MS Society of Canada. Both of these organizations and these individuals do extraordinary work on behalf of people who have life-altering diagnoses, and they support them through very, very difficult times. I am just in awe of the incredible achievements of these organizations and the work that they do.

Would the House please join me in thanking them for their work and making them welcome for having been here earlier today.

Paul Choi: I am very excited to welcome the delegation from the Korean public service and particularly the court system in Korea. If I can ask them to stand up, please.

They include judges, prosecutors, court clerks and a firefighter, as you can see, in his uniform. They are here with the UVic law school on a research exchange program, and they’re here in the chamber to learn about our parliamentary system.

Please, if I can ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

George Anderson: I have the great honour of introducing a constituent of mine, Mr. Yuho Okada.

He’s the president of Barkley Project Group and the former chair of the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia. He has a very clear passion for the industry, and it’s because of people like Mr. Okada that I have a lot of hope for the future.

I would hope that the whole House would welcome Mr. Okada to the House.

Tributes

Elmer Seniemten George

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, Dr. Elmer Seniemten George, a much-loved Elder of the Songhees Nation, who passed away peacefully last Thursday at age 90.

[1:45 p.m.]

One of the few remaining fluent lək̓ʷəŋən speakers, Dr. George devoted the last decades of his life to the revitalization of his ancestral language. Through this unique work, he built relationships all over this region, like with the University of Victoria, Royal Roads University, CFB Esquimalt, Royal B.C. Museum, the city of Victoria, the Greater Victoria Public Library and with us here in the Legislative Assembly.

He helped open many new parliamentary sessions with a blessing and was present in this House on the dedication of our Talking Stick in 2006.

For his lifetime of service, Dr. George was awarded an honorary PhD by Royal Roads University as well as the Meritorious Service Medal from the Governor General for his work in translating the historic Douglas treaties.

Dr. George was a humble man. He worked in construction, logging and maintenance for most of his life. He was a devoted husband to his late wife, Eva; a father to 12; and a big Blue Jays fan.

Although beloved by many from across this beautiful province, none will feel this loss more profoundly than the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

In 2023, Dr. George honoured our Legislature by selecting the text that spanned the precinct’s retaining wall along Belleville Street.

Today, as he is laid to rest and we reflect on his enduring legacy, I will share the powerful words he chose: “We thank our warriors that go to war. We hold gratitude and respect for those who do not come back. They give their lives for us. Thank you, ancestors. It is good that you are one together with the lək̓ʷəŋən People. Working together as one, our children will become strong. We all love the children.”

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I wish to express to Chief Ron Sam and Chief Jerome Thomas and their communities our very deepest sympathies.

Members, please join me in raising your hands to Dr. Elmer George and his life well lived.

We will miss you, my friend.

O siém, hәysxʷq̓ә.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Employment Standards
(Serious Illness or Injury Leave)
Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act. This bill amends the Employment Standards Act to add a new, unpaid, job-protected leave for employees dealing with serious injury or illness. The entitlement is for up to 27 weeks within a 12-month period. The proposed amendments will bring provincial legislation in alignment with financial supports available through the federal insurance sickness benefits program.

Workers are at the centre of the economy we are building in our province, and at the core of the proposed amendments is a commitment to people and to the principle that they should never have to choose between their job or their health. For people facing a serious health diagnosis and maybe a life-altering situation, the certainty of knowing that their jobs will be there for them provides relief and alleviates an unnecessary burden on their journey to recovery.

Currently there are no provisions in the Employment Standards Act that protect the jobs of people who are unable to work due to their own long-term illness or injury. This change reflects what patient advocates have been telling us; what we heard from worker, employer and business organizations earlier this year. They all recognize the importance of accommodating workers who suffer from a life-altering diagnosis, and there was broad agreement that workers deserve to be able to return to their jobs when they and their health care providers say that they are ready.

Every British Columbian knows someone who has been affected by a life-altering diagnosis, or they may well have experienced it themselves, diagnoses such as cancer or multiple sclerosis, heart disease, Parkinson’s; or experienced serious injury through a motor vehicle accident; or are survivors of intimate partner violence.

These proposed changes ensure that their jobs are protected by including this leave in the Employment Standards Act. This leave is already in place in federally regulated industries and workplaces, as well as other Canadian jurisdictions, including Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador.

[1:50 p.m.]

I am very pleased that we are moving forward to enshrine this principle in our act in British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: 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.

Members’ Statements

Festival of Lights and
Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada

Mable Elmore: Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending an incredible cultural celebration. I know many colleagues from the House were also there. It was called the Festival of Lights, where Diwali meets a festival of lanterns in a Coachella-style celebration held at the Cloverdale Agriplex in Surrey.

Organized by the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada, the Festival of Lights was a multicultural music and light festival, showcasing some of the best bands and singers and dancers in B.C. performing alongside international artists. It had everything you wanted there: food trucks, great culinary traditions from around the world, arts and crafts, family-friendly activities, a fashion show — really bringing the community together. Of course, it concluded with a spectacular laser light show, deejay music and just an incredible time.

The 2025 Festival of Lights event embodies what the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada is all about. Through its work of promoting intercultural understanding, the foundation builds meaningful bonds between communities in Canada and across the Indo-Pacific. From its headquarters in Vancouver, the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada reaches out to countries such as India, China, Korea, the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and many others.

Through events like this year’s Festival of Lights, the foundation seeks to position British Columbia as an international hub of inclusion, global cultural exchange and creativity. At the festival, neither borders nor politics matter. It’s all about the beauty of diversity and the appreciation of different cultures.

We learned that fear doesn’t have a place in celebrations like Festival of Lights. Love and kindness and harmony are all that matters.

Congratulations to the Indo-Pacific Foundation for a successful Festival of Lights.

I ask everybody to please offer their congratulations and appreciation for their leadership to really make British Columbia a terrific province.

Renaming of Sports Fields
at Abbotsford Schools

Korky Neufeld: In Abbotsford, on September 26, we gathered with one heart and one mind to celebrate something truly meaningful, the renaming of four sports fields at W.J. Mouat Secondary and Colleen and Gordie Howe Middle School. These fields are more than places to play. They are places where young people learn teamwork, build friendships, create memories that last a lifetime.

Together with the city of Abbotsford, the Abbotsford board of education, the Semá:th First Nation and the Máthexwi First Nation, we honoured remarkable individuals who shaped the community of Abbotsford.

Jim Latham Field. He was a principal and educator who built the foundation of the W.J. Mouat powerhouse football program.

Sophie Schmidt Field. Her parents also immigrated from Paraguay, as I did, before Sophie was born. Sophie is a well-known, accomplished soccer star, a four-time Olympian, an Olympic gold and two bronze medals, who used these same fields to hone her exceptional skills.

Terry Felix Field. A trailblazer, the first Indigenous athlete to play professional soccer, for three years representing Canada on the world stage. He also played the sports he loved on these same fields as a young boy.

Const. John Davidson Field. He devoted his life to service and fitness. He was a beloved liaison officer in our school system. He spearheaded a crash prevention program in our school community. He was sadly gunned down in the line of duty on November 6, 2017, going to the aid of a fellow officer.

Each name tells a story of service, a story of excellence, a story of courage and a story of belonging. Under the collective Indigenous saying “one heart, one mind,” these fields remind us of unity and connection. They carry the spirit of the past, present and future, and they will inspire generations to come.

[1:55 p.m.]

Thank you to everyone who helped make that exceptional day possible. May these fields always be a place of joy and respect, where individuals battle out hard-fought games in true sportsmanship.

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to extend my warmest wishes to everyone in British Columbia and around the world who are celebrating Diwali today.

Diwali, the festival of lights, is a celebration of hope, joy and togetherness. It is observed by many faiths — Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists — each with their own rich traditions and meanings.

For Hindus, it marks the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after 14 years in exile, a reminder that light always triumphs over darkness and good over evil.

For Jains, it commemorates the spiritual liberation of Lord Mahavir.

For many Buddhists, it celebrates the day Emperor Ashoka embraced peace and enlightenment, values that continue to inspire us today.

Tomorrow Sikhs around the world will celebrate Bandi Chhor Divas, marking the release of Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji and 52 princes from imprisonment, a story of courage, justice and compassion.

Here in British Columbia, these celebrations reflect our diversity and the connections that make our province stronger. Having grown up in India, these celebrations, the glow of diyas and the laughter of neighbours still live in my heart, but I feel the same light and warmth here in Canada, in the homes, temples, gurdwaras and community spaces across our world.

As families and friends gather to light diyas, share delicious meals and celebrate together, may we all take a moment to reflect on the light within our hearts and the ways we can bring that light into the world around us.

To everyone celebrating near and far, happy Diwali and happy Bandi Chhor Divas.

Autumn Harvest in Rural B.C.

Donegal Wilson: It is nearing the end of October, and across the Boundary-Similkameen, the final harvest is underway. The apples are coming off the trees, the grapes are on the crush pads, the cows are coming home from the high country, and our farmers are winding down their fields for another year.

This is a season that brings the whole region together from Grand Forks to Princeton, Rock Creek to Cawston, Keremeos to Okanagan Falls and all the small valleys and benches in between. It’s a time when rural British Columbia shows its strength, its work ethic and its sense of community. Harvest marks the end of another long season, one that started months ago with pruning, planting and seeding.

When we talk about harvest, it’s not just about produce or crops; it’s about people. It’s about the families who work side by side in the orchards and vineyards, the ranchers who spend long days gathering cattle off the range, and the truck drivers, packers, processors and market vendors who make sure our local bounty reaches homes across British Columbia.

It’s also about the small businesses that keep that rural life running: the equipment shops, fuel stations, grocery stores and restaurants that open early and stay open late to serve those working in our fields. These are the quiet heroes of our local economy.

As we celebrate another successful harvest, I want to extend my deepest thanks to everyone who contributes to the abundance we enjoy — the growers, the pickers, the haulers, the families and the communities who make it all possible.

You are the heart of rural British Columbia. Your work sustains us not just through the food you grow but through the example you set of hard work, perseverance and community pride.

As the bins fill, the barns close and the season winds down, I hope everyone takes a moment to appreciate just how much we have to be grateful for in this beautiful part of our province we call home.

BX Farm Tour in North Okanagan

Harwinder Sandhu: At the end of September, I had the privilege of joining the fifth annual BX Farm Tour, a beloved North Okanagan tradition that celebrates the heart of our farming community.

[2:00 p.m.]

With 11 inspiring stops across the BX, visitors met with local farmers, shopped at their stands and learned firsthand about both the triumphs and challenges of those who put food on our tables.

Thanks to Jenn Cameron of Vanzeal Acres for the invitation and for helping coordinate this incredible day.

From Brookside Orchards to Bee-Yotch Honey, Morrison Funny Farm, Curlew Orchard, Indigo Valley Farm, Elderberry Fields, Harry and Stella’s Family Farm, Smith Family Farm, Silverstar Veggies and Hobenshield Acres, every stop showcased a dedication, resilience and innovation that defines our local farmers.

I also want to acknowledge the sponsors who made this possible, including Land to Table Network Society, Tourism Vernon and Community Futures North Okanagan. Their support helps sustain not just farms but the communities that depend on them.

A special highlight was meeting Jenn Cameron and Erika Sohni, founders of Lady Farmer, two inspiring women growing not only food but knowledge and connection through workshops on canning, crocheting and greenhouse maintenance. They are empowering women and strengthening our community resilience.

We also met with the Rise Up team led by Lauren and Megan, connecting youth across B.C. and inspiring the next generation of farmers and leaders.

The BX farm tour was more than a day on the land. It was a powerful reminder of who we are. When farmers, families and neighbours come together, we grow more than crops. We grow hope, resilience and connection.

Let’s continue to stand with those who feed us, nurture our land and strengthen the root of our communities.

B.C. Women’s Softball Team
at 2025 Canada Summer Games

Tony Luck: I’d like to talk about what I did on my summer vacation today.

This past summer was one my wife, Wanda, and I will never forget. We had the incredible opportunity to be in St. John’s, Newfoundland, to visit family and the absolute privilege this year of being proud parents as we watched the Team B.C. under-19 women’s softball team bring home the gold medal at the 2025 Canada Summer Games. And the best part: our granddaughter Kailey Ross was on that roster.

I might get a little emotional. Let me tell you what an experience it was. The energy in that ballpark was electric. Every pitch, every hit, every catch had the crowd on edge. When the final out was made and Team B.C. defeated Ontario 9-6, the joy and pride was just overwhelming. To actually be there and see your granddaughter work…. It was just amazing.

These young women worked incredibly hard to get there. Under head coach Allison McMillan, the team was selected after an intense final camp held on June 2. Fifteen players and two alternates made the roster, each one bringing their best to the field. They built their chemistry through tournaments like the Canada Cup in early July at Softball City, where they tested themselves against top competition and really came together as a team.

And come together they did. Team B.C. went undefeated, outscoring their opponents by a staggering 52-1 in the qualifying round. You could tell this group had something special. They played with confidence, teamwork and focus.

Then came the big one, the gold-medal game against Ontario. It was a battle from start to finish, but Team B.C. never wavered. Their bats were strong, their defence solid and their determination unmatched. When the final score read 9-6, the celebration, as you would know, was amazing.

That win didn’t just bring home a gold medal for the team; it also helped boost Team B.C. to an impressive third place overall in the medal standings at the games. More than that, it showed what happens when teamwork, dedication and heart come together.

To Coach McMillan and the players and everyone behind the scenes, congratulations for a job well done.

Thank you to all of Team B.C. at the 2025 Summer Games for making us all proud here in B.C.

Ministerial Statements

Support for Forest Industry
and Communities Impacted by
U.S. Duties and Tariffs

Hon. David Eby: I rise today to speak about a grave threat to British Columbia, a threat to our province, to our country’s sovereignty and to the industry and workers who literally built this place.

From our homes and hospitals to our schools and office buildings, every one of us owes a huge debt of gratitude to the hard-working people in the forest sector. I think we can all agree on that. I’ll ask us to just take a moment to applaud and show our appreciation for those hard-working people of the forest sector.

[2:05 p.m.]

Obviously, it’s not enough to just show appreciation. The forest industry here in B.C. is facing an existential crisis, and that’s because President Donald Trump has decided to attack Canada’s economy. For ten months, Trump has issued threats and imposed tariffs against our country.

Let’s be clear. The purpose of these attacks, against one of the United States’ greatest and most long-standing allies, is to weaken us, to make us part of the United States. He has said it himself, time and time again, that Canada would face no tariffs if we just became the 51st state.

These aren’t just words. These are attacks — attacks on our economy, attacks on our jobs, attacks on our families and attacks on our communities. As Canadians, when we are attacked, we stand together.

The softwood lumber dispute that Canada has had with the United States has been decades in the making, but Trump’s new tariffs on the Canadian industry are another devastating hit. They threaten thousands of jobs in dozens of communities, communities like Campbell River, Comox, Quesnel, Prince George, Port Alberni, Surrey and many more. Good jobs, proud communities, decades of hard work, and now it’s an uncertain future.

An additional 10 percent tariff on Canadian forest products on top of the unfair, crushing duties that have been in place for years…. U.S. duties and tariffs will soon approach a staggering 45 percent. Mills are being squeezed, workers’ paycheques are at risk, and forestry-dependent communities are facing a strain.

Consider this. Canadian wood now faces a higher tariff rate going to the U.S. than Russian wood does. Wood coming from a country led by Vladimir Putin, who launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion of our ally Ukraine. That’s not just wrong. It’s outrageous.

It drives up housing costs for Americans and puts people out of work on both sides of the border. Now is the time for unity. Only by standing together can we protect the good people who work in the forest sector and in all industries being attacked by Donald Trump. And the unity must go beyond this chamber. It must be a unity that calls every British Columbian to action.

To every MLA: I ask you to consider calling your family or friends in the U.S. Tell them how these tariffs are hurting communities in our province and making life harder for Americans too.

To mayors: reach out to your sister cities across the border. Tell them the tariff insanity must end.

To industry leaders: call your buyers, your partners. Tell them what’s at stake for both sides.

To union leaders: talk to your counterparts in the U.S., worker to worker.

And to every British Columbian: if you have a cousin, a friend, a former co-worker south of the border, pick up the phone and tell them that tariffs hurt everyone. Tell them that Canadians will always stand up for fairness, for good jobs, for a proud and independent country.

When we invite people into this fight, we make our struggle stronger. We’ll show them that we’re all in this together, not just as British Columbians but as neighbours, workers and friends.

I also want to be clear. Ottawa has a central, critical role to play here as well. When our auto and steel industries are attacked, it’s treated as a national emergency, as it should be. But when forestry towns in B.C. are under threat, where is the same urgency? We need the same national commitment.

Forestry contributes more to Canada’s economy than the auto sector and supports more direct jobs, yet too often it’s treated as an afterthought. If we can stand up for auto and steelworkers in Ontario, then we must stand up for forestry workers here in British Columbia.

We’ve seen Ottawa step in and help an Ontario paper mill facing tough times, which is good. But why not a B.C. mill? Why not B.C. workers? Why not the communities that have carried this country’s forest industry for generations?

Last week I stood with industry and labour leaders to call for B.C.’s fair share of the announced $1.2 billion federal support fund and for targeted help for the people and towns hit hardest by these tariffs.

Here in B.C., we’re ready to do even more. We’re standing up for workers facing curtailments. We’re making sure B.C. wood means B.C. jobs. We’re building more value-added production right here at home. We’re getting more B.C. wood products to global markets. And we’ll show Americans that these tariffs hurt everyone — workers, builders, families on both sides of the border.

We will never stop fighting for B.C. workers, for B.C. jobs and for B.C.’s future, because when we build in B.C., we build for everyone. And no matter what Donald Trump throws our way, we will stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and we will not back down.

John Rustad: I want to start, first of all, by just saying I’m a Blue Jays fan.

Go, Jays.

There is nothing like sports to bring Canadians together.

[2:10 p.m.]

I would agree with the Premier that we should be fighting with Ottawa to make sure that we get our fair share of the support that’s necessary for this province. However, I think when it comes to forestry, there is a lesson that obviously needs to be talked about here in this chamber, and that is the history.

This government…. Since it’s taken power, we’ve seen a reduction in our annual allowable cut from 75 million cubic metres. Last year we cut about 32 million. That’s a 60 percent reduction in our forest sector, zero impact from Donald Trump. That was all about this government, a 60 percent impact. And what were the reasons for that impact on our forest sector? Well, legislation year after year, continual bureaucracy, process, time.

We are the highest-cost producers by a mile, in British Columbia, to the rest of North America. You can’t operate a soft forest industry in that kind of environment, when you are the highest cost. And anytime you’ve got a market that goes down….

Permitting. It’s extra impossible to get permits these days. It takes three years, if you’re lucky, to get a permit. For example, we’ve had wildfire wood, wood that has been damaged and destroyed by wildfires that should be available for our forest sector. It can take years just to get a permit.

You go to Alberta. A wildfire goes through, and within three months, they’ve got permits, and they’re in there cutting. Shortly thereafter, they’re doing the rehab, and they’re planting. They’re treating their forest industry as it should be treated, with respect. We’re not seeing that in British Columbia. We wonder why mills close. We wonder why we have all these problems.

Access to fibre. There is ag wood that is being isolated and cut off. There are policies that have been brought in that have shut down our mid-term timber supply. There’s been a never-ending stream, enough that COFI, year after year, comes into this building and meets with ministers and meets with us and says: “Please stop. Stop. Just let us sit for a bit so we can at least try to adapt.” Yet change comes time and time again, making it impossible for this industry to operate in this province.

Yes, Donald Trump is having an impact today. An additional 10 percent is the straw that might just very well break the camel’s back. But it is the layers and layers of weight that have got us to this position to make us this vulnerable.

I want to give B.C. Veneer as an example. The Premier talks about value-added. I agree that we need to get value added to our forest sector, but you can’t add value if you don’t have a primary product to add value to. And here’s B.C. Veneer, a company that provided veneer to UBC so that they could make leather out of wood, so that the Premier could go to Japan with a soccer ball and show the technology that we developed here in British Columbia.

They can’t get wood. They’re scrambling to get wood from the States, from Oregon, just to keep the 56 workers they have working and their families fed. That is the forest industry, and that has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I agree we do need to be united in our fight against Donald Trump and the Americans. I agree that we need to stand up. We need to get a deal with the Americans on softwood lumber. We’ve had ten years with this government that has done nothing to get a deal, absolutely nothing. There’s no leverage. There’s no way to be able to get a deal. They’re not willing to come to the table because we have put nothing on the table to actually get them to, to this point. I can tell you, the Premier banning Kentucky bourbon is not going to do it.

What we should be doing is finding ways to get leverage. I suggested this to the Premier back in February, and he took it to Ottawa, and I’ve heard nothing since. Let’s put a carbon tax on thermal coal being shipped out of Vancouver from the United States.

Eighteen million tonnes a year comes through here. Just a small carbon tax would be a $640 million annual fee that could be collected, that could be accumulated, that we could use as leverage to try to get a deal with the softwood lumber. If the Americans say, “You’re not treating us fair,” that we shouldn’t do it, fine. Let’s just ban shipping thermal coal from the United States through the Port of Vancouver. Enough is enough.

[2:15 p.m.]

Our trade with Asia has dropped dramatically. Our trade with the U.S. has gone up under this NDP government. Let’s reverse that. Let’s get our independent trade offices reopened. Let’s do what we can to get our trade happening in Canada, get the barriers taken down.

This government has made a little bit of progress with Alberta on some alcohol issues, but we have a ton of things that we need to be doing across this country. Where’s the urgency in unity to bring that down, to open up this country? I’m not seeing it from this government.

There are some other things we can do, more important things, I think, that we need to be focused on in terms of unity and what we need to be doing as a country and what we can do as a province.

We are currently giving our Canadian oil to the Americans at a 20 to 30 percent discount. A 20 to 30 percent discount. We are just giving a gift to the Americans. Why? Because we can’t get it to international markets. Let’s get out of the way and start supporting getting our oil offshore so that we can get good value for Canadians and build wealth for Canadians, not for Americans.

We are currently selling our natural gas out of British Columbia at an 85 percent discount to the Americans. We’ve got tens of trillions of dollars of natural gas in this province, and we’re just giving it to the Americans.

It took us 15 years. We got an LNG project going in B.C. Great. Let’s celebrate. This is a great project for British Columbia. In 12 years, they built 12 LNG projects in the States, and they’ve got five more being built. Fifteen years to get one project.

We’re selling our natural gas to the Americans, supporting their projects. They’re liquefying it and getting international prices. What’s wrong with us? What’s wrong with this province? How is this elbows up?

Enough. Get out of the way. Get our products to market. Stop supporting and subsidizing the Americans. That is what we need to do and be united behind — taking advantage of the values, the assets that we have, creating wealth and jobs and prosperity for people right here in British Columbia.

I stand united with all British Columbians. I know, as the Conservative Party of British Columbia, we do. We want to see British Columbians prosper. We want to see wealth generation. We want to see taking advantage of our full assets. We want to make sure that people want to stay here and live in British Columbia. This is what we are united on.

That means ideology and governments that refuse to get out of the way need to step aside so that, as all British Columbians, we can realize our potential and truly be able to fight back against this unfair process that’s coming from the Americans.

Jeremy Valeriote: British Columbia’s forests are the envy of the world. Stewarded by Indigenous Peoples for millennia, our old-growth and second-growth forests provide cultural identity, clean air and a home for our most precious flora and fauna.

It’s true that at this moment, our forests are under attack. A century of extractive logging practices and shortsighted opportunism has decimated our forests and left our forestry industry facing mill closures and job losses. Uncertainty and unfair trade practices from our neighbour to the south are the latest in a series of threats and challenges to the industry. Forestry is the lifeblood of communities across British Columbia. We can’t abandon these communities to the whims of the tyrant to the south.

We spend a lot of time talking about said tyrant in this chamber, particularly during question period. Thankfully, besides talk, we also know what we need to do. We must come together to protect forests and thereby protect forestry in British Columbia. We know that the future of forestry must prioritize ecosystem health, it must focus on local ownership and local jobs, and it must be done in true partnership with First Nations.

We must make sure that we are thinking long term and managing our forests holistically to ensure that they and the communities they support can survive this administration and the ones to follow.

Dallas Brodie: Here we go again. The government’s favourite go-to excuse, playing the Trump card. This can’t be the answer to all of the government’s failings. We have been witnessing the decline of B.C.’s forest industry for the last three decades. Of course, none of us want the tariffs coming from the south, but we are not hapless bystanders on the issues plaguing our forest industry.

The trouble is that the call is coming from inside the House. We all know that. This government is the one punishing our forest sector with high corporate taxes, high stumpage fees and extremely low allowable annual cuts. In fact, stumpage fees in B.C. are still double what they are in Alberta.

[2:20 p.m.]

Will the Premier blame Donald Trump for that? And why can’t the industry get fibre? It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the government’s pro-UNDRIP policies. This government has ceded its authority over the land to the 200-plus bands who use Aboriginal title claims to veto projects across British Columbia. That’s the truth, and the Premier knows it.

And the Leader of the Opposition is no better. What did he promise last year? A strategic land return to First Nations that would put 20 percent of B.C.’s forested land under band council control.

Donald Trump did not make this government sign UNDRIP into law. Our forestry sector does face a crisis, but the Premier should stop looking for scapegoats south of the border and take a good long look in the mirror. I might add that calling people names does not help with our relationship with people south of the border.

If he truly wants to help, then his government should cut taxes, stumpage fees and band council vetoes. This would immediately revive our forest industry. It would bring dozens of mills and thousands of good-paying jobs back to rural communities across B.C.

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and
Property Ownership Concerns
of Richmond Residents

Teresa Wat: Richmond residents are confused. They are worried.

This letter from the city says: “The court has declared Aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership.” Richmond residents deserve an answer.

Will this Premier defend their right to the homes they own?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This province was the first out of the gate to say that we were appealing the Cowichan decision. This is precisely because of what the member raised, which is that we are going to defend the rights of property owners in that area.

We are working with parties, including…. I’ve met with the mayor of the city of Richmond and some of their councillors. Our legal teams are working together and will continue to do so.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Teresa Wat: Again, people are afraid. They have heard nothing from the member for Richmond-Steveston, and they hear silence from this Premier’s Attorney General.

Richmond residents deserve a solution. They deserve a government that will demand this court case is resolved at the Supreme Court of Canada. There’s an information session on October 28 where Richmond residents are looking for answers. Our Richmond Conservative MLAs will be there.

Will this Premier and the NDP MLA for Richmond-Steveston also attend the meeting?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I was not being silent. In fact, I just answered the member’s previous question.

Not only was our government the one to step forward first to say that we’re immediately appealing the decision. We are hard at work right now with our team of lawyers, because we will defend the rights of property owners.

We know that people’s ability to buy, sell and mortgage private property is key in our legal system and our rights of ownership in this province and across this country. We are hard at work, working not only with the city of Richmond and their council, with the federal government on grounds of appeal at the Court of Appeal level….

We know that upholding private property rights is very key and critical work along with the work of reconciliation. This will always be our approach, to resolve outstanding questions of legal theory, and attack them when we need to and, also, sit down with First Nations to try to resolve issues and bring forward a final resolution of some of the past wrongs. We are going to keep at that work, and we won’t give up.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title
Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad: Today the Premier stood and said that he’s going to fight for private property rights, and I’m happy to hear that. Certainly, that is our goal: to protect private property rights. However, I did ask this question, and I want to ask it again.

[2:25 p.m.]

When the Premier was Attorney General, instructions were given to the government lawyers to not argue extinguishment of Indigenous rights where they overlap with private property rights — in other words, to not argue to protect the rights of private property.

The question, quite frankly, to the Attorney General is simple. Since that is the direction that was given, how can this government stand and legitimately say that they are actually trying to protect private property rights?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is simply not true what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Without getting into very complicated legal arguments and the details in the 30 minutes that we have here, what we argued before the Supreme Court of B.C. was displacement and suspension of Aboriginal title, that a private property right sits above that title so we could protect the interests of private property owners.

There were, before the court, many arguments. Arguments were based on the case law and what we thought were the best arguments to protect private landowners. As the member opposite knows, the city of Richmond did argue extinguishment, and that also failed at the Supreme Court.

We will continue at it. I’ll just note that in 2014, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and that was when the Cowichan decision was first filed. We should be asking for his record on what he did with that at the time.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, this government has had ten years to deal with it. Clearly, they haven’t done anything with that file, unfortunately, except let it go to court, when it says clearly that its goal was to not have things go to court.

But I want to ask this. Private property rights are not protected by the Canadian constitution; Indigenous rights, when it comes to title, are. Indigenous rights allow for exclusive and beneficial use. This is private property rights.

It’s clear that the city of Richmond explained very clearly that this government, as well as the federal government, did not argue the extinguishment and protection of private property rights that they did. There was a very distinct and different course that was taken by these two governments. Given that our constitution does not protect private property rights, we need change.

So two things. Will this minister support a direct reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada so that we can get an answer immediately and not have this uncertainty lasting five to ten years while we wind through the course, and will this Premier and this government support the call for changes to the Canadian constitution to enshrine private property rights?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll start by addressing the first question from the member of the opposition.

The proposal that’s put on the table to have a reference at the Supreme Court of Canada, just to be clear what that would do…. It would not consider the actual facts of the case that’s right now what we will put before the Court of Appeal. It’s not clear that it would address the legal issues that arose out of the Supreme Court of B.C. decision that we see would be multiple grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court would only issue an opinion, which would not be strictly binding and would not immediately overturn the trial court’s decision.

So we disagree with the member’s suggestion that that would bring any level of certainty, and we’ll continue on the path of challenging it with all the tools that we have.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Health Framework

Jeremy Valeriote: Our licence plates say: “Beautiful British Columbia,” not “Barren British Columbia.” Our natural heritage and biodiversity is one of our main economic drivers, and that’s why we attract over $20 billion in tourism spending annually.

The Peace River watershed alone provides up to $8.6 billion in economic value every year, and the Lower Mainland’s aquatic systems provide $30 to $60 billion annually. That is real wealth.

Yet there seems to be a narrative in this House that protecting nature means stifling economic progress. The truth is the opposite, and if there is a single reason for the existence of this Third Party, it’s to realize that paradigm shift.

[2:30 p.m.]

This government released their draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework in 2023, but since then, nothing. It isn’t in the minister’s mandate letter, nor in the 2025 service plan.

Our caucus theme for this week is reliability and predictability, and it applies to the natural environment as much as it does to business, non-profits and particularly the forest industry.

My question is for the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. When will this government finalize the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework and back up its promises with real legislation?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question from the Leader of the Third Party.

We know that long-term ecosystem health and biodiversity are absolutely critical not just to our province in terms of our economic prosperity but also for the health of all British Columbians.

Our draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework is a recommendation, as you know as well, from the old-growth strategic review report. The idea is to create that paradigm shift that you’re talking about.

Part of that is our 30 by 30, our commitment to protect 30 percent of British Columbia’s lands and waters by 2030, and we’re well on our way to that. All of these efforts and many more are fundamental to protecting against the worst effects of climate change.

We are excited to continue to move forward with our biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, and we welcome any discussions with the Leader of the Third Party as well.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Government Target for
Protection of Lands and Waters

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m glad the minister brought up the 30 by 30 commitment to protect 30 percent of B.C.’s lands and waters by 2030. Right now only 15 percent of B.C.’s land is permanently protected. To meet its own commitment, the province must nearly double that number in the next five years.

This government may claim a higher figure, around 19 percent, by including what it calls other effective conservation measures. But conservation experts say those don’t meet international standards for permanent protection. OECMs remain vulnerable to activities that directly harm biodiversity.

In just six years, this government’s pro-development predecessor protected way more of B.C.’s land base than this government has in eight years.

Again to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, how does this government portray itself as green while falling behind on its promise to protect 30 percent of B.C.’s land and waters, and when will it finally deliver on this crucial commitment?

Hon. Randene Neill: Once again 30 by 30 is absolutely dear to my heart, and we are absolutely not falling behind. In fact, we hope to reach 30 by 30 by even earlier, and I think that’s a commitment that we’re all committed to on both sides of this House.

We know how important it is to protect our lands and waters in British Columbia. At the end of the day, that is all we have. If we’re not able to have healthy, secure watersheds and water supply, we put all of our health at risk. When we get out into the back doors and we enjoy the back country, we fall in love with it. And when we fall in love with something, we want to protect it.

This should be a non-partisan issue. This should be something that we all work towards together, because it’s incredibly important not just for the health of British Columbians but for the future of all of us.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title
Court Case and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie: A judge has decided that homes in Richmond are now owned by the Cowichan Tribes because their great-grandparents once fished there. That is Aboriginal title.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Member, please continue.

Dallas Brodie: There are 200 more bands in B.C. with their own Aboriginal title claims. Judges have the legal authority to give away every square inch of this province, including your home, as long as Aboriginal title remains in our constitution.

Property rights are the foundation of Western civilization. Aboriginal title is an existential threat to that civilization.

My question is for the Premier. Will he support constitutional reform to legally extinguish Aboriginal title?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We take a different view than the member on many things, including this one. The work of reconciliation and sitting down with First Nations across this province to resolve historic wrong and to bring certainty to the land is the path forward. It’s a path that we will continue to take, and it’s an important one.

I’ve already talked quite extensively about our approach in this legal matter that we’ll continue to take to uphold private property rights, and we will continue to work with First Nations to bring agreements and certainty to the land.

[2:35 p.m.]

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Government Legislation on
Indigenous Rights Documentation
and Meetings

Dallas Brodie: It’s no secret that the Premier supports Aboriginal title. So does the Leader of the so-called official opposition. They both support UNDRIP and its never-ending giveaways.

Recently we learned that in 2021, B.C.’s freedom-of-information law was amended to block public disclosure of any documents related to Indigenous rights. Now the Premier wants local governments to meet secretly with Aboriginal groups as well.

If the Premier is so proud of giving away public land, money and power, then why is he passing laws to keep it all being done in secret?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’d remind the member, when it comes to this House, that asking questions around legislation that is on the floor of the House to be debated and questioned during the committee stage of the bill is inappropriate. Her questions she can ask during the appropriate stage when that legislation is being discussed in the House.

Obstetric and Gynecological
Health Care Services

Peter Milobar: The unfortunate resignation of seven ob-gyns, the whole department, in Kamloops should not have come as a shock to this government or to this minister, given that for the last several years they have been trying to get changes and agreements negotiated with this government both around ob-gyn services, the TRFO and midwifery clinics in Kamloops. In fact, they thought they had a deal with this government just before the last election. Then, like every other election promise this government did, it disappeared after the election.

A year later the ob-gyns, facing burnout and fear for patient safety, crafted a letter to Interior Health and the Minister of Health letting them know that they needed to see the changes or they would have to consider resignation. That was on October 1.

Nine days later at 4:30 on a Friday of a long weekend, Interior Health notified the ob-gyns that there would be no further negotiations — that, in fact, their resignations would be accepted and the government and Interior Health were done negotiating.

How does the minister explain firing seven ob-gyns instead of actually negotiating for patient safety and physician safety in Kamloops?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and raising the very serious issue around providing maternity services to people in Kamloops and the region, which, of course, is absolutely critical, and people need to know that it is there for them.

I want to start off my answer by assuring people that for anybody who is going into labour or is experiencing serious risks in their pregnancy, they should always present at Royal Inland Hospital and that the care will be there for people to continue to work with their primary care providers during this time.

The ob-gyns have been negotiating with Interior Health, and that work continues. Interior Health has made it very clear that they are willing to sit down and talk with, and they are talking with and have been for months, as the member indicates, on this. Interior Health has also heard from at least a dozen other ob-gyns who are interested in prospective employment, and they are discussing that with them as well.

It’s just so important that we continue to take all the steps necessary to make sure that these services remain robust particularly at a time, as we have canvassed often in this House, around the shortage of specialists and the shortage of physicians that we’re experiencing.

That’s why Interior Health will continue to take these steps. They will continue to recruit. They will continue to talk with the physicians. It is my expectation, and I have made it very clear, that I expect the physicians and Interior Health to sit down, negotiate together and to continue to put the patients’ interests first.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar: Well, that answer simply doesn’t hold up. The reality is they’ve been begging for two other ob-gyns to be recruited into Kamloops over the last couple of years, and they haven’t been able to fill those spots. Yet now the minister wants us to believe they’re going to magically find seven to replace the seven they just fired because they didn’t want to keep negotiating.

The 12 the minister mentions are not credentialed in Canada. It would take years of shadowing before they would actually be up to steam, because they actually applied previously and were deemed to be not acceptable to fit into the ob-gyn services within Kamloops already.

There’s a very simple way. The minister keeps saying they’re negotiating. Interior Health has told the doctors that negotiations are over and done, that the ministry and Interior Health are done with this.

[2:40 p.m.]

Will the minister table, present, unredacted, the email that Interior Health sent on October 10, which was before the final letter of resignation from these doctors that everyone is talking about? Will she table and present to this House that document, that email, that 4:30 on the Friday of the long weekend said negotiations were over, the ministry and Interior Health were done, and thank you very much for your services, ob-gyns, but we’re done with you?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As I just stated, it is my expectation that Interior Health will continue to work with the physicians and that they will continue to undertake the work on hiring more and finalizing a contract…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …that will significantly increase compensation to fill vacancies. In the meantime, Interior Health continues in recruiting and attracting locums to fill spots.

I want to be very clear that physicians don’t just submit a resignation letter and then walk out the door. They have duties to uphold, and that includes a 90-day transition period. That is time for Interior Health to continue working on this file and to continue working with these ob-gyns. It is my hope that perhaps some of them will change their approach.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member talks about credentialing taking, I think he said, years. That’s why this government has been working so hard to reduce credentialing and licensure. For physicians, particularly coming from places like the U.S., it is now measured in months, not years.

In fact, we are working to get that down to weeks because we know that is one tool that we can use to continue to bring more physicians and more health care workers to this province to strengthen the health care system so that people have the health care that they need, when they need it and where they need it.

Jody Toor: Fraser Health Authority is the biggest health authority in the province. A simple question to the minister on women’s health.

How many gynecological oncologists are currently in the Fraser Health Authority? I’m not looking for long answers; I’m looking for a simple answer. What’s the number?

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

Gyne-oncology services are something that are incredibly important for women, people who are experiencing cancers of a certain kind. Of course, attracting those physicians to B.C. and increasing the number has been part of the work we have been doing in expanding these services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let the minister finish.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We have made a commitment to establish gyne-oncology services in the Fraser Health Authority. We are working towards that.

In the meantime, we have expanded these services in Kelowna, and that has significantly brought down the wait time for people in the Fraser Health area who are able to travel next door to Vancouver Coastal Health.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We are going to continue this work, working towards establishing these services in Fraser Health.

I’ll wait for the second answer to continue.

Anna Kindy: I’m going to answer that question for the minister. Fraser Health has 2.2 million people. It’s the biggest health authority in British Columbia, and it has zero gynecological cancer surgeons. The Ministry of Health had promised three positions for Fraser Health.

Thinking about that and thinking about what’s happening in Kamloops…. We’re talking about resignation of seven ob-gyns. I’m not sure that the minister understands that obstetrical emergencies are emergencies, and Kamloops is a tertiary care centre. People go to Kamloops for complex obstetrical care.

I’ve heard from an ob-gyn surgeon who told me that women’s health is “a mess” in B.C. and that this mess is brewing everywhere.

Does the minister agree with this statement?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I want to thank her, too, for her care and attention to women’s health, because I share that passion with her.

We are talking about gynecological oncology and the services, and the member has talked about the services that are or are not available in Fraser Health. I really want her to understand and this House to understand that as we expand these services, and have done so in Kelowna, we have brought down the wait times for women in the Fraser Health area.

Previously only four in ten people were receiving their surgeries within the target times, and now, because people can get that service in Kelowna — which is available to people from the North and from all areas of the Interior, not having to travel down to the Lower Mainland — it means that nine out of ten women are meeting those surgical timelines. This is a phenomenal increase in capacity and service for people.

We are going to continue this work in expanding out in the Fraser Health Authority. In the meantime, yes, women do travel across the border of the health authorities into Vancouver Coastal so that they can access these services. Fraser Health has expanded the pre- and postoperative capacity in Fraser Health, which minimizes the number of trips that people need to do into Vancouver Coastal Health.

This government is deeply committed to women’s health. We have taken extraordinary steps in past years, including the introduction of free contraception, for example. We will continue to support reproductive health and the rights of women, not as all members of this House will. I have to emphasize that it is so deeply important that we continue to do this work, and it will not stop.

Transplant Waiting List Case

Kristina Loewen: Lyndsay Richholt is a Kelowna mother who was given six months to live, and then she was wait-listed for ten. She has a transplant match, yet she has just become another wait-listed number left to die in the system.

Why are women like Lyndsay having to fight for their lives in a system that’s supposed to protect them? When will this government realize that their incompetence and inaction is leading to the unnecessary deaths of women in this province?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I thank the member for bringing up a particular case. I think the member understands that I cannot stand here and speak to individual cases, but I would welcome her, as many members of the opposition have done, to approach me directly, to come to my office about specific casework so that I can work with them to do everything I can to support their constituents.

Regardless of the political party that anybody chose to run for, it is my commitment as the Minister of Health to work with my staff to serve all members of this House in undertaking this kind of work.

We are, as I have said, a government deeply committed to women’s health, a government that is working hard to fill the gaps that were left for us — to strengthen our health care system, investing billions of dollars in new infrastructure, attracting 1,000 family doctors through the establishment of a new family physician payment model, working to reduce the time it takes to credential and license here in B.C., attracting more physicians than ever before so that we can ensure that people like the member speaks of do not fall through gaps. That is the last thing that anybody in this House wants to do.

I invite everybody to stand united with me and this government to do this work in recruiting physicians and health care workers so that we can deliver the health care to people that they need.

Women’s Health Care Services

Claire Rattée: When it comes to women’s health, this government’s record is shameful. In Kitimat, more than 700 women were left waiting for gynecologic surgeries due to a lack of basic equipment.

The Kitimat General Hospital Foundation, with donations from industry and small businesses, had to step up, fundraising for an ultrasound table, most of a CT scanner, a TOCO transducer and a Fluent fluid management system so that those surgeries could finally be done locally. They’ve done more for women’s health in three years than this government has in ten.

Does this minister believe communities should be forced to fundraise millions of dollars for basic women’s health care?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and for her work in supporting women’s health as well. But I have to completely disagree with her characterization of our approach to supporting women and women’s health.

As I said, we are providing free contraceptives. We are expanding the scope of practice of pharmacists to prescribe those contraceptives.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’ve improved patient access to IUDs, to cervical anaesthetic, by increasing physician compensation in those areas, paying family physicians who also provide care at maternity clinics through the LFP program, developing a service contract model for midwives to support them in the work that they do in their full scope of practice and upholding the rights of people who are pregnant to make decisions for their bodies for themselves.

Starting next spring we will, with support from the federal government, be providing free public coverage for hormone replacement therapy. We have invested in in vitro fertilization, helping families and women achieve the goals that they have in starting their own family.

I won’t take anything from the other side that says we do not support women’s health, because that is absolutely not true.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I hate to bring a different light to how we understand success when it comes to women’s health in this province. In one of the most critical times of a woman’s life, bringing a new child into the world, this government has thrust them into an uphill battle just to access care.

When women do not feel safe either walking in the streets or lying in a hospital bed, and they are surrounded by chaos, how can we accept the answers given by this government today that they care about women and women’s health? We have heard story after story, and the suffering is only compounded by the ERs that are closed, by the pediatric wards that are shut down and by the ob-gyn teams that are driven out.

This minister talks about crossing boundaries of health authorities, but we know that many people who want to receive care in a timely manner actually have to cross to the States and pay out of pocket.

My question is very simple. In terms of commitments, commitments actually do not save lives. Doctors and nurses do.

I just would like to ask the minister one simple question. How many women have to die before this government takes women’s health seriously?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I will proudly stand here and defend this government’s record on supporting women, supporting reproductive rights and doing everything that we can to help women and their families thrive.

The member talks about people crossing borders and crossing into the U.S. to pay out of pocket. Well, I think often about what life would be like if they were on this side of the House, and I can tell you that people would be paying out of pocket because they would bring in two-tier….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, come to order.

Hon. Josie Osborne: They would be bringing in two-tier health care, enabling people with the money to get to the front of the line, whereas this government….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: This government will stand for fair, equal access to universal health care every single day.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. Diana Gibson: I have the honour to present the annual report of the chief records officer.

I have the honour of presenting the annual report on the administration of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Hon. Anne Kang: I have the honour to present the B.C. Arts Council annual report, 2024-25, and supporting documentation.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I rise with pleasure to present the B.C. Treaty Commission annual report, 2025, and thank the commissioners and all nations for working together to find agreement and build a better province.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have the honour of presenting two reports today.

The first one, I respectfully present the approved guarantees and indemnities report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, section 72(8).

[2:55 p.m.]

The second, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal ’24-25.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have the honour to table the Environmental Appeal Board 2024-25 annual report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will call this House back to order. We will ask our minister to introduce Bill 27.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes to amend the listed acts as follows. The proposed amendments to the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter expand the existing framework under which a local government council or board meeting may or must be closed to the public to include circumstances related to the protection of sensitive Indigenous heritage, knowledge and expressions; and protection of confidential information related to intergovernmental negotiations.

The amendments consist of two parts.

They allow a council or board meeting to be closed when the subject matter being considered relates to information that would be prohibited from disclosure under section 18.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which protects information that, if disclosed, would harm the cultural practices or traditional knowledge of any Indigenous People.

The amendments also expand an existing provision to require that a council or board meeting be closed if it relates to the consideration of confidential information relating to negotiations involving local governments and First Nations. However, a council or board will still need to pass bylaws and make decisions in open meetings.

These proposed legislative changes respond to requests for amendments received from local governments and First Nations and are expected to support local governments in building relationships with First Nations, advancing reconciliation and fostering government-to-government relationships while balancing the principle of open, transparent governance through their targeted scope.

The amendments to the School Act and consequential amendments to the Expropriation Act are in response to the May 23, 2025, decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, BCSC, in which the court ordered the province to enact legislation within six months to provide for the expropriation of private property for the provision of francophone schooling by le Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, commonly referred to as the CSF.

For context, the CSF was established by the province in 1996 for the purpose of providing publicly funded francophone schooling to section 23 rights holders. The province takes our constitutional obligations under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to facilitate minority francophone education very seriously.

[3:00 p.m.]

The CSF is the sole French-language school district in British Columbia and serves the entire province. The other 59 school districts offer education primarily in English, and each serves a designated geographic region.

The 59 anglophone school districts are commonly referred to as majority boards of education. Currently the School Act permits majority boards of education the power to expropriate land and improvements within their school district without the approval of the minister.

The CSF does not have any expropriation authority. The recent B.C. Supreme Court order directed the province to enact legislation granting the CSF expropriation authority. The proposed amendments grant the CSF a new authority to expropriate lands and improvements for francophone schooling, subject to approval by the Minister of Infrastructure.

Further, the amendments align expropriation powers for majority boards with those being provided to the CSF, by requiring ministerial approval of expropriation powers for anglophone boards of education. Requiring approval of the minister for all 60 boards of education aligns the legislation with existing approval processes. The changes to the Expropriation Act are consequential to these changes to the School Act.

Lastly, these amendments meet the requirements of the court decision.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister, for opening debate on Bill 27 this afternoon.

Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I am honoured to rise in the House in support of Bill 27 and the proposed amendments to the School Act and the Expropriation Act.

As the Minister of Infrastructure, one of my key responsibilities is major capital project planning services and delivery for schools. It is a responsibility, as members of the House know, that affects our most precious resource: our children and their futures. These amendments support the delivery of capital planning for all 60 school districts in the province.

The amendments will do two things.

The first thing that it will do is formalize existing practices by requiring ministerial approval prior to a school district expropriating private property. Expropriation is considered a tool of last resort that school districts have used only three times in the last ten years.

The second thing the amendments do is extend the authority to expropriate private property to the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, known as the CSF.

I could definitely benefit from additional French lessons, and I would’ve in high school as well. It was a long time ago.

The CSF is B.C.’s only francophone school district and has a provincewide mandate to deliver schooling in French to francophone students.

This amendment provides the CSF with the same powers of expropriation as all of the other 59 boards of education. The province takes its constitutional obligations under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms very seriously. These obligations require that the province fund and facilitate minority francophone education in many communities in British Columbia, and these amendments do just that.

In addition, this portion of the amendments respond to the May 23, 2025, British Columbia Supreme Court decision directing the province to provide the CSF with expropriation power.

The changes in Bill 27 align B.C.’s expropriation powers with many other Canadian provinces where ministerial approval is required before a school authority can expropriate land and where there is no distinction in expropriation powers between minority- and majority-language school boards.

More broadly, these amendments will support our work to build the schools that families need in their communities.

We are making historic investments in school capital so that all students can have the best educational experience possible. Since 2017 the province has invested over $6.6 billion in school capital, which has resulted in almost 46,500 new student spaces and over 39,000 additional seismically safe seats in B.C. schools. Of these new seats, over 20,000 are completed and 26,500 are currently underway.

We will continue to work with all school boards to support education throughout British Columbia and expand access for families, because students deserve the opportunity to learn in the best environments possible.

These amendments support our ongoing work to deliver for families, for communities and for future generations. There is, of course, more work ahead, and we’re committed to doing it in partnership with all school boards across B.C.

[3:05 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 27, a piece of legislation which may at first glance appear modest but in fact raises important questions about the proper role of school boards, local governance, property rights and accountability in our province. I will be speaking to part 1 today.

Bill 27 enacts a number of amendments.

In part 1, it amends the School Act and the Expropriation Act. It clarifies when and how school boards and francophone education authorities may acquire, hold, dispose of or expropriate land for improvements. It also imposes new prior approval requirements for the minister.

Additionally, bringing equal opportunities and requirements of francophone CSF district schools is warranted. These changes are worthy of support in principle because they aim to clarify boards’ authority to use land for educational and housing needs while introducing stronger oversight for significant actions like expropriation, which is a sensible balancing of local flexibility with accountability to taxpayers and the provincial government.

A guiding principle for this side of the aisle is that decisions should be made as locally as possible by those closest to the communities affected. Yet decisions that can have large fiscal or property rights ramifications must carry appropriate checks. Bill 27 does this in several key ways. It enables school boards to acquire and hold land for improvements for truly educational purposes, including student or employee housing, outdoor spaces. That empowers districts to respond to local conditions.

At the same time, when a board wishes to acquire land or expropriate land, Bill 27 requires prior ministerial approval. This is a reasonable check. The public interest, tax dollars and property rights are at stake. In short, local school boards are still enabled, but with oversight.

Expropriation, taking private property for public use, is, by definition, a significant governmental intrusion. Bill 27 rightly emphasizes that such powers should not be used lightly. The new wording clearly states that a board may expropriate land within its school district. But then it says that the board must not expropriate land without prior approval of the minister. Moreover, Bill 27 ensures that this approval is not the same as the approval required under section 18 of the Expropriation Act, thereby preserving the legal safeguards surrounding expropriation.

These are important protections. They prevent boards from unilaterally wielding expropriation powers without oversight. This is reasonable. Property rights matter, and taxpayers must have transparency when governments seek to take or transform property.

Clarity of legislative authority and transparent decision-making also matter. Bill 27 replaces older, more tangled sections of the School Act and Expropriation Act with clear language defining “land” to include any interest, clarifying the board’s powers, specifying when approvals are needed. This clarity is good. When laws are understandable, boards can act confidently, citizens know what to expect, and accountability is higher.

To strengthen transparency, we should insist that once land is disposed of, the proceeds be accounted for properly. They should not disappear into general budgets without trace. That kind of oversight ensures public trust.

No bill is without its risks. From a conservative vantage point, several caution flags should be raised. The phrase “housing accommodation for students or employees,” which I believe is in part 2, actually, is laudable, but if left loosely defined, it could lead to boards expanding into real estate speculation or expansive employee housing that bears little relation to core educational objectives. The ministerial approval regime must be active, not passive.

Even with oversight, expropriation remains a heavy tool. Boards will need to demonstrate actual need of public benefit. The process must protect landowners’ rights and ensure fair compensation.

Subsection (5) allows disposal, subject to the orders of the minister, but what guarantee is there that realized value of disposed assets is reinvested in educational purposes rather than diverted elsewhere?

[3:10 p.m.]

I would like a clear framework. Proceeds stay in the educational system in the district in which they were acquired, are reinvested locally and are reported transparently.

How does Bill 15 come into effect? Would there be motive or provisions for the minister to work outside the school districts to start an expropriation process?

These are matters that I will bring up at the committee stage.

To ensure that Bill 27 delivers its promise, I offer the following implementation recommendations. Boards proposing expropriation should be required to publish a clear rationale, cost-benefit analysis, alternatives considered, how the acquisition supports student outcomes and how they will protect landowners’ rights and compensation. When boards dispose of land or improvements, the proceeds should be assigned to a designated fund locally, with annual reporting on how the funds were used, ensuring public oversight.

I would like to see that the minister carry out periodic audits of boards, land portfolios, acquisitions, holdings and disposals to ensure that boards are acting prudently, delivering on the educational purpose and avoiding excessive risk or speculation.

In British Columbia, our schools are the bedrock of our society. They influence not only academic outcomes but community stability, teacher retention, student well-being and local identity.

From my lens, enabling communities to build what they need, where they need it, without unnecessary red tape, is a positive move. But we must guard against unintended consequences. If left unchecked, boards might venture into real estate deals, landholding for speculative purposes or expropriation as a default rather than a last resort. We must keep the focus on students and teachers and not land portfolios.

Additionally, the clarity about ministerial approval seeks to prevent jurisdictional confusion and unintended financial burdens on taxpayers. That is critical in a province where many school districts are already feeling stretched. Careful governance, transparent oversight and clear communication are essential.

In conclusion, in principle I support Bill 27. It acknowledges important realities that schools need land and improvements, that boards require flexibility, that property rights must be respected and that oversight matters. That said, support must come with vigilance.

My call to the government, the minister, school boards and this Legislature is the following. Let us ensure that ministerial approval processes are robust. Let us track and report every major acquisition and disposal with public performance metrics and outcomes for students and the community. Let us safeguard property rights and ensure expropriation remains a tool of last resort, subject to full accountability. Let us focus relentlessly on students and educators, because that is why we have school districts and boards and pass laws like these in the first place.

If we do these things, Bill 27 can indeed become a positive step, enabling smarter infrastructure and better educational environments. If we fail to exercise appropriate guardrails, we risk mission creep, tax burden and diminished trust.

I will be supporting second reading with a clear understanding that with great flexibility comes great responsibility. Let us ensure that the power is granted to lead to tangible outcomes tomorrow — better classrooms, better support for students and teachers, responsible stewardship of public assets and a stronger commitment to local communities.

I look forward to the committee stage work, to work with colleagues to refine and implement these changes.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Today I’m pleased to speak to proposed amendments to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter that will allow local governments to hold closed meetings under specific circumstances when discussing confidential or culturally sensitive information shared by First Nations.

[3:15 p.m.]

These changes were driven directly by local governments, with strong leadership from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. UBCM passed resolutions in 2017 and 2023 calling for these amendments, and municipalities across B.C. have consistently voiced their support.

The city of Vancouver also formally requested changes to the Vancouver Charter to enable in-camera government-to-government negotiations between the city of Vancouver and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

I’d like to share a couple quotes of support from local governments.

Mayor Ross Siemens of Abbotsford shared that the city of Abbotsford supports the proposed changes to the Community Charter’s closed-meeting provisions, saying: “This legislative update will assist all communities in fostering respectful government-to-government relationships with First Nations and advancing reconciliation through confidential trust-building dialogue.”

I’ll also share a quote from Mayor Richard Stewart from Coquitlam: “Reconciliation is a key priority at the city of Coquitlam, and we have actively committed to strengthening relationships with local First Nations through open and honest conversations. These proposed official changes to the Community Charter are intended to enable local governments and First Nations to meet to advance government-to-government relationships, which includes the sharing of confidential and culturally sensitive First Nations traditional knowledge.”

These amendments bring local government in line with provincial and federal practices, which already allow closed meetings for similar reasons. So let me be clear. Transparency remains a core principle of local governance. These changes do not alter the requirement that decisions, bylaws and final votes must still be made in public meetings. What’s changing is the ability to hold closed meetings in very specific circumstances when discussing confidential or culturally sensitive information shared by First Nations or during intergovernmental negotiations.

This isn’t about avoiding public scrutiny. It’s about respecting Indigenous rights, protecting sensitive cultural knowledge and creating space for trust-based collaboration. These are situations where public disclosure could cause harm — for example, revealing the location of sacred sites or sharing details of ongoing negotiations.

The scope of these changes is narrow and clearly defined. Councils and boards remain accountable to their communities, and the province will provide guidance to ensure these new provisions are used appropriately. This is a step forward in reconciliation, requested by local governments repeatedly, and it reflects the province’s commitment to supporting local governments and to supporting respectful government-to-government relationships.

Again, this work responds to numerous requests, and these changes would allow local governments and First Nations to collaborate and build trust. New closed-meeting rules will only apply in specific situations, to balance out those requests from local governments and the important government-to-government work that they have on their plate with a commitment to continuing to uphold the priorities of transparency and respectful collaboration.

There will be no changes to requirements about final decisions, and the province will be available to provide guidance as local governments navigate and make informed choices under the new rules.

I thought it would be helpful to provide an example about where these new rules might come into play. Here is one of a number of tangible examples we have heard from local governments as to why these changes are needed.

A local government wants to approve a certain land use for a specific site that would impact a First Nation’s traditional use of a river as a bathing site. The First Nation doesn’t want to provide the detailed location of the site in a public meeting, to protect the site from increased public use or from vandalism or illegal scavenging or more.

[3:20 p.m.]

In that example, the First Nation and the local council could meet in an in-camera meeting to discuss impacts of a proposed land change on the sacred or cultural or spiritual use of the site, but the final land use decision and related bylaws would still need to be decided in an open public meeting.

We’ve heard similar examples related to this request from local governments when talking about sacred or spiritual sites — similarly, conversations related to traditional Indigenous knowledge — where understandably, a nation wants to protect some portion of that knowledge or specific site locations while working government to government on good outcomes, and those outcomes still being transparently made in the public eye and communicated to the public.

These are important balances to be made, and that’s why local governments have continued to request this change from the province and why we have worked closely with local leaders and the Union of B.C. Municipalities on these changes.

I, again, think it’s important to reflect that these are provisions that local governments already have in place in their government-to-government work with the provincial government and with the federal government. Expanding those same provisions to allow for government-to-government work with nations where important land use decisions are being made will allow for improved coordination and communication that allow those local governments to deliver on their priorities and that support interest in partnership and trust-building and collaboration.

I can speak to my own experience in the city of Vancouver, where…. I spoke earlier to the city of Vancouver’s specific request for this change in addition to two resolutions passed at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The city of Vancouver is doing important work in collaboration with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations on the delivery of housing, on support for members of those nations living within the city’s boundaries, as well as other Indigenous, First Nations residents in those boundaries.

Important government-to-government conversations should be able to happen, as they do with other levels of government, where there’s sensitive and culturally significant information while maintaining a commitment to public transparency.

I can say, as well, and it’s reflected in the two quotes that I read as well as support from a broad number of local governments, that there is incredible work happening, led by local governments and regional districts around this province in partnership with First Nations, to deliver on affordable housing, access to lands, park use and a whole number of shared regional and provincial priorities, where these partnerships allow us to do more for more people all across the province.

This important work, again, requested by local governments, in line with what is already at stake or in place for local governments related to provincial and federal governments…. This is a small amendment that allows that partnership work and collaboration to continue, and I strongly support it.

Larry Neufeld: I think most people in this House would be aware that I am an engineer, and as such, I am driven to find efficiencies in everything that I can. I do want to recognize the fantastic contribution of the folks that look after us in this House.

Please don’t take any offence at me taking the efficiency of grabbing the podium from my colleague. No offence intended. We certainly appreciate your contributions, without question.

The other reason that I’m happy to speak in support of Bill 27 is, again, my drive toward efficiency. Bill 27, of course, is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) of 2025.

[3:25 p.m.]

While this bill may appear technical in nature, it carries significance for how we build schools and how governments at every level relate to one another. It touches two critical pillars of governance, education and intergovernmental relations, and both deserve thorough scrutiny.

As Conservatives, we support pragmatic legislation that removes barriers, increases fairness and respects accountability. Bill 27 achieves a part of that goal, if not a good portion of that goal, but as with many omnibus amendments, the details demand vigilance.

The first portion of Bill 27 amends the School Act to align the powers of English-language and francophone school boards. For decades, school district 93 has operated without the same authority to purchase or expropriate land for the purpose of building new schools. This imbalance created real-world consequences. Those included overcrowded classrooms, delays in building approvals and missed opportunities to serve francophone families who value education in both of Canada’s official languages.

The Conservative Party supports this correction. It recognizes linguistic equality and administrative consistency. It means all boards can now respond to growth and demographics without needless provincial bottlenecks. Yet with every new authority must come oversight.

Expropriation is not a casual tool. It is the most coercive instrument government holds over private citizens. When we empower school boards to take land, we must ensure that property rights are respected, that fair compensation is transparent and that ministerial approvals, those of us that are held to account by the electorate, remain more than just a formality.

We therefore call on the Minister of Education to publish clear public guidelines to be followed whenever expropriation is contemplated, guidelines that ensure landowners are treated with dignity and that boards justify each and every acquisition and do it in a public manner.

Modernizing the School Act is wise, but modernization without transparency invites mistrust. We will support this portion of the bill while urging government to reinforce procedural fairness through policy, not merely through statute.

Where we urge caution, in addition, is in the expanded authority to meet in camera. While my esteemed colleague did speak of some examples where that may be appropriate, holding closed-door discussions, I would caution, between municipalities and Indigenous governments can potentially lead to mistrust. Again, I respect and honour the comments that were made by my colleague.

To say further, confidentiality can at times be necessary to foster trust and reach agreements in good faith, as has been stated. That being said, the Conservative Party of British Columbia maintains that transparency must remain the default, not the exception.

Too often residents learn after the fact that decisions affecting land use, taxation or shared services were made privately with minimal disclosure. My concern is that this undermines the credibility of everyone at the table, or potentially does, municipal, provincial or Indigenous.

We therefore encourage government to pair these amendments with a public reporting requirement, a short summary after each in-camera meeting outlining the purpose, the scope and any non-confidential outcomes. In my estimation, doing so would maintain public confidence without compromising sensitive negotiations.

This bill demonstrates that effective governance is often about alignment, not reinvention. By updating the School Act and the municipal charters, Bill 27 brings clarity where confusion once existed. It ensures consistency across education systems and across levels of government. Yet we must guard against the temptation to treat technical amendments as simply routine.

[3:30 p.m.]

Each clause carries long-term implications for how power is used or can be used. We as legislators owe it to British Columbians to ensure that such power remains checked by oversight, accountability and, beyond all, public trust.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia believes in principled decentralization, placing authority closer to those who are affected by it but within a framework of rigorous transparency. Bill 27 does indeed move in that direction, and we will support it while holding government to the standards that good governance demands.

In closing, Bill 27 is not dramatic legislation, and that, in my estimation, is its strength. It addresses real gaps that have hindered education delivery and intergovernmental collaboration. We, on this side of the House, support the bill because it is technically sound, administratively rational and socially fair.

Our support, as stated previously, however, comes with an exception, the exception being that these powers will be used judiciously, that citizens will be kept informed and that transparency will remain the cornerstone of public trust.

Jeremy Valeriote: The Third Party caucus welcomes these proposed changes that would afford the same privilege and confidentiality to First Nations as we do to other governments with respect to negotiations between governments.

The proposed amendments allow or require local governments to hold closed meetings when discussing culturally sensitive and confidential information, but they don’t change requirements to make final decisions in open meetings.

Cori Ramsay of the UBCM, Union of British Columbia Municipalities, said her group and First Nations requested the changes, saying they give nations the same level of confidentiality that other levels of government receive, which is fair.

These proposed changes are a step forward in recognizing the nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous communities and municipal governments. This is not about exclusion. This is about ensuring that First Nations receive the same level of confidentiality, and it’s about creating a more just and respectful way of working together.

We support these changes, and we stand firmly against any rhetoric that seeks to diminish Indigenous sovereignty, silence Indigenous voices or question the legitimacy of Indigenous ways of governance.

With respect to expropriating land for francophone schools, we support this change but wish it came with commensurate support for other languages, including Indigenous languages, and we urge the government’s consideration be given to that eventuality.

Jordan Kealy: I rise today to speak to Bill 27 and to the quiet but significant shift of power it represents, a bill that on the surface looks procedural, administrative, even harmless. But beneath its technical language, this bill reaches deep into two pillars of democracy: property rights and government transparency.

I will speak very directly, when it comes to my region, that I have actually seen the effects of hidden transparency when it comes to the effects of caribou protection in my region and transparency being hidden with the current government and how that was done and the consultation that happened with my region. When it finally did come out to the public, it caused mass confusion and a lot of problems.

I urge this government to encourage transparency in the biggest way forward, especially…. I fully endorse First Nations and their cultural practices. We have to learn about them. The best way to learn about them is to actually have them out in the open so that people know about them, not hide them behind closed doors.

I think the truth is what people want to hear, and if it comes out at the last moment, after a decision has already being made…. In my region, that’s where I saw a lot of racism come out, and it wasn’t a nice thing to see.

[3:35 p.m.]

My first concern. Bill 27 repeals and rewrites section 96 of the School Act. It now gives school boards and francophone authorities the explicit power to acquire, hold and expropriate land not just for classrooms but for staff housing, student housing, board offices and outdoor facilities.

That’s a sweeping definition of educational purposes. This means that a school board, with ministerial approval, could take private land, land that someone’s family has worked for generations, and call it educational. And the safeguard? A single minister’s signature.

The bill even states that the ministerial approval for expropriation is not approval under the Expropriation Act, meaning it may bypass the very process that ensures notice, hearings and fairness for affected landowners.

When the government rewrites laws to make it easier to take land, every British Columbian should pay attention, because this isn’t just about new classrooms. It’s about state power over private property power that can be used or abused, depending on who holds the pen.

My second concern under this bill is that the minister becomes the gatekeeper of local land decision. A school board can’t expropriate without the minister’s approval, but the criteria for that approval is nowhere to be found — no public list, no clear process, no right of appeal. That means decisions affecting entire communities can be made in Victoria behind a desk with no obligation to explain the reasoning. That’s not oversight. That’s control.

We’ve seen this pattern before, local decision-making eroded, provincial power expanded and transparency quietly replaced by ministerial discretion.

Bill 27 also changes the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter, expanding the reasons that city councils can meet in secret. It introduces new clauses that allow and require closed meetings when the discussions involve Indigenous entities or information harmful to Indigenous interests under FOIPPA.

Now, reconciliation is important. Protecting sensitive cultural information is important. But if we start closing doors more often than we open them, we lose one of the cornerstones of democracy — public accountability. Municipal councils already struggle with the balance between privacy and transparency. This bill tips that balance too far. It normalizes secrecy. It creates a culture where closed becomes the default, not the exception.

What’s more, it gives the cabinet the power to decide who qualifies as an Indigenous entity — no clear definition, no published criteria, just regulation at the discretion of the cabinet. That’s a dangerous level of ambiguity, because when the government decides who counts as government, it’s already forgotten what democracy means.

Put these two pieces together, new powers to expropriate land and new powers to close public meetings, and you start to see the architecture of quiet control. On their own, each change could be defended as administrative fine-tuning. Together they point to a steady trend: less transparency, less accountability and less respect for property rights.

This government has made a habit of centralizing authority, of saying: “Trust us. We’ll decide what’s in the public interest.” But democracy doesn’t run on trust. It runs on transparency. When people lose the right to see what’s happening behind the doors of power, or worse, when they lose the right to keep their own land, it’s not progress. It’s regression.

Bill 27 may not make headlines, but it should, because it quietly hands the government the tools to take land and to hide decisions.

[3:40 p.m.]

If this government truly values democracy, then it should be strengthening public safeguards, not removing them. It should be clarifying rights, not blurring them. It should be opening doors and not closing them.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than backroom expropriations and closed-door councils. They deserve a government that operates in daylight.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 27, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. While the name suggests that it’s routine legislation, this bill is anything but routine. It contains thoughtful, forward-looking amendments that touch on two foundational pillars of our province: respectful governance with Indigenous communities, and the future of public education infrastructure.

Let’s start with the amendments to the Community Charter, which represent significant and respectful evolution in how local governments engage with First Nations. These changes respond to direct requests from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the city of Vancouver, local governments and First Nations. The Union of B.C. Municipalities passed resolutions in 2017 and in 2023 calling for these changes.

In March 2024, the city of Vancouver formally requested that the Vancouver Charter be amended to provide the ability to conduct government-to-government negotiations in camera with the nations that are within the city’s boundaries. Currently local governments can only close meetings for a very limited set of reasons, and that doesn’t include First Nations relations. It’s outdated.

These changes allow First Nations governments the same provisions as other levels of government when engaging with local governments. There are not more provisions. There are not different provisions. They’re the same provisions.

The proposed changes align with section 18.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which states that a public body must not release information if it could reasonably be expected to harm the rights of Indigenous People.

These changes will give local governments and First Nations the space they need to collaborate and build trust during negotiations. This is not a departure from transparency. It’s a recognition that reconciliation requires trust, and trust is built through respectful dialogue.

When I was a school trustee — it’s a little bit different but still the same — I was on the board of education, and we made truth and reconciliation a strategic goal because we knew it would improve the learning outcomes not just of the Indigenous students in our school district but of all the students in our school district.

In order to be able to follow through on that, it required deep relationship-building with the nations whose territory fell within the boundaries of the school district. That meant we had to do hard work to get past both the long-term and the near-term harms caused by the school district. It was hard work. It was not work that could be done in public. It was work that needed to be done in private. It was relationship-building work.

That work resulted in a school called Qwam Qwum Stuwixwulh, which is a tripartite partnership between the school district, the nation and the federal government. The school is built by the federal government and run by the school district on nation land. It is the only one of its kind in British Columbia. That’s the type of good work and results that comes out of the ability to have these important discussions.

[3:45 p.m.]

For too long, Indigenous governments have had to navigate public forums that are not conducive to the conversations needed to build meaningful partnerships and deal with culturally sensitive and appropriate issues. No other level of government has had to endure that. They’ve had to do this separately.

In my riding, there are a number of sacred sites that require cross-government work for protection and maintenance. Everybody knows that this area is a burial site, but what everybody doesn’t know is where on that site the remains have been repatriated — remains that got dug up because of culturally insensitive ways of building and developing in the past, that were allowed to be repatriated in a culturally appropriate and sensitive way. We know in our community that there are remains there. We know the area, but we don’t know the exact spot.

That’s what we’re talking about here. The nations don’t want to publicly disclose these locations, but they’re also not looking to limit access. They just simply want to discuss these issues in a constructive and respectful manner that recognizes and protects the privacy and sacred nature of these areas. By creating space for private, culturally appropriate discussions, we are saying clearly that we respect protocol. We are committed to evolving practice in order to do better and to be better.

I heard a great saying the other day. Change is required because the future is different than the past. That is what these amendments represent, change that reflects a better future that is different from the past. These amendments broaden the scope of mandatory closed meetings for intergovernmental negotiations, ensuring that sensitive discussions between governments — whether local, provincial or Indigenous — can occur in protected space.

This is about creating conditions for collaboration and not secrecy. Importantly, while discussions may be private, decisions remain public, preserving the democratic accountability that British Columbians expect and deserve. This is reconciliation in action. It’s not symbolic. It’s structural. It’s about embedding respect into the very fabric of our governance systems.

The province has also completed engagement with First Nations, treaty Nations and local governments across B.C., and the feedback from these engagements confirmed broad support for protecting confidential and culturally sensitive information so that local governments and First Nations can collaborate and build trust during negotiations. The proposed updates reflect the province’s commitment to reconciliation and to building government-to-government relationships.

I’m just going to finish up by talking a little bit about the School Act amendments. We see another vital area of reform here, and this time it’s focused on education infrastructure. The bill clarifies the authority of boards of education and the francophone school district to acquire, hold and, when necessary, expropriate land for educational purposes. It’s quite simply a practical change. As has been said, it aligns the province with other provinces.

In communities across British Columbia, we are seeing growing student populations, changing demographics and increased demand for modern learning environments. School boards need clear, consistent tools to plan for the future, and these amendments help provide that clarity.

They also introduce an important safeguard. Ministerial approval is required for any acquisition or expropriation outside the board’s jurisdiction. This ensures that while boards are empowered to act, there is provincial oversight to maintain fairness, coordination and alignment with broader educational goals.

Let me be clear that expropriation is not a tool to be used lightly, and that’s why provincial oversight remains in place. In rare cases, it may be necessary to ensure that students have access to safe, accessible and high-quality learning spaces. These amendments ensure that when decisions are made, they are made with transparency, accountability and purpose.

Taken together, the changes in Bill 27 reflect a government that is responsive, responsible and respectful. We are strengthening relationships with Indigenous communities, supporting local governments and ensuring our education system has the tools it needs to grow with British Columbia. This bill touches on many of the core values of our province and reflects on our desire to ensure legislation reflects those values of respect for Indigenous rights, commitment to public education and a belief in good governance.

[3:50 p.m.]

I urge all members of the House to support this bill. It’s thoughtful. It’s principled. It’s necessary legislation that moves British Columbia forward and reflects the needs of our growing and changing province.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate my colleagues. I’m sorry. I did jump the queue here as I have another engagement in a few moments.

I’m going to be very brief speaking to Bill 27 here this afternoon. I think most of my questions can be answered in the committee stage when we move through here.

I have to say, after initially hearing the first reading, I had some concerns about this. I still have some questions, but it’s refreshing, again, to know that this was brought forward by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because to be completely frank, when I hear “closed-door meetings” and the provincial government, I get a little nervous. I think we, the opposition, feel the same way, that transparency is extremely important here.

I have a couple of questions that I’d like to address just around some of the wording in the legislation.

I think, first of all, we have to be very cautious about disclosing some of this information that’s being discussed in these meetings. I think disclosing it or not has to be done in a fair and open way. I know the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs talked about open public voting that’s available on the public record. But if there’s sensitive information that’s shared, for example, with a local nation, I think there has to be a mechanism for how those discussions take place and sharing that with non-Indigenous British Columbians as well.

Indigenous entity. I know it was brought up earlier. I think that’s something that we need to just look at a little bit more closely. I’m going to explain why here just very briefly.

I’m used to hearing Indigenous governing body, and the language looks like it’s been changed here. So does that include the Métis, for example? Who represents the Métis at those closed-door meetings? Is it land-based nations only that get to participate with local governments?

We have certain things happening in the province right now with U.S.-based tribes. The Sinixt, for example, being given Aboriginal rights by the Supreme Court of Canada, but they have no land claim that’s been granted by the Supreme Court here. Do they or don’t they get to sit down with, say, the Nelson municipal council? Same with the Lummi. Right now there are some things happening in the court, which I can’t discuss, around consultation.

I think there are legitimate questions to be asked here if we’re going to go down this road, which UBCM appears that they are hoping to. There have to be some guardrails in here so that it’s done in the right way.

With that, I’ll be asking those questions in more detail at committee.

Lynne Block: We are here today to discuss or review or scrutinize Bill 27, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. I must say, I do agree on overall intent. I agree with my former trustee colleague across the way that overall the intent is good. However, there are a couple of issues I would like to discuss.

When we must acknowledge that this legislation contains necessary technical clarifications and functional updates, we must also examine provisions that have the potential to impact the foundational principles of British Columbia, local accountability and transparency in governance. As a former teacher and as a former trustee, I believe it is prudent to ensure clarity and understanding before we just say that everything’s good.

This legislation attempts to push through two concerning changes: first, a concentration of power that diminishes the jurisdiction of our local elected school boards; second, an expansion of municipal secrecy that compromises the public’s fundamental right to know.

We must ensure that these amendments, which primarily address land authority and municipal confidentiality, do not inadvertently result in an unacceptable level of centralization and secrecy.

[3:55 p.m.]

Part 1, local autonomy and the question of centralized control, clauses 1, 2 and 3. Our commitment as Conservatives begins at the grassroots level, trusting local communities and elected officials to make decisions regarding local assets and education. This commitment is why part 1, the infrastructure amendments, requires scrutiny.

We do support necessary updates. Clause 1 modernizes the rules on how school boards acquire, hold, expropriate and dispose of land or buildings. It clarifies that land may be acquired for modern educational purposes, including providing housing accommodation for students or employees or areas for outdoor activities. We see these adjustments as necessary for meeting modern educational requirements.

Furthermore, we recognize the functional alignment achieved through clause 2. This provision aligns the power of the Francophone Education Authority, such as Conseil scolaire francophone, SD 93, with that of English-language boards, enabling them to acquire land to build more schools. Prior to this amendment, SD 93 did not have this specific authority. This change will enable more opportunities for parents whose children are educated in Canada’s second official language.

The core issue is mandatory ministerial oversight over expropriation. While school boards already possess the authority to acquire and expropriate land, the core issue of concern in this section relates to the mechanism of control over this ultimate power. Expropriation is the state’s most drastic seizure measure, its ultimate power over citizens’ private assets.

Under the new section 96 of the School Act, clause 1 adds a requirement stating that a board must not expropriate land without the prior approval of the minister. This exact requirement for mandatory ministerial oversight is mirrored for the Francophone Education Authority through clause 2.

This provision raises profound questions about how local accountability will be maintained.

One, centralization of decision-making. Local elected school trustees are directly accountable to the parents and taxpayers in their school district and understand the localized need for a new site far better than a minister based in Victoria, particularly when the Minister of Transportation and Transit is listed as the sponsor of this bill. Does placing the final decisive authority for a localized land use decision in a political office in Victoria risk concentrating authority away from the community, thereby undermining the principle of local accountability?

Two, diminished local roles. If local trustees must seek permission from the provincial capital for their most contentious decisions, does this provision risk diminishing the status of elected local officials, reducing them to mere supplicants or petitioners, requesting permission from the provincial government?

Three, obscuring accountability. Clause 3 formalizes the systemic shift by updating the Expropriation Act and formally designating the minister as the approving authority for the purpose of expropriation. While defining a clear approving authority aligns the process for both English and francophone bodies, does this not simultaneously confuse accountability, making the minister rather than the local board ultimately responsible for the controversial decision to seize private land?

While we acknowledge the intention to align procedures, we must carefully consider if mandatory ministerial control over expropriation undermines the principle of local autonomy. We must resist the concentration of power and defend the jurisdiction of local elected boards.

Part 2, transparency and municipal negotiations, specifically clauses 4, 5 and 6. If part 1 raises concerns about centralized authority, part 2, concerning housing and municipal affairs amendments, raises questions about the openness of local governance across British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

Transparency and scrutiny are indispensable cornerstones of effective governance, ensuring citizens know how their tax dollars are spent.

Clauses 4 and 5 amend the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter, respectively, to expand the list of circumstances where a municipal council meeting may or must be closed to the public — i.e., held in camera.

Now, we have to understand the intent versus potential risk. The specific expansion relates to information concerning negotiations held between the municipality and a First Nation, between the municipality and a prescribed Indigenous entity.

We recognize the stated intent here to grant equal title to First Nations as government for the purposes of negotiations, moving them away from being classified as a third party. We understand the importance of facilitating sensitive government-to-government dealings. However, this expansion creates a significant loophole for secrecy, and we must assess the potential consequences of this expansion on public oversight.

One, risk of oversight void. When negotiations involve complex matters like major land deals, financial arrangements or shared-service agreements potentially spanning decades and involving substantial taxpayer dollars, allowing these transactions to be formulated entirely behind closed doors fundamentally compromises the public’s fundamental right to know to know. The public and us — we need assurance that this expansion will not create an accountability vacuum where public funds and infrastructure decisions lack maximum visibility.

Two, regulatory expansion or the delegation of power. A further policy question arises from clause 6. This clause grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council the regulation-making power to prescribe additional Indigenous entities under the Vancouver Charter. This ability to designate supplementary Indigenous bodies via regulatory decree means the scope of this confidentiality clause could be indefinitely enlarged without further legislative debate.

Does this delegation of power risk undue expansion of secrecy and circumvent necessary parliamentary discussion? Once designated, that organization will be recognized by the city of Vancouver as a recognized government for negotiation purposes when a meeting can be held in private.

We insist that community administrations must function with utmost visibility. We must stand firm against provisions that introduce mandatory central controls over elected local officials and those that potentially expand secrecy where openness is paramount.

So friends, colleagues and fellow defenders of Conservative principles, Bill 27 is a measure that requires careful assessment. It is dressed up as technical housekeeping, but its potential consequences involve centralization and secrecy. We support the necessary technical amendments that clarify the ability of school boards to acquire land for crucial purposes like providing housing for students or staff, but we must stand firm against the concerning elements.

The ministerial mandate, clauses 1, 2 and 3. I feel that requirement is unacceptable, the minister’s prior approval before any local school board or francophone educational authority can expropriate land. We choose local autonomy over bureaucratic overreach.

Two, the secrecy provision in clauses 4, 5 and 6. Again, we reject the expansion of closed-door municipal meetings, which creates an unacceptable oversight void and allows for the creep of power through regulation. We choose public transparency over governmental convenience.

While we do support the overall intent of this bill, we call on this government to amend Bill 27 when in committee and withdraw or amend those clauses that erode transparency and centralize power so that this bill respects the democratic rights of all British Columbians.

[4:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to silence our electronic devices.

Dallas Brodie: I stand to speak out against…. I’m particularly concerned about these changes to the Vancouver Charter today. I mentioned it earlier during question period.

The concern here is the normalizing of secrecy, and leaving the public in the dark when negotiations are taking place is a very dangerous step for our society. To the extent that any discussions involve the transfer of public money, public land and power, the taxpayers of British Columbia and the cities involved must have access to all information.

This is a step too far. My friends across the aisle have made the argument that this is a respectful move in support of…. They call it intergovernmental discussions between nation to nation or government to government, but the comparison there is really not on par.

The Indigenous bands only owe a duty to their band members. They do not owe a duty to the taxpayers of the cities or of the province. They are mandated only to have a fiduciary duty owed to their members. Therefore, the comparison to other intergovernmental negotiations is not on par. It’s logically not the same thing at all.

If intergovernmental negotiations yield unhappy results and taxpayers are unhappy with it, there is recourse for those taxpayers. The problem we have here is that if there’s an unhappy result and taxpayers find that a secret negotiation has taken place resulting in a massive agreement — which is what we’re seeing, and I’ll come to a couple of those in a minute — there is no recourse for the taxpaying citizens of the province or the city. This is a major problem.

Trust is not built through respectful dialogue. Trust is built through transparency and verification. We can all say that we trust one another, but that would mean we wouldn’t even have to have an open legislature, if we’re just going to rely on respectful communication to make policy in this province.

If this is only about sacred spaces and sensitive issues for Indigenous peoples, for example, then we can deal with that on an as-needed basis, on a case-by-case basis. But it’s certainly not a reason to shut down all transparency when it involves First Nations matters.

This matter came up specifically in my riding with respect to a street formerly known as Trutch St. There was some outcry because a document was leaked from the city of Vancouver that showed that $33,500 had been spent on the renaming ceremony for this street. Now, this is a renaming that was requested by xʷməθkʷəy̓əm First Nation, but then they had to pay people to go and attend their own event that they had asked for. The citizens of Vancouver ended up paying to have people from the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation go to attend.

This was not received very well by the taxpayers of Vancouver. They were shocked to learn that this…. It was a request that this material not be made public anymore and be returned. Of course, it couldn’t be, and it shouldn’t be.

Anyone who’s receiving public money needs to be open to questions and to be transparent about it, same way as members of this Legislature have to disclose their personal holdings. It’s not comfortable. I don’t like telling people everything I own. Does anybody in here? No. But that’s part of the job, and it’s part of the thing that happens when you’re taking public money.

I would like to reiterate that whenever we’re talking about public money, public land and power in this province, it has to be totally transparent. If taxpayers are paying for it, they get to see where it’s going and what’s happening. If we’re dealing with sacred spaces, and so on, there are ways of dealing with that.

I also want to ask: what were the specific concerns of the Indigenous groups and the UBCM when they suggested these changes? I personally had a very unfortunate experience at the UBCM just two weeks ago when I was supposed to speak there, and I would have to question the trustworthiness of that organization 100 percent at this point.

[4:10 p.m.]

As the Leader of the Fourth Party, I was scheduled to speak at the UBCM just before the lunch break. A city councillor who sits on the UBCM named Coun. Pete Fry decided to excuse everyone from the building and told everyone to leave for lunch right before I was supposed to get up to speak.

So 500 people all filtered out of that room. Then the president, Ms. Mandewo, waited a few minutes. It was clearly pre-planned. She waited a few seconds, few minutes, and then said, “Oh, and by the way, our next speaker is the leader of OneBC.” Then I went up and spoke to an empty room. That’s the UBCM.

Then when we requested an apology, they did a feeble retraction, published the speeches given by a brand-new leader of the Green Party. They published the comments of the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I ask you to direct your attention to Bill 27, please?

Dallas Brodie: Yes, yes.

The reason I’m bringing this up is that the UBCM has requested these changes, and I already see shenanigans going on there. This is what happens when things are closed down.

So I ask: what is next? Are we going to demand closed courts when it involves these issues? Are we going to have a closed Legislature when it involves these issues?

In my view, this is a step that is way too far. Normalizing secrecy and leaving the public in the dark as to the outcome results in fait accompli. And we’ve also seen this up on the Sunshine Coast in Pender Harbour.

Now a lawsuit has been launched because there has been a massive deal sprung on the community of Pender Harbour, Garden Bay, and so on, that they had no idea was coming. In the documents, the petition to the court, it shows that the residents of that area repeatedly asked for information regarding what’s going on with all of this, because they were receiving notices about the docks that they have in front of their homes, and they were repeatedly met with stonewalling.

Suddenly, out of the blue comes this joint decision-making agreement, and people are shocked. Now we’re in a lawsuit. I’m sure you’re aware of that lawsuit.

In any event, I reject closed-door municipal discussions on issues such as this. The taxpayers have to be aware of what’s going on with their taxpayers’ money. When land is being transferred, money is being transferred, and power is being transferred, it needs to be openly discussed. I’m 100 percent against these changes to the Vancouver Charter.

Deputy Speaker: We will now call on our member for Fraser-Nicola for continued debate on Bill 27.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the opportunity to stand here and address Bill 27.

I think we’re getting close to maybe having enough understanding. It’s a fairly transparent bill in some respects here. It’s fairly simplistic. On its surface, this bill addresses particular concerns, especially around the land acquisition for schools, equity for francophone education authorities and tools for municipalities to work more effectively with Indigenous governments.

These goals are legitimate and, in many respects, probably well overdue, like a lot of business in the House. But this House must carefully weigh not just what this bill enables but how it might be used or misused down the line.

Let’s begin with what this bill has to offer.

First, it does grant the Conseil scolaire francophone the same power that other schools’ boards already hold, namely the authority to expropriate land when needed. That’s just a fairness and equity position here that this bill is clarifying and rectifying.

That is a matter of fairness. Parents choosing to educate their children in French and English shouldn’t have to be classified as second-class citizens because their schools are unable to get the land they need for expansion and for growth. It’s good to give them the tools that they need.

Second, the bill clarifies the authority of school boards to acquire land, including for educational use, like staff and student housing. Given the population pressures in many districts, this is a practical step. It equips boards with more tools to secure space in a competitive real estate environment.

[4:15 p.m.]

Third, it recognizes Indigenous entities for the purpose of local negotiation, modernizing B.C.’s legal framework to reflect the reality of government-to-government relationships. It allows local councils to hold closed meetings in cases involving sensitive cultural or negotiated matters. That’s in line with reconciliation and with requests for both Indigenous and municipal governments.

And I believe on this side of the House we do support, in principle, those facts. All these things seem sensible in principle.

Let’s have a look more precisely at what this may look like. This bill also contains risk — I think that’s been outlined a little bit here in some of the speeches already this afternoon — in particular, in two areas, expanded expropriation powers for school boards and the erosion of transparency through broader use of closed-door meeting.

I know when I was on council, you were allowed to close doors for three reasons: land, legal and labour. Now this government seems to be wanting to creep a few more things into that thing. That’s fine if that’s what they want to do, but just be prepared for what may be the ramifications should that happen. Because one thing a government needs and a politician needs is more trust from the people, which seems to be eroding over these last number of years.

Let’s be clear. Expropriation is not just another procurement tool. It is a profound power that the state has, the state taking private property for public use. Under this bill, that power is going to be expanded. Yes, ministerial approval is required, but the bill does not define what qualifies as sufficient jurisdiction, what criteria must be met, what community consultation is required and what protection exists for landowners. That’s all left vague.

The term “educational purpose” is also extremely broad. It includes not just schools but staff housing, board offices and outdoor spaces. That could open the door to land being taken not just for classrooms but, potentially, for less essential or ancillary uses.

There’s a real risk here of mission creep, and we’ve seen a lot of that with governments and boards and organizations lately. Mission creep is expanding powers and overreach by any government or any organization, of course. School boards acquiring land under a broad mandate with limited oversight and later disposing of it are repurposing it, potentially outside the scope of education.

I think as we move into committee, we’re going to want to make sure that we have very, very tight guardrails on some of this stuff, that we can be able to say: “Hey, you can only expropriate to be used for these particular purposes.” And I wouldn’t mind a whole list of things that are exempt from being allowed to be brought in for that.

This bill makes it easier to take land but doesn’t ensure it will be used wisely, efficiently or transparently. And while the Expropriation Act applies in general, this bill makes it clear that ministerial approval under the School Act isn’t the same as approval under that act, creating confusion about the procedural protections that still apply. If used aggressively, this could damage community trust, as I mentioned before, and even delay school construction due to legal challenges or backlash from landowners.

Another issue is closed-door municipal meetings. Let me turn briefly to the municipal side of the bill, clauses 4 and 6. The intention here is to enable local governments and Indigenous partners to negotiate confidentially. Confidentiality is going to be very, very important. That’s a fair goal, but the expansion of closed meetings should concern all of us who believe in open government.

This government has been anything but open and transparent. It has a reputation of being one of the most secretive in Canada, not just B.C. Many, many city councils have been forced to sign NDAs to be able to even speak to any ministers within the government. Now it seems like they want to codify and bring these into legislative power.

This bill allows council to meet in camera for a wide range of negotiations with Indigenous entities, defined broadly, and to exclude the public when discussing confidential or culturally sensitive information.

Again, the issue isn’t intent. The concern is the breadth of discretion and the lack of clear limits. What qualifies as confidential? How often are these meetings closed? Who determines which Indigenous entities would qualify? These are all left to regulation or ministerial discretion. That opens the door to overuse, inconsistent applications and a gradual erosion of the transparency in municipal decision-making.

[4:20 p.m.]

Sure, we can stand here today and say, “No, no. It’s going to be very tight. There are going to be guardrails. There are going to be boundaries. There are going to be exempt lists and everything,” but we know — and I mentioned earlier, bracket creep — that these things change over time. People get comfortable, lax, lazy, and things can change rapidly here.

I think it’s going to be very, very important that we have the necessary backstops in some of these things so the public can have the trust that they need to have with their local governments and with the provincial government.

We’ve seen elsewhere what happens when closed meetings become the norm rather than the exception, and we see that quite a bit now throughout a lot of cities and municipalities. Public trust declines, decisions appear less legitimate, and communities disengage. The last thing we need now is for communities to be disengaging on important legislation that’s coming down on some of these things here.

Now, don’t get me wrong. We’re going to move forward. We think for the most part that this bill is a pretty good piece of legislation, updating and modernizing some things. But we always have to be careful, because a lot of it is in the unintended consequences that happen. We find these things after we put this kind of legislation in place. What happens after that?

I’m looking forward to going to committee and looking at that. They’re some of the safeguards that we need. We do not oppose the core objective of this bill, and we agree with that, but power must be matched by accountability.

Some of the things that I will be looking for as we sit in committee are clear, published criteria for ministerial approval of expropriation. I think that’s really, really important to this process. We’re not just going to be throwing darts on the wall and: “Hey, let’s go for that piece of property. Repurpose it later.” It’s going to be really, really important for that.

Transparent community consultation before land is taken. Use of expropriation only as a last resort, not as a default. Independent oversight of the expanded closed-meeting powers, perhaps through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Maybe we get him in on this to see what we can do on that.

Periodic review of how often closed meetings are used and whether they still serve the public interest. Just because we do something today doesn’t mean we need to use it a week from now. We’ve got to make sure that it’s always appropriate to be using those legislative authorities. And transparency in designated Indigenous entities with public criteria and process is going to be really important.

These are not obstacles. I think we can get through them. We just need to work through it. But they are democratic guardrails. They protect the public from overreach and protect government from suspicion.

This bill aims to address inequality, improve local governance and prepare our education system for future growth. This is commendable. We need that. But embedded within the legislation are tools that, if misapplied, could undermine property rights, reduce transparency and increase public cynicism.

As opposition, our job is not just to build capacity but to preserve public trust, not just to empower government but to protect the governed and be accountable for them and help the public be accountable. Let us not allow efficiencies to eclipse democracy. Let us not pass laws that we cannot defend in five years or ten years, when their use exceeds their mandate. Let us do what this House is meant to do, strengthen laws and wisdom with caution and with integrity.

I look forward to working with the government and the committee on these.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. I’ve appreciated the comments made by most members about this bill. I appreciate some of the flags as well, because I think it’s important to have those flags. I think they’re well understood, certainly by the minister responsible and myself as well.

The first part of the bill that I want to just speak to shortly is the ability for appropriation, of course, for last resort. I’ve heard that from every speaker — the need for it to be always the last resort.

I recall almost a year and a half ago having someone that was involved with French schools come to me at an event and say: “Why is it that certain tools are available for schools but not French schools?” At the time — I spent 20 minutes talking to this individual — I didn’t know this existed, so it was a good learning opportunity for me.

I think having the ability to have an equal playing field, whether you go to a French school or whether you go to the regular public schools or private schools, that the public schools and the French schools have the same ability….

I appreciate the change, and I agree with all my colleagues, I think, that have spoken that this should always be a last resort. Certainly, that’s our view as well.

[4:25 p.m.]

The second part of the bill I support as well. I think it’s important to recognize the amazing work that’s happening with local governments and our First Nations partners. Whether you look at the work that’s happening with industry and First Nations or the work that’s happening with local governments and First Nations, there are amazing things happening on the ground. The reason why I highlight that is because this just allows for that good work to continue to happen.

Of course, important decisions have to be made public. Of course, those things have to be transparent for the public. But there are important conversations that need to happen sometimes, and you need to have that space created for that. The ability to have a space where you can have trust, you can share information, and information can come back in a way that protects the culturally sensitive pieces from First Nations’ perspective, I think, opens that door.

I was recently up in Vernon, and I saw the work that’s happening with council and the local First Nations communities on a whole host of projects. I got to see it in Penticton when I went there to meet with the mayor and council.

They said, “We want to invite the nation; we want to invite representation from the community to be part of the conversation,” because they see the work to be so intertwined. In fact, I know there are people elected on both sides of the House here that have good experience working with First Nations partners as elected officials and bringing folks in and having those conversations.

I appreciate that with anything we do in this time, someone will find a way to try to create mistrust and division. It’s the nature of the world we live in, unfortunately. All it takes is a short clip for social media, and then someone in the U.K. is reporting it as a fact. But the responsibility for all of us, I think, as lawmakers, whether you’re on the government side or opposition, is to try to do our best to keep it within the facts and try to do our best to keep it to what is the reality on the ground.

When we have UBCM, our local government leaders, come forward and say, “This is an important next step for our progression of our relationships with our local nations; we want to do important work, but we need this tool,” I think it makes sense for us to take that next step to be able to do that.

I really appreciate hearing from my colleagues that say that they’re going to support this portion, because it will, I think, help move important issues within our communities.

I can speak to my community of Delta, where mayor and council just recently held a ceremony with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and are taking steps to strengthen our relationship with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. The mayor and council have done a really good job, I think, of building that relationship and trust with Tsawwassen Nation. Now, having this tool available, they will be able to have some informal conversations, some conversations, some deeper conversations that are necessary.

I think that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for all of our community members, and it leads to better outcomes, in fact. Knowing that I’ve got support from my local community for these types of measures goes a long way. I just wanted to jump in quickly and say that this is important. It’s an important next step. I appreciate UBCM raising this.

I heard this when I was the minister, for a short period. I’m grateful that the new minister has taken this on with such energy, because despite what we hear about division and conflict, those of us who have sat at those tables know that there’s a lot more collaborativeness, a lot more alignment, a lot more goodwill of wanting to move forward and do something not only for nations, not only for communities, but just for our society as a whole. I think this is an important piece.

As many people on both sides of the House have said, there are important decisions that are going to be made. If it impacts a decision that the citizens need to know, of course you need to have those in a more public way so that everyone gets access to seeing them. This is not some sort of secret agenda, as I think one person mentioned here.

[4:30 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

This is about good work. It’s about enhancing the ability for us to build stronger partnerships, to avoid courts, to avoid conflict and to move together in a good way. I’m pleased to hear the positive tone coming from all members.

I know we’re going to go into details, and there will be some more conversations about the details. That’s good. That’s part of this process. But hearing a general sense of, “We understand why this is here, why we need to move forward, why we need to allow this ability to be there,” gives me some hope.

I just wanted to say I support the bill. I support the work. Hopefully, this moves forward so we can see the fruits of all of our labour.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister on his statement and his remarks about working together.

With the intent of this bill…. A lot of it is housekeeping. I think everyone on this side appreciates that. But there are a couple of points that I would like to raise through this process, because there’s still a lot of skepticism. There are still a lot of things that we need to be able to discuss, particularly when we get into committee and are able to specifically ask for some more definitions in some of the language that’s in this bill.

Today I rise to address Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. While this government frames this as an administrative housekeeping adjustment to improve governance and streamline processes, a closer examination reveals that this bill could carry significant negative consequences for the people of B.C.

From our B.C. Conservative perspective, these consequences are profound. They can undermine transparency, they can weaken local autonomy, and they can expand government discretion and erode public trust in democratic institutions. The heart of the concern raises a fundamental question. Who holds the power in British Columbia? Is it the people, acting through their elected representatives at the local level, or is it the provincial bureaucracy in the cabinet operating with limited oversight?

Again, that’s why some of us on this side are still skeptical of some of the mechanisms that are being requested in this bill. It’s because we’ve seen in the past that accountability and transparency aren’t the cornerstone of this government.

When we look at clauses 4 and 6…. Parts of it deal with closed meetings. We’ve already talked at length today about the significance of closed meetings. I was a mayor. I was on the regional district board. I understand the need for confidentiality and the need for legal responsibilities in closed meetings. But it doesn’t mean that we need to expand closed meetings.

Those closed meetings have a very vague definition of what the requirement of a closed meeting is. Today it’s very specific in what you can and can’t have in a closed meeting. As soon as we start talking about engaging with our Indigenous partners, all of a sudden now there seems to be this cloak of secrecy, because, as one member across the aisle said, it was all about protecting repatriation of a burial site and the location of such.

That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about in here about closed meetings. Of course, we’re going to want to protect culturally specific locations for First Nations. Of course, we’re going to protect sensitive information, particularly when it comes to legal responsibilities. But just to have an open book on being able to have closed meetings…. We, I, totally disagree with being able to have a blank cheque when it comes to closed meetings.

Let’s be clear. Discretion without definition is a dangerous power. Councils could intentionally or unintentionally invoke these exemptions to avoid public scrutiny, delaying or withholding information on issues that affect their constituents directly. In practical terms, this could mean that decisions on local development, infrastructure, land use or financial matters could be taken entirely behind closed doors. That is not what the charter is set up to do. That is not what the people in this chamber are set up to do. And it certainly isn’t what our municipalities are meant to do.

Transparency is not optional. It’s a cornerstone of democracy. Citizens must have the right to observe, question and influence their local governments. When discretionists hold private meetings expanded without clear guidelines, public accountability is compromised. Closed meetings in this context become a tool of government secrecy rather than a protection for legitimate confidentiality. Conservatives believe that default must always be openness, with exceptions narrowly and clearly defined.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, when we talked about the section about centralization of land and education, there was a comment made about expropriation and that it should be a last resort. I think everybody in this House understands the significance of expropriation and also of compensation and consultation throughout any of the processes that are going on in this province.

Property owners in particular, as we’ve heard, also are facing uncertainty. The ability of authorities to expropriate land with limited local oversight raises questions about fairness and due process. Without clear protections and a robust consultation process, citizens may feel powerless, fostering resentment and diminishing trust in government institutions. There’s also an erosion of the democratic oversight because it limits the opportunities for the public’s participation in intergovernment decisions, particularly in discussions with Indigenous governments, the provincial administration and other agencies.

While some degree of confidentiality is necessary in negotiations, of course, Bill 27’s broad language risks making secrecy the rule rather than the exception. Citizens should not be excluded from debates on matters that affect their schools, lands or their municipal services. We need to be able to have our citizens to observe, to question and to participate in all these decisions. Anything less diminishes our democracy.

I know the minister was mentioning about 2017 and some of the acts that were coming into play. I would offer up that there have been some significant changes in the way we do business in this province since 2017. This government has signed more NDAs in the last eight years than any government previously. Just think about that for a second. We’ve signed more non-disclosure agreements in the last eight years than ever before. I would suggest the only reason for that is because there is a lack of consultation, accountability, and there is a lack of transparency.

Another one that comes up is a failure to address our local community needs. Issues such as wildfire management, school funding, infrastructure development and Indigenous relationships require practical solutions, investment and collaboration. Adjusting the governance procedures or expanding secrecy does not solve these problems. B.C. Conservatives argue that legislation should focus on real-world improvements, supporting communities and citizens directly, rather than restructuring powers or restricting oversight.

Yes, the B.C. Conservatives do support the spirit of this bill. However, we need to point out that all British Columbians deserve equal representation and an open and transparent government. Public engagement and open meetings are a cornerstone of our democracy. Having vague definitions on what constitutes a closed meeting is not the way for open and transparent government. It’s a mechanism to work in the shadows and not with the public’s best interests in mind. With that, I yield.

I would like to call for a recess. Can I call for five minutes or two minutes?

Deputy Speaker: We’ll have a recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 4:38 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Okay, I call the House back to order here. Just a reminder, we are considering second reading of Bill 27.

Seeing that we have no further speakers, I’ll put the question.

The question is second reading of Bill 27, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I call second reading of Bill 21.

Bill 21 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m pleased to, on behalf of the Attorney General, move second reading of this important piece of legislation, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, which has been introduced by the government to amend the Public Guardian and Trustee Act as well as the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

These amendments are housekeeping, as is often the case with legislation brought forward by government. The amendments ensure that we are meeting the needs of British Columbia.

I am certainly looking forward to the discussion and dialogue that will occur in this House on this important piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: I just want to clarify that we’ve heard the Minister of Forests move second reading.

Recognizing the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

Steve Kooner: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on behalf of the official opposition as the Attorney General critic and on behalf of the Conservative caucus of B.C., in my capacity as Attorney General critic, as I just mentioned, to speak to Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

I’ll do a little bit of overview and commentary from my part. We will not be opposing this bill on second reading because we’d like to see it go to committee, and we’d like to ask detailed questions in regards to this particular bill at committee.

This bill has two major sets of amendments. The first is to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the second is to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. In regards to the amendments to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, there are some consequential amendments to some other statutes, but the main amendment seems to be to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. There seem to be two main statutes that are addressed in this particular amendment act, the first one being the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and second one being the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

At first glance, when you look at the changes, it might appear technical in nature — housekeeping, as was mentioned earlier in the House. But as always, technical changes from this government may involve a lot more than just technical changes, so we have to do a deep dive, go into what the legislation is all about and ask the required questions. While much of this bill is framed as administrative or clarifying, it could have a significant impact on policy moving forward.

Let me start by getting into the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, in regards to the amendments to this. For decades, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, ICBC, has made regular payments to the provincial government to cover the cost of health care for people injured in motor vehicle accidents. These payments have happened in the form of reimbursements or payments made. That’s the background here. We know that these payments have been made since 1973, I believe. It’s been approximately 50 years since these payments have been made over this period of time.

As I mentioned, these payments were considered reimbursements. At no particular time before this bill were they ever called taxes. They were recorded as transfers between ICBC and the provincial government, the provincial treasury. However, I was enlightened in a brief from the government on what transpired, what led to this actual legislation coming to the House today.

[4:55 p.m.]

I was told that payments were made, but there was a particular class action that happened in regards to those particular payments. So this legislation tries to deal with a procedural issue in regards to the payments that have been made in the past. This legislation comes out and sets forward a retroactive tax to deal with the previous payments that were made, and those previous payments are applied to this tax that is now retroactive in nature.

Prior to this bill coming about, the legal proceedings that I was told about in a brief created an issue whether ICBC was in fact legally obligated to make the payments in the first place. The payments did happen, and those payments happened over a period of 50 years, as I mentioned earlier, since 1973. They were provided according to reimbursement, a long-established practice over these 50 years. The government has collected these funds, and this was to deal with that situation where funds have been actually collected and what to do with those funds.

The other thing about this particular legislation is that it states that the amounts that were paid before would be applied to this retroactive tax. If there’s anything else owing on top of that, it would be a wash in terms of what’s being discussed in this particular bill.

Another point of interest in this part of the bill that deals with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act is it also talks about there no longer being further reimbursements to be made from ICBC, moving forward. What I take from reading this bill…. The retroactive tax applies to the situation from 1973 onwards to this particular bill. Whatever was collected from ICBC would be applied to this retroactive tax. Moving forward, there would be a kind of change in system, that there would no longer be reimbursements collected from ICBC.

In essence, these changes in this bill retroactively reclassify what ICBC paid in the past. To that extent where there’s no real new money being exchanged, and it’s just a reclassification of old money that has actually been paid, I submit that it is housekeeping in nature, but there could be other consequences as a result of doing that reclassification. That’s going to be the basis for a lot of our questions coming at the committee stage. The fact that we’ve had this reclassification, could that lead to unintended consequences? What does that mean for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia?

I know the bill tries to address that ICBC will not have to provide reimbursements into the future. Still, we need to do a deep dive into the framework here. How will it affect the framework? What safeguards are there? What consultation was actually done to make sure that there aren’t any lingering effects as a result of having these changes in this particular amendment in this part of the bill?

It is a little bit…. What prompts me to say that there are going to be all these queries and all these questions is that we’re not just dealing with a period of a few years or a few months in terms of what payments were made in the past. We’re dealing with payments that have been made from 1973. I wasn’t even born then. That was a long time ago.

[5:00 p.m.]

A lot has changed with ICBC since that period of time. It started out as an insurer, to become a sole insurer. It has changed in the types of services it provides. It has changed in the type of revenue it generated and supplied such revenue to the government. A lot has happened since these last 50 years. That’s why when we have a technical change such as this, a reclassification, we really do need to make sure there are not going to be any unintended consequences as a result of these technical changes in this part of the bill.

It’s important to understand, and it’s important to be clear, this change does not create any new tax. When I had a first look at this bill, I saw the word “tax.” I saw the words “retroactive tax.” Right away that raised alarm bells in my mind. We’re talking about tax, and we’re talking about fiscal policy, but when you do a deeper dive, you realize that there was an issue, and the legislation tries to deal with that situation.

Why it did ring alarm bells when I did see the word “tax” or I did see the words “retroactive tax” in Bill 21 is that I started thinking about the fiscal situation of this province. I started thinking about the taxation policies that have been implemented over the last decade in this province. I started thinking about the hardships that British Columbians are going through at this particular time.

So when I saw the words “tax,” “retroactive tax,” that’s the first thing that went through my mind. But as I got that briefing by the Ministry of Attorney General…. I’m thankful for that briefing. It was quite informative, so I thank the staff and thank the Attorney General for putting that together. That addressed some of my concerns.

I do have further concerns in terms of…. We are dealing with a period of 50 years. We are dealing with a large Crown corporation that has evolved over the last five decades. Although there only seem to be a few sections in the first part of this bill that deal with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, it makes some huge changes in terms of…. It refers to all this revenue or reimbursement that’s happened over 50 years.

That’s a lot of money, and it’s over a very long period of time, and it involves a Crown corporation that is a very large Crown corporation and is responsible for a lot of things in this province in regards to insurance, in terms of licensing now, in terms of dealing with victims of automobile accidents. So we still have to look at it, although some of my concerns were addressed through the briefing as well as reading this bill in detail.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is about the past, not the future. It’s about ensuring that funds already transferred from ICBC to the government remain legally valid and properly classified. In short, in essence, it’s the government closing a loop, a hole, a procedural hole, by formally confirming through legislation that these historic payments were lawful.

I’ve already highlighted earlier that I was given the briefing, that I was made aware there was a class action, and that helped me understand why this bill came about. While the intent here seems to be solely administrative, seems to be technical, seems to be housekeeping in nature, the approach definitely deserves scrutiny.

The retroactive legislation, also in its nature, is something that the opposition must look at carefully. When we’re applying law to things that happened in the past, there are probably less opportunities of scrutiny because it’s past situations. It’s not like you’re doing active consulting to apply something towards the future.

[5:05 p.m.]

We’re dealing with a past situation, so when we’re saying that a whole period of time is going to be swamped with one paintbrush of retroactivity, it requires some close scrutiny.

As we get to the committee, we’ll be looking at what really prompted the government to come up with those specific provisions in the bill. Why those provisions, and why not others? We will be looking at asking questions about: could there have been another way? Could this have been dealt with by, say, a regulation or some sort of administrative procedure?

Did we have to come all the way here to have this debate, in terms of Bill 21 and in terms of this retroactivity and dealing with some previous payments that have been made over the last 50 years?

We want to be able to understand whether there were any alternatives, because even when you bring a bill to the House here, it requires resources. We want to make sure that this specific issue went through the proper channels and that we are here and spending our time wisely.

Then even if there are no significant, let’s just say, unintended consequences, we would still want to know every consequence that could actually happen, even if it’s procedural in nature, because sometimes the government may have not thought about something that, say, the opposition comes up with. So we would like to have our input, in terms of first knowing if there are even any technical or procedural consequences so we can have input on that and make sure we’re acting proactively and acting in a proactive manner rather than a retroactive manner.

Then the other part of it is that we would also like to see what…. How does it really affect the dynamics of ICBC, if anything, at all? We can understand what the history is, why these payments were being made and why we have this procedure in place. But what did ICBC think about this whole legislative process, and what was their input?

Did they say anything, how this could actually affect their operations, for now or maybe even into the future? Say if they’re having other dealings, are they going to now have to change how they operate? Initially, they were involved in the decision-making process to actually provide reimbursements, provide payments.

There may be a similar thought process that has been used by the corporation in dealing with other problems. So we need to know. If we had to make a fix here after 50 years, is there anything else that needs to be fixed in that Crown corporation? That’s an important factor as well.

I’ve spent a lot of my time on the first part of the bill. I’d like to just go to the second part of the bill.

The second part of the bill essentially deals with totally different subject matter. I would say we’ve dealt with a lot of miscellaneous bills. We’ve dealt with a few from the Attorney General’s office. And many of them…. The nature seems to be there are five different subject matters, or six or four. But this comes down to actually two.

That actually raised a little bit of my curiosity, looking at this bill as well. What made the pairing of these two subject matters…? Just two subject matters. What made the government decide to actually put these two together in this particular bill?

[5:10 p.m.]

Part 2 deals with the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. The amendments here are modernizing how the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office, or the PGT’s office, serves children’s property in terms of guardianship.

I had a briefing on this from the Attorney General’s department, again, and something was discussed about, okay, the PGT has a detailed legislative framework to deal with guardian decision-making in terms of, like, health decisions, in terms of the actual person, but what was missing is more detail, more of a legislative framework to actually deal with children’s property when they don’t, say, have a parent that can look after them or they don’t have a legal guardian that can look after them.

This legislation was brought forward to also fill in a loophole or a procedural misstep. This part of the legislation deals with what happens, how the property of children is to be dealt with, when the Public Guardian and Trustee is in the equation. How does that all work out?

I’d just like to say that in my years of practising law, I have dealt with the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office, and I would say they are very thorough in terms of what service they provide. From my experience dealing with them as a lawyer, they were very diligent in terms of making sure they protect children and their property and any sort of proprietary interest that a child may have, in a situation where they have authority on that.

They ask a lot of questions, and sometimes if you put forward a proposal. A lot of times that proposal may come back to you with further follow-up questions to address. When I was looking at the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office in terms of the changes that are being made here to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, I had some comfort based upon my experience dealing with that office and how diligent they are.

This particular part of this bill deals with modernizing the Public Guardian and Trustee framework around children’s property guardianship rights. It’s a critical role. It’s about ensuring that children without parents or legal guardians have a public authority acting in their best interest to manage their financial or property interests.

Currently what we do see is that there are many acts that deal with children and, perhaps, deal with their property as well. Part of what this part of the bill does is it consolidates issues regarding guardianship and children’s property. When you’re consolidating, and you’re trying to have legislation in just one spot, it makes things easier for legal professionals as well. Then you know you’ve got one statute. You can look at that one statute, you’re going to get the proper framework there, and you can proceed forward after that.

As I stated earlier, this particular part of the bill, although it deals with the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, does have some consequential amendments to some other statutes as well.

Some of the other statutes we see, such as the Adoption Act, the Infants Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act…. As a result of these changes, there may be perhaps even some effects on the Family Law Act and family law, the substantive practice of law, as well as any legal professional that’s dealing with any sort of property, involving whether it’s a financial interest in something or it’s tangible property that a child has or is entitled to.

[5:15 p.m.]

Another important part of this particular legislation is that the amendments here make it explicit that when the PGT acts as a property guardian for an Indigenous child, it must also consider the child’s culture, heritage and community connections and Indigenous laws in regard to Indigenous children. So this legislation specifically deals with that as well in this part of the bill.

This bill also provides the PGT with a clearer authority to manage children’s property until the child reaches adulthood — in some cases, as mentioned and talked about in this legislation, to continue providing support into early adulthood.

Those are the two parts of this particular legislation. We’re not going to oppose this legislation at second reading because we want it to go to committee stage. It’s important that…. We have certain questions that we would like to be addressed and that we would like to go and have proper scrutiny.

Some areas of interest that we have, and we’ll probably have some interest to talk about, are how all these different statutes interact with each other and how they’re going to interact with each other, such as the Family Law Act, the Adoption Act, the Infants Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act. How are they going to interact with this Public Guardian and Trustee Act now that it’s amended? How is it going to work? Could there be any technical issues? Could there be…?

We’ve seen legislation here in the past in other housekeeping bills that mentioned that something changed in one legislation, but nothing was changed in a related legislation. And then, like ten years later, there was a change made to that related piece of legislation. So we would have questions along that. Would this legislation amend itself but have a uniformity with these other pieces of legislation as well?

Like I mentioned earlier, another important part to address is the consultation. In the first part of the bill, we dealt with a large amount of financial transactions involving a very large corporation, involving a very lengthy period of time that has passed. And the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has its own way of operating, probably has its own operating procedures.

Now this legislation addresses one operating procedure that was in force before, prior to this bill, and it’s trying to amend that. Will that affect the Insurance Corporation in that aspect? Have they been consulted? What are they saying? And who else has been consulted other than ICBC?

We want to ensure that as a result of this consolidation in the latter part of the bill, like I said earlier, works properly. We have to pay even more attention because it involves children. If you’re a legal professional and you’re going through the court process or you’re practising in that area that involves children, we know that even the court has a lot of questions for legal professionals: “There are children involved in this particular proceeding or in this particular case. What have you done to go the extra mile? What is in the best interest of the child?”

[5:20 p.m.]

In regard to that aspect, the best interests of the child, making sure the child is properly protected, what consultation was done to make sure that any sort of technical amendments that were done are not going to negatively affect children, moving forward?

In conclusion, Bill 21 is a reminder of how legislation often works quietly in the background. It shows that at times, we have to come up with solutions to resolve technical issues that have happened in the past or are currently existing, and some solutions need to be applied to them.

This seems to be administrative in nature. We will all be having questions at committee stage. We will not be opposing this bill at this stage. We look forward to asking the questions to the Attorney General at that stage.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m pleased to speak about the Attorney General Statutes Amendments Act. The amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which is part of it, ensure that the province retains reimbursements for health-related services arising out of vehicle accidents made by the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — ICBC, as everybody knows it — since the early 1970s.

The amendments support the long-standing practice that every B.C. government since the early 1970s has used to ask ICBC, as the insurer of those who caused accidents or engaged in activity that elevated the risk of accidents, to contribute to the health-related services costs. The proposed amendments will protect taxpayers by establishing a valid retroactive tax that ensures that no funds would need to be paid by taxpayers as a result of litigation challenges to the reimbursement practice.

Those litigation challenges include a certified class action lawsuit against the province, which is essentially the taxpayers of British Columbia, that has been advanced on behalf of ICBC ratepayers based on an argument that any increases in ICBC-based vehicle insurance premiums that funded the reimbursements from ICBC to the province were unconstitutional taxes. Courts have recognized this use of retroactive taxation as a valid, constitutional way for governments to respond to these types of claims.

Importantly, the amendments do not require any funds to change hands. No new funds will be paid by ICBC or its insured to the province under this new retroactive tax. The bill also stops reimbursements by ICBC to the province, going forward, as government looks to explore other models to fund health-related service costs.

These amendments do not impact the accident benefits that individuals injured in accidents receive and will not affect basic vehicle insurance rates. This legislation follows amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act passed in 2021, which provided retroactive validation for the agreements that ICBC entered into with the province of British Columbia to reimburse government for costs of health-related services arising out of vehicle accidents.

On average, since government enacted major ICBC reforms with the implementation of enhanced care, customers with full ICBC basic and optimal coverage saved an average of $490 on their vehicle insurance, compared to their premiums in the old model. Eligible basic customers have received $640 in five separate rebates, totalling approximately $2.7 billion.

I just want to extend my gratitude to the legal team that’s been doing exceptional work throughout on this file.

This bill also makes amendments to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. These amendments will establish a more comprehensive statutory framework relating to the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia as property guardian for children.

The Public Guardian and Trustee has an important role in protecting the legal and financial interests of children for whom they are acting as property guardians. This role includes, for example, managing legal claims for damages due to injury or loss suffered by the child and applying for financial benefits that the child may qualify for.

[5:25 p.m.]

The Public Guardian and Trustee may become property guardian when a child is in the continuing care of the province, when a child has been voluntarily relinquished for adoption in circumstances where there is no one else acting as property guardian for the child or when the PGT has entered into an agreement with an Indigenous authority to provide property and guardianship services.

The amendments to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act set out specific authority to the Public Guardian and Trustee to enter agreements with Indigenous authorities in relation to acting as property guardian for Indigenous children for whom the Indigenous authority is providing child and family services under Indigenous laws.

These agreements relate to circumstances where the Indigenous authority is providing child and family services to children who were not previously in the care of the director of child welfare under the provincial child welfare law.

To establish a consistent statutory obligation and enhance transparency in the manner that the PGT makes decisions, the amendments will set out a requirement that in all circumstances where the Public Guardian and Trustee is a child’s property guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee must consider the best interests of the child.

Specific factors that must be considered by the Public Guardian and Trustee are also set out, as well as additional factors that must be considered when the child is an Indigenous child, such as the customs, cultures and traditions of the child’s Indigenous community; the importance of the child belonging to their Indigenous community; and any applicable Indigenous laws.

The legislation will provide additional clarity, for example, by setting out the circumstances in which the Public Guardian and Trustee may become a child’s property guardian and when the Public Guardian and Trustee’s property guardianship terminates.

In addition, a new section will set out the general powers, duties and functions of the Public Guardian and Trustee as a property guardian for children. Amendments also address challenges faced by the Public Guardian and Trustee in practice. These include authority for the collection of information and the disclosure of information to the Public Guardian and Trustee that is specific to their role in relation to property guardianship for children.

As well, to ease the Public Guardian and Trustee’s burden in demonstrating their authority and to provide greater certainty for third parties, the provisions set out what constitutes evidence of the Public Guardian and Trustee’s authority as property guardian for a child.

Consistent with the objective of establishing a more comprehensive framework, some provisions related to the Public Guardian and Trustee acting as property guardian for children will move from the Infants Act to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

These provisions include authority for the Public Guardian and Trustee to act as property guardian when the child has no other guardian or if the guardian refuses or is incompetent to act, to ensure that a child’s legal and financial interests are protected when a child does not have anyone else to do so.

Existing authority for a director of child welfare under provincial child welfare law to act as personal guardian in similar circumstances will be removed from the Infants Act as a sufficient and robust framework is already in place under the Child, Family and Community Services Act.

Again, just to close up, I’m grateful for the work not only of the Office of the PGT and all the work they’ve done but also all the lawyers that have put that together.

Gavin Dew: I know that the Attorney General is waiting with bated breath for committee stage on this bill, where we will have the opportunity to robustly dig into every aspect in considerable depth. But at this point, I will speak very briefly at a high level to our understanding of the bill and some of the intent.

We understand, as described, that the primary goal is to retroactively reclassify payments from ICBC to the government for health care costs as tax revenue instead of reimbursement transfers.

In reviewing the policy in intent and in preparing to have more detailed conversations at the committee stage, we, obviously, want to ensure that there is absolute clarity provided during committee stage as to the intent and effect of the change and to ensure that there is no funny business around accounting, as we’ve seen with issues elsewhere. But we are operating from the presumption that this is good-faith legislation brought forward to address what is primarily an accounting strategy.

As it relates to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act amendments, we certainly are, at this stage, viewing the legislation as being primarily housekeeping and modernization, with some important priorities identified.

[5:30 p.m.]

Certainly, I anticipate that, at committee stage, we will seek a little bit more information around the intent of how the property guardian formulation will work at a practical level. But at core, these are logical changes that make sense.

I note the amendments to new section 8.3 of the PGTA laying out clear rules for how the PGT must act in the best interests of the child and the special consideration of Indigenous customs, community and laws if the child is Indigenous and certainly recognize the importance of ensuring that we have the appropriate toolkit and rule set in place in that regard.

Sorry, I should correct myself. Section 8.3 is referring to the mechanisms for information sharing between public bodies. My scribbled notes are slightly unclear.

I certainly will be interested to learn more about the application of those mechanisms for information sharing between public bodies. Certainly, we are aware, both as it relates to care for minors as well as to broader issues within our social support and health care systems, that there are, obviously, serious challenges around breaking down information silos while also respecting the applicable privacy legislation.

I certainly do think it’s very important to see the conversation advanced around information sharing between the variety of different bodies acting to ensure appropriate care for minors. I’m sure that we’ll have some questions simply to explore exactly how that’s being implemented and exactly what challenges there may be around privacy, what positive precedents can be set around the ways in which information is shared in a smoother way.

An issue that comes up on a regular basis is our challenges, as a province, in sharing information across our different health authorities and within our health authorities with a variety of different duplicative databases. Should there be learnings around information sharing between different bodies, I certainly hope that those are opportunities for learning that may be shared across government and that may present opportunities for improvement in the experience that individuals have in other systems as well, including, but not limited to, the health care system.

At a principle level, the amendments to better protect children when the public is their guardian, I believe, are a noble cause and appear to be quite solid amendments.

Again, as we canvass those further at the committee stage, I think it’ll be important for us to make sure that there are not any residual issues that need to be addressed, certainly, as my colleague the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough has identified, to make sure that we fully canvass the intent and effect of some of the new mechanisms created, including, but not limited to, the creation of the new legal term “property guardian” and the separation of property guardianship from personal guardianship.

I think that the intent there is reasonably clear, as articulated in here, but we may have further questions, simply to get clarity around exactly how that will be enacted. That will be, I think, a worthwhile and valuable discussion, given the importance of making sure that we do have appropriate property guardianship for children.

Looking at clause 6 and the mandate for the PGT to perform their duties and functions in the best interests of a child, I find it notable and worthy of further discussion the ways in which there is a requirement to consider the child’s needs and development, impact and well-being in relationships and, when applicable, their own input, as well as, too, recognition of the times that may not be appropriate.

I think that certainly is an area we would like to better understand, simply in terms of the ways in which decisions are being made for minors. Just would like to hear a little bit more about some of the thinking and discussion behind the way that that is structured, and that’s obviously important.

[5:35 p.m.]

Similarly, I think we will probably have questions looking for the Attorney General to further outline the elements around the specific issues for Indigenous children as it relates to their customs, culture and traditions, just to understand exactly how that’s being enacted, how that’s envisioned and how there may or may not be a crossover across different functions and ministries in the administration of that portion.

That’s obviously a very important and salient area that needs to be treated with appropriate sensitivity to make sure that it’s being well enacted. Obviously, I think, as with many other issues, we want to ensure that there’s appropriate conversation happening across the different areas of government, to make sure that implementation is not happening in silos, is not duplicative and is not contrary to other objectives stated elsewhere.

Looking to clause 10, I envision that we will likely have interest in gaining more information around the powers for maintenance and education, the ways in which property guardian roles are laid out and, obviously, the powers conferred. I think, again, the mechanism is a logical one. Simply, we may have questions around exactly how that is envisioned to be implemented and the thought process that went into it.

Similarly, we may have questions around clause 13 and amendments to section 3.2 of the Adoption Act, in order to better understand the thought process around Indigenous self-governance and the ways in which that substituted language acknowledges, when Indigenous children are adopted into government care, that the law must be in line with the principle of the Indigenous right to self-governance and self-determination, in accordance with section 35 of the constitution. That’s an area where I think there’s likely to be some logical discussion around the ways in which that’s being implemented.

On the whole, however, I don’t envision that we have any fundamental objection to this legislation. I envision that we’ll have some good and positive discussion at committee stage around some of the details, in order to make sure that we have a fulsome understanding of what’s being envisioned and that the implementation approach is solid. I look forward to having that further conversation at the appropriate time.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to my colleague.

I’m not going to go through all the clauses, knowing that there’s going to be more than enough time in our general questions when we get to committee to be able to have these conversations. I just wanted to bring a brief overview from my perspective and just go through a few of the items that I see, not necessarily red flags but opportunities for us to talk about.

I appreciate what the Attorney General is doing in modernizing so much of the legislation that we have in the province. Much of it is outdated, and much of it needs to be brought into not only the reality of us being able to work government-to-government with our Indigenous and First Nations but also understanding some of the capacity challenges that those Indigenous communities have.

One of the things that we talked about is that the new Public Guardian and Trustee Act will be able to modernize and clarify the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee, which we’ll call the PGT, and it talks about the responsibilities of property guardians for children and young adults. That raises another issue that maybe we can discuss when we get to committee.

We’ve talked about this whole issue around the age of majority. When we talk about young adults at the age of 27, is that still appropriate in today’s setting, in what we’re trying to accomplish throughout the guardianship of a child? That may be something that we can bring up when we get to committee stage, trying to see if there are some changes that need to be made in that definition as well.

Some of the key amendments to the act. There will be broadening authority inasmuch as now the PGT will act as the property guardian for the children in managing the assets on their behalf.

[5:40 p.m.]

Access to information was raised already. Again, there are always flags that go up when we talk about information — how it’s going to be retrieved, how it’s going to be gathered and how it’s going to be shared. I’m quite sure that we’ll have meaningful discussions once we get to committee on what the safeguards are and what the government has planned, for us to be able to ensure that integrity throughout the entire process.

There’s another one with the transfer of authority from the Infants Act. Again, that’s going to be just a cleanup. Again, that’s just straightforward stuff.

Termination of guardianship. There are going to be clear guidelines that have been established when the guardianship terminates. Again, we’ll have those opportunities in committee to be able to discuss all the language that’s in that portion of the bill, in the act, and determine: is it enough, or should there be changes?

I know it seems to take a lot of time for us to have these conversations, but I think we want to try to make sure that we get it right. Particularly, it’s been quite a long time since we’ve even had a review of this act.

Another one that comes to mind, of course, which we’ve discussed a lot and I mentioned at the beginning of my conversation, is Indigenous collaboration. I totally agree that when we’re engaged with our First Nations, we’re having the opportunity, particularly from the federal government’s perspective, of making sure that our First Nations are more in control of their own health and well-being in their communities.

We’ve seen positive results throughout the province in many of our First Nations building the capacity up so that they can be in control of those services and those systems in place. It’s a positive step for British Columbia. We certainly support those initiatives in moving forward with our First Nations.

We also realize that there are going to be some steps along the way that are going to need additional resources from the government. We’re going to have to be able to have that conversation as to what levels of support are going to be needed for us to be able to implement the integrity of this bill.

One of the things that I’d like to talk a little bit about is that it should be providing more protection for children under their guardianship. I believe the Attorney General mentioned not loopholes but some things that can fall through the process in whether a legal guardian actually has the ability to be able to look after that child.

If circumstances change and now that child has to be put in other care, it obviously makes sense for us, particularly with our Indigenous communities, to be able to make sure that those decisions are made on the ground with the people that are in those communities.

From our perspective, that can also cause some other issues because, again, a lot of our First Nations are still building capacity. They’re still having challenges in not being able to have their own health centres, not being able to have some of the wraparound services that they would want to provide like psychiatric care, certainly more substance abuse programs, depending on their needs in those communities.

So we need to recognize some of the issues that come across from that and be able to make sure that we are able to do everything that we can to be able to assist those First Nations communities as much as we can.

One of the challenges, also, is the centralization of power. I know many of the members on this side are always a little bit leery when we start talking about an increase in bureaucracy. A lot of times that leads to delays. Many times it leads to unnecessary red tape. I’m hoping the intent of this bill is to be able to streamline the process, have it so that we have the opportunity so that we get more community engagement.

We have the flexibility. Certain communities are going to react differently, depending on how we apply the new standards and to be able to make sure that we can make those changes in a meaningful and substantial way and not just have to get bogged down in the bureaucracy that we’ve seen in so many other times before.

The other one that comes up are the privacy implications. Again, when we start changing authorities, we have to make it crystal clear that these things are done properly, that we have oversight and that if there are issues, they are brought to the government’s attention and they are fixed and not just hidden behind closed doors.

[5:45 p.m.]

In closing, I would like to say that Bill 21 represents a significant shift in the governance of property guardianship for the children of British Columbia. While these amendments aim to modernize and clarify the PGT’s role, we still believe that they introduce new challenges and concerns, particularly regarding the balance of power, privacy and Indigenous autonomy. It is crucial that ongoing dialogue and oversight accompany these changes to ensure that the best interests of the children and communities are upheld.

With that, I yield.

Larry Neufeld: I’m pleased to speak today in support of Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

This bill addresses two distinct but important areas, the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

The first modernizes financial and legal arrangements between ICBC and the provincial government, a change that may appear technical but, indeed, carries significant implications for fiscal accountability and the structure of our insurance system.

The second strengthens how we protect the property and financial interests of children, particularly those without private guardians or those under public or Indigenous care.

Part 1 of this bill retroactively reclassifies payments from ICBC to the provincial government for health care costs as a tax revenue rather than a reimbursement. This measure effectively closes the book on decades of accounting overlap between ICBC’s insurance funds and the province’s health budget. Declaring this a tax has existed since 1973.

For those of you that may or may not admit that your hair is as grey as mine, you might remember 1973. Do you?

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: No? Okay. Well, I should shut up then. Thank you.

And I will say that no further reimbursements or disputes will occur between the two entities following the passing of this bill.

On the surface, this may seem like mere fiscal housekeeping, but it does, perhaps, represent something much larger. By ending the reimbursement model, Bill 21 permanently folds ICBC’s medical payments into the public health care system, thus simplifying the process and ensuring that crash victims’ medical care remains unaffected. I doubt anyone in this House would argue that that is, in fact, a responsible move.

However, this government must acknowledge what this actually signals, a permanent entrenchment of the no-fault insurance framework. By retroactively classifying payments as taxes, the bill effectively prevents any future government from reopening these accounts or reconsidering the structure of ICBC’s financial obligations. In other words, it locks in the accounting foundation of the no-fault model.

From the perspective of this side of the House, I would suggest that demands scrutiny. We support, without question, fiscal clarity and applaud the government for introducing that into this bill. We also, obviously, support elimination of redundant bureaucracy — again, another foundation of what we would champion ourselves. But we oppose any attempt to restrict the flexibility of future governments to reform a system that remains controversial among ratepayers.

The principle of good governance requires transparency, not entrenchment. So while we support this amendment for its technical necessity and its efficiency, we remain critical of how it limits future policy debate.

As in part 2, the amendments with respect to protecting vulnerable children, another very important component of Bill 21, deal with, clearly, something that is far more human, an incredibly important component: the rights and welfare of children under public guardianship. Again, no one in this House would question that at all.

[5:50 p.m.]

Part 2 consolidates outdated sections of the Infants Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, modernizing the language, strengthening the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee, PGT, and embedding Indigenous considerations directly into law.

Specifically, the bill ensures that when a child has no capable guardian, or when guardianship is shared with Indigenous authorities, the PGT acts in the best interests of the child, considering their development, education, relationships and cultural identity.

For Indigenous children, it goes further, requiring the PGT to consider customs, community traditions and applicable Indigenous laws. This aligns British Columbia’s framework with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, both of which affirm Indigenous self-governance in matters of family and community.

On this side of the House, we certainly do support these measures. They bring clarity, consistency and dignity to a system that for too long has been administratively fragmented.

That said, the concern lies that with such centralization comes a responsibility for transparency. The Public Guardian and Trustee must be empowered and also monitored. With new authority over property, financial management and trust distribution for minors, there must be strong oversight mechanisms, regular audits and public reporting on how these powers are exercised.

We support this modernization wholeheartedly but urge that its implementation be accompanied by annual accountability reports to this Legislature, ensuring public confidence in how children’s property and trust assets are managed.

Bill 21 illustrates the complexity of modern governance, technical in its wording but impactful in its reach. It simplifies the fiscal relationship between ICBC and the province, a very welcome efficiency, yet we must remain vigilant against the quiet cementing of political models that may restrict reform. It strengthens the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee, a very important step forward for child protection but only if paired with transparency and oversight.

Good legislation should streamline without concealing, it should protect without concentrating, and it should reform without erasing flexibility. Bill 21 largely succeeds in that balance, though its implications demand continued attention from both this House and future parliaments.

In closing, the Conservative Party of British Columbia supports Bill 21. We do so because it enhances clarity in our legal framework, strengthens protection for children and responsibly updates outdated legislation. With our support, however, comes a professional caution that efficiency must never replace accountability and that fiscal housekeeping must not become political lock-in.

Bill 21 is a strong step forward to a more coherent, more modern and more accountable system of public administration. That is something all sides of this House should strive for.

Rosalyn Bird: I rise today to speak to Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. We often look at housekeeping bills as mandatory pieces of legislation. For the most part, they often seem innocuous, but they may actually have some unforeseen circumstances that were completely unintentional.

I’m not going to speak to beginning of the bill. My concerns are towards the end of the bill, as this particular piece of legislation has a number of changes in regard to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act in conjunction with a number of other acts, particularly the Child, Family and Community Service Act, Patients Property Act, Infants Act and the Adoption Act — quite a few pieces of legislation that are looking at some changes and are going to be looked at in conjunction with this.

[5:55 p.m.]

As the new critic for MCFD — I’m looking at the minister across the way here — I’m very cognizant of the complications when you start to include and/or transfer roles and responsibilities to First Nations and Indigenous communities.

I think it’s extremely positive to see First Nations authorities engaged and willing to take responsibility for both property and financial guardianship of their children and youth in their communities. However, that is a complicated process, as the minister will agree to, and those agreements don’t come lightly and without a lot of conversation and a lot of considerations.

There have been a number of additions and deletions regarding the relationship, transference and sharing of authority between the Public Guardian and Trustee and First Nations and Indigenous communities. Although, like I said, this is a positive step, I want to actually make sure, as does this entire side of the House, that those relationships and those changes are positive ones.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is well aware that that doesn’t always happen overnight. There are a number of considerations that should be taken and looked at more closely during this bill’s committee stage.

There have been some definitions that have been changed and/or added to this particular piece of legislation. I do want to ensure, during committee stage, that they don’t actually change and/or have different meanings in regard to other pieces of legislation that this one will work alongside. There are some things that are going to be removed or deleted from the Infants Act that I may also have some more clarifying questions for during committee stage.

As my colleagues have also mentioned, there are some questions around how this act is actually going to play out. Are these roles and responsibilities going to be completely transferred to First Nations and Indigenous communities? Is this the first step in building a relationship where those decisions will be in conjunction with those groups and then eventually transferred? That is something I would actually like more clarification on during committee stage also.

There are some very large complexities around having a new group of individuals. The Public Guardian and Trustee has done a phenomenal job to date. They have a process that works. It is well respected, and it has benefited many youth, children and families across our province.

I hope that that continues to be the case, although there are some complexities when we look at the legal, financial, health and education considerations with a child, youth or family in an Indigenous or First Nations community. Those are things that we should look at more closely during committee stage.

There is also a section, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, that talks about a particular age — 27 years of age, as indicated in both this and another act. This might be a good time to look and see if that is an applicable age at this junction; 27 years seems a very odd number to me. I would be curious as to where that came from. I think that warrants some investigation as to whether it should remain that high, or if it needs to be removed and/or lowered to 19, which is age of consent.

I would also agree with my colleagues that there needs to be a framework set up that is well administered, works respectfully and efficiently and provides fair and competent oversight for the structure of children’s property and financial issues. Is this legislation seeking to replace the duties of the existing and capable body, or is this just the first step in moving towards that goal? We must consider whether these changes are necessary or whether the current system could be adapted in collaboration with Indigenous authorities without a complete legislative overhaul.

I would be curious and would like to ask the question at committee if this model has been implemented in other jurisdictions, what their success rate was with that and whether we can learn from those frameworks to make this as efficient and as effective as possible for all children and youth that will be impacted.

[6:00 p.m.]

The question has been raised in regard to capacity and training. Do First Nations communities and Indigenous communities currently have the ability to take on these roles and responsibilities? That is something that should be considered very carefully.

Again, as the Minister of Children and Families can attest to, sometimes those are challenges that we don’t originally see. They complicate, and they add challenges and difficulties when moving through these processes. It would be nice to address and to recognize those, ahead of rolling out a piece of legislation that may not actually be realistic at this time.

With the parties that are going to be involved in this transference and/or sharing of power and responsibility, I would also like to learn more, in the committee stage, about what collaboration and/or consultation was used in order to come to these changes.

Did it include the Public Guardian and Trustee? Did it include child and family services, both in and outside of First Nations and non-First Nations communities? Were there legal experts that were consulted? Are First Nations communities and Indigenous communities familiar with, and do they understand enough about, the fiduciary responsibilities in regard to children’s property? Ensuring that every stakeholder has a voice will be essential for a smooth and effective transition.

To sum up, just to repeat and to acknowledge, I think this piece of legislation is positive in its spirit. I’m excited that First Nations and Indigenous communities are wanting to take on more roles and responsibilities in regard to their youth and their young people and their families.

I look forward to working with the other side of the House to build those processes out so they are most effective and efficient and they benefit all communities, all youth and all families across the province, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to close debate.

Okay, I’ll put the question.

Members, we have a question for second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Lana Popham: I call debate on second reading of Bill 20.

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act

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

The Construction Prompt Payment Act is aimed at improving fairness and efficiency in the construction sector. This bill is designed to address a long-standing issue — delays in payments down the construction chain.

Although everyone deserves to get paid on time, the problem of late payment is amplified in the construction sector because of the industry’s complex contracting structure, with owners, contractors and subcontractors all playing their own important roles in seeing projects get built. This structure means that payment often has to flow down through several layers, creating payment delays that create significant cash flow problems for those lower down the construction chain.

The intent behind this proposed legislation is clear — to establish predictable, enforceable timelines for payment and to provide a fast, accessible adjudication process for resolving payment-related disputes.

We’ve modelled this legislation on successful frameworks in other jurisdictions, including Ontario, where prompt payment rules have been in place since 2019. Evidence from Ontario and elsewhere shows that these measures are having the intended effect, reducing payment delays and establishing a culture of timely payments.

Importantly, the proposed legislation would not come into force immediately upon enactment. We recognize the need for industry to adapt, so there will be a period of at least several months before it’s brought into force. This will give business, including government, the time required to update internal processes and prepare for the new requirements. This is a positive step forward for B.C.’s construction industry, an industry which is essential to the growth and strength of our province.

[6:05 p.m.]

Right now we’re building all across this province, and with all the building that’s going on, we rely on so many workers in the construction sector, which drives our economy and builds hospitals and schools, homes and so much more across the sector.

This is a move to support workers through that process, to make sure they’re paid on time, including a whole bunch of small businesses that have come up to me and spoken to me about the challenges they’ve had.

When you’re not paid on time, you have to consider how you’re going to pay your workers, how you’re going to carry the load of the project. What that does. It increases the cost of the project, it adds to delays, and it creates a lot of uncertainty for workers that just want to get paid so they can pay for all of the other things in their life and support their families.

As a government, not only do we want to continue building this province; we want to support workers. We want to support those small businesses and all those different parts of the construction industry and sector that contributes so much to our province.

I’m really grateful for the leadership that existed — it still exists — during our development of this bill. We relied on a whole range of sectors and representatives in the construction sector, whether it’s trades, the B.C. Construction Association, and labour, so many more, that sat down with us to piece through where the challenges are and how we could introduce something that really met the needs of this province and took into account the needs of the workforce.

As a result of that, their passion guided us and myself through what was needed to support the construction sector in B.C. This bill is a product of all of that work. I am forever grateful for that, and I know that if this bill receives the support of this House, it’s going to help a lot of people that are doing so much for all of us in this province every day.

Steve Kooner: I rise today on behalf of the official opposition and the Conservative caucus of British Columbia as the critic for Attorney General to speak to Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act.

I’ve had a chance to have a look at this. I’ve also had a briefing from the Attorney General’s department. We’ve heard, from the Attorney General just now, the amount of consultation that they’ve done with the construction industry. The Attorney General stated that they reviewed other, comparative legislation and that they looked at what the need was for the construction industry. All those things sound good.

Our perspective here from the official opposition is going to be that the intent to help the construction industry is very good. Basically, our thing is that we’ll be supporting this legislation at second reading, but we will have questions. We will have proposed amendments to make this legislation better, because we want this legislation to actually help the construction industry. We don’t want any sort of hindrances.

We do have some issues from the way this legislation is written. We will be supporting it to the extent that we want this legislation to get through this House on second reading and make it to committee stage so that we can review it in detail, ask some tough questions and consider some proposed amendments from our side.

The reason why I put that out there is the construction industry is a big part of B.C.’s economy. It’s a huge part of B.C.’s economy. We have a lot of people in a lot of different trades, and the construction industry plays a big part here.

This bill has been a long time coming. We needed something in terms of creating efficiency within the construction industry. The question is: does it go far enough? Are there safeguards for the construction industry in this, too, to make sure that all their issues get addressed and that all their payment issues get addressed?

[6:10 p.m.]

Like I mentioned earlier, Bill 20, this legislation, addresses the issue that has been raised repeatedly. We heard the Attorney General mention that the construction industry wanted this, so it’s repeatedly raised by contractors, also probably subcontractors and tradespeople, right across this province.

We do see a lot of times, when the construction industry slows down in this province, that it does have a huge effect on the economy of this particular province, because the real estate sector and the construction sector play a huge role here in British Columbia.

The construction industry is one of the largest economic drivers in British Columbia. It probably employs more than a quarter-million British Columbians, contributes billions to the gross domestic product of this province and sustains thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in every community.

Yet despite this strength, despite the extent of a large size of such an industry, this industry has faced some chronic and systemic challenges. Payments have moved far too slowly down the contractual chain. At some times, we see people in the construction industry.... Sometimes when we think about the construction industry, we think about million-dollar contracts. We think about hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts and work that’s being done. But sometimes there are some small projects, too, that may only involve like $2,000, $5,000, $10,000.

Some of the businesses view the smaller amounts owing as a cost of business, and it shouldn’t be that way. If you do the work, put in the labour, you should be able to reap the reward of your work. That’s the way it should work.

I’ve known in my career as a legal professional…. I’ve had a lot of clientele that were construction-based, and a lot of times it was coming down to: “I haven’t been paid. The contractor told me to come back next month.” You go back next month and still haven’t been paid. And it’s like a year and a half or two years down the road. At that time, you’re worried about time limitations in a court case. This has been an ongoing problem, and I believe the construction industry will welcome a simplified process for them to be able to collect payment and get prompt payment.

Bill 20 seeks to change how the construction industry operates in terms of receiving payment. Bill 20 introduces clear payment timelines and a faster mechanism for resolving payment disputes.

These are the objectives that are quite clearly seen in this bill. When this bill talks about adjudicator, talks about the timeline to issue an invoice and the time to actually get payment after that invoice, it sets up a structure. When there’s an initial contractor, they get paid. How does it operate with the subcontractors?

I would like to get more into the substance of this particular bill and what Bill 20 actually does in substance and purpose. Bill 20 ensures that workers contributing to service or materials on construction products in B.C. will be paid on time.

The government states that for too long the construction industry has been dealing with this issue of delayed payments and that it can cause serious issues in terms of financial strain to these businesses.

[6:15 p.m.]

As it’s written, the legislation seems to support small businesses and contractors and subcontractors. The bill seeks to introduce proper payments, which sets a deadline for payments on construction projects. It ensures that when owners receive a proper invoice, payment will flow quickly down the chain.

If you get faster payments and things are running smoother in the construction industry, hopefully you’ll be able to prevent project delays, because sometimes you need to have that funding to actually purchase materials, get those building supplies going. But if you don’t have the revenue coming in or the income source coming in, that affects your next project, because at times you may have to purchase building materials, depending on what your contract is with your original contractor with that project.

Sometimes, in addition to project delays, you could see job losses. Well, if revenue isn’t coming in fast enough, then you won’t be able to pay out fast enough, so that takes you to the job market. You may not be able to hold on to employees or staff people. So that was a live concern prior to this legislation.

We know the fundamentals of business. You’ve got to be able to manage your balance sheet. You’ve got to be able to manage what comes in and what goes out. You’ve got to manage to stay afloat. And if you’re not able to do that, that could be the recipe for bankruptcy. That is a real concern, in terms of if you’re not receiving prompt payment.

This bill is ultimately about protecting and supporting the construction sector to ensure that everyone gets an accessible process to resolve disputes, keep payments flowing, keep the construction projects on track. This bill applies to any work or materials provided to build or improve something that is under contract.

This act goes further. It sets a time limit in terms of when invoices need to be rendered by and payments need to be rendered by. The bill ensures that owners must pay a contractor within 28 days of an invoice date.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It also ensures what happens if an initial person gets paid. Once an invoice is rendered and, say, if the payment is made within 28 days, what if there’s a subcontractor? Well, then that subcontractor needs to be paid within seven days. So this bill seems to set a formula of how to deal with contractors and subcontractors and what the time limits are of each of them to actually get paid.

With this legislation, when you look at it, there are some loose ends that are left. And those loose ends…. You have to be able to look at the regulations. When you have regulations…. The issue with regulations is that there’s no oversight in terms of what those regulations may put out and how it may affect the industry. And that’s an important factor.

When this legislation is here to kind of protect the construction industry, we need to know that whatever regulations that are going to come out, they’re actually going to go ahead and protect the construction industry. We need to know that as a result of the regulations, that will not water down this legislation. We do not need something that waters down the legislation, because that will eventually still affect the businesses. It will still affect the contractors in this construction industry.

The intent of this bill is good, and we want to make sure, even through with the regulations, it continues to help the construction industry.

Noting the hour, I’d like to adjourn the second reading debate, but I’d like to reserve my time to continue my speech at the next sitting.

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 12 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Lana Popham moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

Recognizing the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, if you have any comments before we begin.

On clause 1.

Hon. Nina Krieger: First, I would like to introduce the team who is joining me for committee stage. Toby Louie is assistant deputy minister of RoadSafetyBC and superintendent of motor vehicles. Steven Roberts is the associate director of driver licensing programs of ICBC. Connie Van Schaik is manager of driver licensing policy at ICBC. And Sharon Stewart is executive director of RoadSafetyBC.

I’d like to thank this team for all of their hard work and dedication that has led to the development and presentation of Bill 12. Also, thanks in advance for their support during this committee stage.

I do have a few opening remarks that I’d like to make before we enter into debate. In the spirit of substantial parliamentary debate focused on developing laws in our society’s best interest — in this case, in the interest of road safety — there has, after second reading, been a technical briefing for some of the Conservative MLAs on the intent and some of the details in Bill 12.

I’d just like to thank the members opposite for engaging in that discussion and bringing forth your ideas and your experience as former law enforcement as well. Certainly, some of the stories that you shared, as former law enforcement, in the second reading were deeply moving and a reminder about what is at stake when we are discussing road safety in our province.

I think our shared goal is to strengthen both the graduated licensing program and the motorcycle licensing program to make our roads safer for everyone. We know that graduated licensing programs do make a difference, and we want to build on the successful programs that we have here in B.C. by continuing to instil safe driving behaviours in new drivers.

The province’s proposed legislation will improve graduated licensing programs to create safer, simpler, more accessible processes for new drivers and strengthen safety standards for motorcycle riders and all road users.

[3:10 p.m.]

ICBC and RoadSafety were key partners in the research, development and implementation planning of the proposed changes to the graduated licensing program. They conducted joint consultations and formed two advisory working groups to guide the development of the proposed GLP and MLP models, bringing together key stakeholders and subject matter experts.

During the consultations, we heard that equity, accessibility and affordability were barriers to getting a full class 5 licence, particularly for rural and remote communities. There was support from those we consulted for moving forward with the changes that are proposed.

Significantly, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, who were a key group engaged throughout the process, said that they support the proposed amendments to the graduated licensing program, emphasizing that the changes will improve efficiency while preserving the program’s core purpose.

For those going through the graduated licensing program, Bill 12 replaces a single-exit checkpoint with a new, additional 12-month monitoring period that includes restrictions for zero alcohol and drugs as well as no driving prohibitions and suspensions. This extension means that B.C. will have 48 months of a graduated licensing program, and it will be longer than most Canadian provinces for younger drivers.

For new motorcyclists, we are proposing stronger rules while riders learn to ride, for their protection and to enhance road safety. Like the graduated licensing program, new motorcyclists will also have a monitoring and restriction period.

We know that driving experience and age are the best predictors of safe driving. These changes will give new drivers another full year behind the wheel before they can earn their full licence.

Not only will these changes help new drivers build safe driving behaviours but they’ll reduce barriers for earning a full licence in rural and remote communities by not requiring individuals to travel long distances to complete the road test to earn their class 5 licences.

These changes aim to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, especially among new motorcycle riders. We are looking forward to engaging in discussion with members opposite on Bill 12.

Thank you in advance, and I’m looking forward to the discussion.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Richmond Centre.

Do you have any comments?

Hon Chan: Yeah, I just have a very short comment.

Thank you to the minister and all your staff and your ministerial staff as well. We had a good meeting just two weeks ago. That was a good briefing that answered some of our questions. But some of the questions we will be raising here again, just to make sure it’s on record and to make sure that we have all the statistics, all the facts and all the information so that we can either support this bill or not.

I think both sides have the same goal: to make our roads safer and to make sure our GLP program is good for everybody, accessible for everybody and, at the same time, not compromising the road safety.

I’m looking forward to this session, and hopefully, we can have a good result.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Macklin McCall: I just have a few questions here regarding right now, specifically the driver experience in different classes of persons.

Well, first thing, I’ll just ask: what is the definition of “classes of persons”? If the minister could just explain what that means, specifically, please.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

In B.C., there are different classes of drivers’ licences — class 5 and class 7, for instance. The question relates to subsets, within those classes, of groups of people. So the intention here is to create a subset of mature drivers for the purpose of advancing this bill.

Macklin McCall: Why is cabinet being given the power to prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The Motor Vehicle Act, I think it’s important to point out, is an older act that is structured differently than more recent legislation. The Motor Vehicle Act does not set out specifics within the act but rather refers to regulations.

Bill 12 was drafted within the existing scheme of the Motor Vehicle Act. The supporting regulations, like one pertaining to older drivers, for instance, are developed transparently through engagement with stakeholders such as the driver-training industry, Indigenous partners, and so on — and public agencies and law enforcement as well. It’s a step, in terms of the regulation, that is needed to enact this bill.

[3:20 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain what classes of persons the government envisions prescribing different experience requirements for?

Hon. Nina Krieger: We envision creating a class based on age to support the mature driving scheme.

Macklin McCall: How will this be rolled out fairly to ensure that some groups are not treated unequally?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This matter is about identifying a subgroup, and everybody within that subgroup would be treated equally and in a transparent way. This relates, specifically, to drivers over the age of 25, and they would all be treated fairly.

Certainly, the notions of accessibility are key to this legislation. This particular change reflected some of the consultation feedback that we received from Indigenous stakeholders about the importance of addressing barriers to licensing for older drivers where licensing is necessary to access employment and education and other essential matters.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister.

Just so I’m clear, when you’re speaking of class of persons being age…. You mentioned 25.

Are those the two thresholds, 25 and older and 25 and under, or will there be other classes of person with respect to age?

Hon. Nina Krieger: It will be 16 to 24 and 25 and older.

Macklin McCall: Who previously had the ability to prescribe different amounts of driving experience to different classes of person or classes? Why now, if this passes, does cabinet get to do so?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: ICBC has this authority within the context of the Motor Vehicle Act. What this will allow us to do is for cabinet to give authority to ICBC to create distinctions within the classes of licence as they relate to the subgroup of drivers older than 25.

Bryan Tepper: For the last little while, I’ve had several people come into my office who are between the ages of 35 and 45, I would say, and they’ve had issues passing their driver’s test. We recall that during my speech at second reading, I did mention about coordination lacking, as you get older, in playing video games with the younger folk nowadays.

That leads to my question, I guess. The minister said that age is the best predictor of driver safety. If we had a 40-year-old that’s a first-time driver, do we know if that age is a predictor of safe driving, or does that age constitute a barrier to the ability to learn how to drive?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think, I referenced not age but driving experience as specifically being an indicator. All drivers start with a high initial crash risk due to their inexperience as drivers. This risk reduces with time and practice as they experience a wider variety of situations.

ICBC insurance data indicates that new drivers aged 25 and up start with a crash risk that is 20 percent lower than drivers aged 16 to 24. Therefore, they are one year lower on the crash-risk curve.

Hon Chan: My question is…. We talked about age 25 quite a few times, and there might be, according to the minister, ICBC data that shows that a 25-year-old might be more competent or might be better than the youth driver. However, in this bill, there’s no mentioning of the age of exactly 25.

Where did this 25 come from? I’m guessing it’s just by LG in Council. Again, we mentioned 25 a lot, but it’s not in this bill.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you so much for this question.

This is another example of the essential role that regulation plays in this case, with the Motor Vehicle Act being an older piece of legislation. The key details will be in regulation, and it’s important, of course, for government to be transparent in terms of the planned regulations.

When this bill was announced, we indicated that there would be a new pathway for mature drivers. This is reflective of research and feedback that we received during the consultation.

The B.C. Indian Chiefs advocated for age 30 and above being the definition of mature drivers, which we considered. There’s a body of evidence that also indicates that brain development and impulse control are significantly different for ages 25, specifically, and above. The decision to go with 25 reflects medical research in terms of brain development to be able to support the ultimate goal here, which is safe roads for everyone.

Hon Chan: I don’t disagree with the age of 25.

My question is actually about how we ensure, after this bill is passed, that it will be 25 and will not be 30, or it will not change to 19 or 22. How do we know, after this bill has been passed, it will be capped at the same one without coming back to our Legislative Assembly?

Hon. Nina Krieger: It’s the government’s intention to create a policy pathway for this stream for drivers 25 and up.

Macklin McCall: Now, Minister, in the introduction, you mentioned that there was support from the B.C. Chiefs of Police. I think the quote, if I have it correct, was that they found this amendment kept efficiency while ensuring the core purpose of the amendment.

Minister, I just want to be clear. What is the core purpose of this amendment?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The core purpose of Bill 12 is to improve graduated licensing programs to create safer, simpler and more accessible programs for new drivers and to strengthen safety standards for motorcycle drivers.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister. I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.

Are the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and any other policing organizations that you may have interacted with supporting the safety behind this amendment? The quote doesn’t talk about safety. It says “ensuring the core purpose.” You stood up and said that there was a safety component to the core purpose. So is it accurate to say that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police doesn’t have concerns with safety for the amendment?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think it’s important to note that the core purpose of this legislation that is proposed is to balance accessibility with road safety. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police received the entire suite of materials, all materials related to this legislation, and agreed that it would reduce some barriers, while not compromising road safety.

Sheldon Clare: The Constitution Act, sections 91 and 92, deal with the division of powers. In the division of powers for provincial purposes, it says that the purpose of licensing is to raise provincial revenue.

Is the purpose of Bill 12 public safety, or is it to raise provincial revenue, as per the constitution?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The purpose of this legislation is not to increase revenues. It’s to improve accessibility to driver licensing and also to maintain a balance in terms of ensuring that there’s road safety for all drivers in B.C.

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the minister’s answer. However, I’m a little confused, because the role of licensing in the constitution is quite clear. It is not about safety; it is about revenue. I don’t see that the answer fits with the Canadian constitution and its division of powers in sections 91 and 92.

Is this about raising revenue, or is this about safety? If it’s about safety, it’s not really constitutional.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This proposed legislation, like other pieces of legislation, has been drafted by government lawyers to ensure that anything put forward is, indeed, constitutional.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to the minister’s response, this is an appeal to an authority position, which I don’t think really answers the question at all.

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister, may you please allow the member to ask his question? Thank you. Not…. The other minister, minister of emergency preparedness.

Sheldon Clare: The constitution, I think, is very clear in the division of powers. With respect to my question, is this about raising provincial revenue or not? It’s licensing. If it’s licensing, that’s the purpose for licences in this province.

What are your lawyers telling you about the purpose of this legislation? Is this about licensing or not? If it’s not about licensing, I would say it’s not constitutional.

The Chair: Member, you’ve asked that question now three times in a row.

Sheldon Clare: But….

The Chair: Hold on a second. Thank you.

If there were questions about the generality of different sections of the constitution, perhaps that would have been better asked under clause 1, which…. No one chose to ask those questions.

I just hope that you can provide better clarity for me specifically with respect to clause 2. If you are not able to do that, we will go on to the next person.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just respond that the comments and answers by the minister have been of a general nature with regards to the purpose of the proposed bill.

I believe my question is in order. I would dispute the point you’re making, and I would probably rephrase it, if it would please you, to fit with that need.

I would say: what advice did the lawyers that you consulted give you about the purpose of this legislation? Did you consult with a constitutional lawyer in that regard?

The Chair: Member, I still don’t see how your question is….

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister.

MLA for Prince George–North Cariboo, I still don’t see the relevance and connection to clause 2, so I am not going to allow your question. We’re going to move on to…. If you have another question, we can go ahead.

Hon. Nina Krieger: If I can just offer, perhaps, a clarifying comment. The proposed amendments do not expand the scope of the Motor Vehicle Act outside of its constitutional jurisdiction.

Macklin McCall: My question just, again, ties into the introduction that you did earlier here, Minister. What evidence does the government have to support the claim that varying driving experience requirements will not compromise road safety?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As I noted during my introductory comments, that second exit test is being removed and replaced with an additional 12-month restricted and monitored period. Under the proposed changes, B.C. will have a significantly longer graduated licensing program than the current state of our graduated licensing program, and it’ll be longer than the majority of Canadian provinces for younger drivers as well.

We spoke about how evidence shows that safe driving habits demonstrated over time are a stronger predictor of long-term safety than performance in a single-moment-in-time road test. Drivers must perform well during a short, observed test, but they could still engage in risky behaviour in real-world conditions. There are a couple of studies that I’ll reference that support this approach.

In New South Wales in Australia, a study of other exit test options found that a two-year offence-free period was a better predictor of crash involvement. We will have 48 months, rather than 24 months. There’s also the Traffic Injury Research Foundation’s new graduated licensing framework that noted that a clean driving record can serve as an alternative to or a complement to on-road exit tests and encourage higher-order driving skills.

So based on the research, we believe that this extended monitoring period will go a significant way in terms of improving road safety, in fact, for our province.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister, for that. You gave quite an extensive answer there.

Now I just want to hone in on a point. You explained what you just explained, and that really seemed to be more of the justification of why the movement is happening. I just want to touch on another little aspect of that. What measures will be put in place to monitor and evaluate the impact of these different driver experience requirements and changes on road safety?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Monitoring will be key in terms of supporting our understanding of the impacts of this legislation. We’ll closely track the implementation of these changes to ensure that there are safer outcomes for drivers. We’ll measure results using available data, including crash rates, licence completion and driving behaviours to make sure the program is achieving its intended outcomes.

[3:50 p.m.]

The impact of the removal of the GLP exit test will also be evaluated and monitored to confirm that it aligns with the safety goals and best practices and if changes are required. We used a similar approach, in fact, when we introduced the graduated licensing program here in B.C.

Continuous monitoring will allow for adjustments over time and ensure that the licensing system evolves based on what actually improves road safety. I understand that it takes approximately five years to collect meaningful data, so there will be a planned evaluation of the program, as well, at that five-year mark to determine if any changes are necessary.

Macklin McCall: Just a quick follow-up to that.

Will all the things you described be just in-house government ICBC data, or will that be disclosed to the public?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The evaluation was planned to be internal, but data is published by RoadSafetyBC and ICBC on crash rates on an annual basis, and this will certainly be continued.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister, for all your answers.

You mentioned about no prohibition in the additional one year or within that three-year period. Does that mean just no tickets or no prohibition? Tickets do not automatically go to prohibition. Can you be specific? How many tickets can they get in one year? Or excessive…? How does that work?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Certainly, there will be a continuation of zero alcohol and zero drugs for new drivers. It’s important to note that those in the graduated licensing program are held to a higher standard than other drivers, and that will continue to be the case.

Hon Chan: My question was: is there more specific…? I know that you mentioned zero alcohol, a higher standard. What does higher standard mean?

[3:55 p.m.]

If they get a speeding ticket, would that extend it, or would it stay the same? Do they have to get an excessive speeding ticket or distracted driving tickets or two or three speeding tickets plus? We just want that information.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Novice drivers, as I noted, are held to a higher standard. Specifically, nine points are required for somebody from the general population before an intervention is made. But for novice drivers, that is two points.

The interventions can range, depending on the offence. It could be a warning letter, for instance, or a full prohibition of driving. Really, the purpose here is to ensure that any dangerous driving behaviours are nipped and stopped before they become habit.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. Thanks for the specific answer of two points. I believe a speeding ticket is three points.

In the existing one, would even the novice driver with a speeding ticket not receive a prohibition? Does that mean that in the new one, a simple speeding ticket will get a prohibition, and that extends or restarts the novice period?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: There is not a plan to change any of the existing points thresholds, but there are the additional 12 months of monitoring as part of this program.

Hon Chan: You also mentioned that there are studies overseas that offence is actually a better indicator than a test. Can you tell us: what’s the passing rate of the exit test, the second test, right now?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The data we have from ICBC shows that an average of 64,000 GLP exit tests are taken each year, with an overall pass rate of 68 percent and that 94 percent pass within two tries.

Hon Chan: To follow up on that question, 68 percent of people pass on the first try. If my math is correct, that’s 32 percent that did not pass. So without the second exit test now, if this bill is passed, how do we ensure that that 32 percent of people will not be harming or reducing our road safety?

The Chair: I’d ask that the member for Richmond Centre just clarify this question for my understanding and for its relevance in connection to clause 2.

Hon Chan: Yeah. In clause 2, it’s mentioned especially that an LG in Council can actually prescribe different amounts. So in this act, there’s no actual number of what I mentioned — for example, age of 25. There’s no mentioning of exit test removal, and there’s no mentioning of all the stuff that we mentioned.

So it is very important for us to actually be on record to understand what the changes are, or else, after we pass this bill, under LG in Council, they can just change anything. It is very clear that we have to make sure all British Columbians know what the changes are in the future.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Following up on the comment of the recently departed Chair, I think the question may relate to clause 3 specifically. So I’m not sure if we’re at the point that we want to potentially vote on clause 2 and then move on to discussing clause 3, where we can get into this matter further.

The Chair: Member.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon Chan: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the seat.

I don’t disagree, and I can let you go to the clause 2 voting.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Hon Chan: Well, now we need to ask more questions. Since the minister said we can ask more questions based on clause 3, maybe back to my original question, which the minister now would have a chance to actually answer.

Under the test, how are we going to ensure that the 32 percent of the people who failed their first test are not going to endanger our roads?

Hon. Nina Krieger: As we’ve discussed previously, a road test is really a moment in time, a snapshot. It measures how somebody drives in a given 20 minutes or so under controlled conditions, not how they drive each and every day. Research shows, in fact, that drivers often perform better when observed, masking risky behaviours that may appear in real-world driving.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

It’s also important to note that failing the exit road test makes no difference today to road safety and that these drivers still, after failing the test, go home from the test and continue to drive with their existing restrictions until, if ever, they choose to sit for, retake and pass the road test.

That’s why we’ve been emphasizing the importance of the additional 12 months of monitoring as being a stronger indicator than a moment-in-time driving test.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

Respectfully, I disagree that a test is not an indication of their driving ability, because that’s what the test is for. When we go into university, there are tests we have to do. When we pass a course, we have to go into an exam. It’s no different from driving.

Also, I partially agree that under the existing test, they can still drive for class 7, even if they failed the exit test. But don’t forget that we have a restriction on them — zero alcohol, for example. Also, they cannot drive to the full capacity of the car; they can only drive one person. That is a harm reduction approach, from my standpoint, with the existing restriction.

Again to the minister, with that high failing rate of 32 percent, just because now we move on to no prohibition or no ticket, and they can automatically get the full licence after an additional 12 months, how are we ensuring that those 32 percent will not get their full licence, as compared to the existing case? Right now they will have restrictions, like they cannot drive five people in a car. How do we make sure that harm is reduced, like now?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just to clarify, I don’t believe that I said that a road test was not an indicator but that monitoring, based on the evidence, is a better indicator of habits over time. So the graduated licensing program, of course, has a road test as a core component, and that will be maintained.

I think it’s important to note that only three jurisdictions currently — British Columbia, Ontario and New Zealand — require a second road test. Alberta also had one and removed theirs last year, and New Zealand is planning to remove theirs in 2026. In part, this is because there is simply no evidence that the second road test improves road safety. Because so few places use one, there have been no credible evaluations showing that exit testing reduces crashes or makes drivers safer.

Hon Chan: I just want to clarify. Is it because of no data, because there are so few jurisdictions, or because the data shows that we can actually take out the second test? Very different.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Based on available data and available research, the data shows that an extended monitoring time is the best predictor of road safety.

Hon Chan: My next question, which kind of moves on, is about people who don’t drive a lot or drive rarely after they pass the first test.

Under the existing law, they will still have to go through the second test, or else they would always be carrying the restriction of a new driver, of a novice driver. But under the new proposed change, these people who rarely drive will automatically get a full licence. How are we going to ensure road safety for these people?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think it’s important to note that the drivers that the member references who may not be frequent drivers have still passed their knowledge test and their first road test. In fact, ICBC data shows us that approximately 25 percent of people choose not to exit the GLP program at all and that there are long-term class 7 drivers who have held a licence for 25 years. These drivers continue to drive on the novice licence, sometimes even after failing the class 5 GLP exit test.

This does not mean that we don’t do anything. In fact, we continue to monitor all drivers and have initiatives such as the driver improvement program to be able to catch risky behaviour and correct it.

Hon Chan: Do you have the statistic of novice drivers’ versus fully licensed drivers’ crash rates? Is novice driver usually higher than fully licensed?

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The data that we have shows that drivers’ experience over time is what reduces crash rates. We also know that drivers aged 25 and up have a 20 percent reduced crash rate than drivers 16 to 24.

It really speaks to the importance of driving experience and the fact that the driver-monitoring program provides additional opportunity, with those additional 12 months of monitored driving, to monitor and, potentially, intervene on any infractions.

Hon Chan: Chair, I think we want a ten-minute recess break, but we will continue after this.

The Chair: Yeah, we’re going to call a ten-minute recess at this time.

I recognize there’s a lot of transition happening, but if you can advise your counterparts that I expect them back in their seats by 4:38, that would be great. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, committee. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, back to order. We are on clause 3.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister for the answers prior to our recess. She gave me very comprehensive data on the crash rate based on age and experience.

I’m also interested in the data on novice versus full drivers’ licence accident rates. Do you guys have that data? If yes, we would love to have that, and if not, we can also request it at another time.

Hon. Nina Krieger: We do not have that data on hand today, but we’d be happy to provide it and follow up.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I’m not sure if mine is up to date, but what I found on ICBC, based on a 2024 release, was that new drivers, novice drivers, were eight times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a full-licence driver. And 18 percent of drivers speeding in casualty crashes were the ages of 16 to 21, which only makes up to 6 percent…. In a 2023 release, novice drivers were 1.5 times more likely to crash than a full-licence driver.

I just want to make sure that statistic is correct. Maybe the ministry can actually give us the full data tomorrow or later on.

My other question is: because the test will be one test and the exit test will be gone, will there be any changes to the first and only test?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much for the question about testing, specifically. ICBC continuously reviews the class 7 road test, used for a driver to move from the learner period to the novice period, to ensure that it continues to support rigorous testing and road safety.

[4:45 p.m.]

A number of improvements are being planned to the class 7 road test, including creating more time for the driver examiner’s coaching and feedback, changing the road-test scoring and evaluation to make it easier for drivers to understand and moving from paper records to digital road-test scoring as well.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. I just want to clarify. There will be more time for the first and only test if this bill has been passed, because the second test has been removed. I just want to confirm.

For example, right now there’s a highway portion, at least at the Richmond road-test centre. I’m presuming that the second test component will now be incorporated into the first test component and that more exam time will be added to the first and only test, after this bill has passed.

Hon. Nina Krieger: In terms of the question about duration, that and other aspects of the test will continue to be monitored by ICBC to ensure that the testing is rigorous.

And I thank you. You’re not the first person to mention the highway driving component that you’ve experienced in your second test in Richmond.

It is important to note that highway driving is not required. It’s optional on an exit test, including the second exit test, because, in practice, traffic density and testing locations around the province challenge the ability to assess this fairly and consistently if it was a requirement. In fact, the majority of Canadian jurisdictions don’t require a high-speed roadway component to the road test.

ICBC designs their testing routes to ensure that driver examiners have confidence, in a number of manoeuvres conducted during the test, to place qualified drivers on the road. But currently it doesn’t include a mandatory highway portion.

Hon Chan: I just want to combine the two questions and the two answers. Simply, are there any changes to the first and only test after this bill is passed?

You mentioned that the highway component might be only specific to different regions or different cities. In general, after this bill is passed, will we see any changes to the first and only test, compared to right now, on the class 7 test?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’ll just recap my answer from a couple questions ago to say that ICBC continually reviews the class 7 road test and that ICBC is looking at a number of potential improvements, including the duration and incorporating, for the driver examiner, more time for coaching and feedback in that test, as well, and using digital road-test scoring.

Hon Chan: What I hear in the answer is that ICBC will be monitoring and may or may not make improvements to that test, according to the monitoring situation. I hope that’s correct.

Now my colleague has some questions. He can continue.

Macklin McCall: I just want to switch gears to other prescribed considerations under the new subsection 25(10)(f). How will other prescribed considerations be defined? What does that mean, “other prescribed considerations”?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just a question so I make sure that we’re scrutinizing the right piece of the draft legislation. Can you specify the section and the phrase that you’re asking about?

Macklin McCall: I have it down here in my notes as subsection 25(10)(f), where it’s other prescribed considerations. It says in the bill….

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: If we understand the question correctly, this corresponds to section 23(2)(c) of the current act, which uses the phrase “other prescribed means.”

[5:00 p.m.]

The difference is that section 23(2) and (2.1) are about ICBC assessing the out-of-province driver’s skills qualifications to determine which class of B.C. licence they may qualify for and whether restrictions such as zero blood alcohol content would apply to the new class 5 or 6 licence being issued to the out-of-province driver.

Macklin McCall: There was a bit of confusion there, I think, on my part, so I apologize for that.

Moving on, how will ICBC verify the validity of out-of-province driving records before allowing individuals to bypass B.C. testing requirements?

Hon. Nina Krieger: With this legislation, there is no change to how ICBC assesses out-of-province driving records today.

Bryan Tepper: To follow up on that, can ICBC then, with the determination of whether a class licence transfers over to a similar class in B.C., currently determine that? Are they under that practice of transferring over a comparable class right now?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes. There is a policy that is available on the website, and that is the current practice today.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to move the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper.

[CLAUSE 3, by adding the underlined text as shown:

3 Section 25 is amended

(a.01) by repealing subsection (1.1) and substituting the following:

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), an applicant must provide the following:

(a) the address of the applicant’s primary residence in British Columbia, subject to subsection (1.02), or unless another address is prescribed by regulation;

(b) documentary proof satisfactory to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia of the applicant’s identity.

(1.02) For the purposes of subsection (1.1) (a), if an applicant is employed or holds an appointment as any of the following, the applicant may provide the applicant’s work address in British Columbia instead of the address of the applicant’s primary residence in British Columbia:

(a) a provincial constable, special provincial constable, designated constable, municipal constable, special municipal constable, auxiliary constable, enforcement officer;

(b) a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

(c) a Crown counsel;

(d) a judge, judicial justice, or justice of the peace;

(e) any other position or office prescribed by regulation.

(a) by repealing subsection (3) (a) and (b) and substituting the following:

(a) if required by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, submit to one or more of the following:

(i) a knowledge test;

(ii) a road test;

(iii) a road signs and signals test,

(b) if required by the superintendent, submit to one or more of the following:

(i) a vision test;

(ii) a medical examination;

(iii) other examinations or tests, other than as set out in paragraph (a), ,

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(8.01) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the issuance of a driver’s licence to a person who is a novice driver of one or more categories of motor vehicles, including regulations prescribing a minimum waiting period before the person to whom the licence is issued may

(a) submit to an examination under this section, if required by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, with respect to the person’s ability to drive or operate a motor vehicle, or

(b) if an examination is not required, apply under this section for another class of driver’s licence. ,

(c) by repealing subsection (8.1) and substituting the following:

(8.1) For the purposes of subsections (8) (d) and (8.01), the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may

(a) approve driver education courses given by a driver training school licensed under the regulations, and

(b) reduce the minimum waiting period prescribed under those subsections for persons who have successfully completed a driver education course approved under paragraph (a). ,

(d) by repealing subsection (10) (f) and substituting the following:

(f) establish the period of time during which a requirement, restriction or condition, imposed under this subsection or under subsection (10.1), (10.101) or (10.11), is to apply, and ,

(e) in subsections (10.1), (10.101) and (10.11) (a) by striking out “on a class of driver’s licence, or on the drivers’ licences of persons who hold a licence to drive a motor vehicle of a specified category,” and substituting “on a class of driver’s licence, or on the driver’s licences of any class of persons,”, and

(f) by adding the following subsections:

(10.12) For the purposes of subsection (10) (f), the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may

(a) approve driver education courses given by a driver training school licensed under the regulations, and

(b) reduce the period of time prescribed under that provision for persons who have successfully completed a driver education course approved under paragraph (a).

(10.13) The period of time referred to in subsection (10) (f) may be determined by reference to one or more of the following:

(a) the length of time a person has held a valid driver’s licence issued under this Act or in another jurisdiction;

(b) a person’s driving record, if any, from this or any other jurisdiction;

(c) other prescribed considerations.

(10.14) For the purposes of a regulation under subsection (10) (f), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following:

(a) delegate to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia the power to determine whether a class of driver’s licence issued by another jurisdiction is similar to a class of driver’s licence prescribed under this Act;

(b) delegate to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia the power to determine whether an offence under a law of another jurisdiction is similar to

(i) an offence under this Act, or

(ii) a motor vehicle related Criminal Code offence;

(c) confer a discretion on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with respect to a matter described in paragraph (a) or (b).]

The Chair: Members of the committee, we have an amendment to clause 3, and that amendment can be found on your order paper on page 2. You should have had the opportunity to review that.

Would you like to speak to the amendment, please?

Bryan Tepper: I’d like to start off by talking about the history of this. I think we all know or could remember the JIBC incident with the data leaks. People were finding the people that worked at the Justice Institute and harassing them at their homes.

I will tell on myself. That’s from the Lower Mainland, but the Interior towns and cities of British Columbia…. When I was working in a small town, I had arrested a drug dealer — we’ll call him a drug dealer — on a day, and the next day, he was being released as I was getting off duty. He asked for a ride home from me, and I said: “I’m not giving you a ride home.” His answer was: “Well, you only live two blocks from me.”

So these things do come up, and they’re in small towns and large towns. They need to be addressed at some point. The B.C. Police Association has been asking, they said, for 17 years for this to be addressed within the law. They feel that most people involved in the justice system need to be protected. They need some safeguards so that they can perform their duties without fear of retribution from somebody.

[5:05 p.m.]

If I can, I will just read from their submission when they were visiting before.

“The current Insurance Corp. of B.C. regulations allow individuals to access home address information of police officers, judges and public officials through vehicle registration records. This presents a significant and unnecessary risk to personal safety.

“In today’s climate of increased threats, doxxing and online harassment, B.C. lags behind other provinces that have implemented safeguards to protect the identities and residents of those working in public service roles.

“Without reform, this loophole remains open to misuse by bad actors, including organized crime and extremist groups.”

It’s not just the people. As well, it extends to their families and everybody involved. In this amendment, I’ve added in people with the justice system while leaving room for regulation to be added for other people that the current government wishes to add to this protection.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the proposed amendment, especially for sharing his personal experience and also the submission that really speaks to the very real and serious safety concerns of law enforcement and others who dedicate their lives to keeping our communities safe.

Certainly, the safety and security of certain people and the need for anonymity is vitally important and a very complex issue as well. It is our view that the proposed amendments, though they relate to something very, very important, are beyond the scope of Bill 12 and should, because of that, be determined to be out of order.

The proposed amendments in Bill 12 relate to section 25 of the Motor Vehicle Act and, specifically, the graduated and motorcycle licensing program.

The proposed amendment on whether to exempt certain classes of people from the requirements to provide a residential address is not specifically related to the licensing programs that we are looking at in the context of this bill.

For this reason, I ask that the proposed amendments be ruled out of order.

Bryan Tepper: Under the current bill, this is the same section that is talking about the licensing program, but in that, it prescribes where you have to present your address on your driver’s licence information. So it does directly apply within this. It’s not part of the changes that are part of Bill 12, but they are within the sections that are being addressed within this.

Anybody doing the licensing has to follow the issues around listing your home address at this point or, if we go with the amendment, of changing up where you can place an address at your work address.

The Chair: Having discussed whether this is in order or out of order, it is the ruling of the Chair that this is, in fact, out of order in this bill, perhaps to be brought forward at another time and certainly for further discussion with the ministry.

Thank you so much, Member, for bringing this forward.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: Now we shall continue with clause 3.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Chair. I’ll continue on with my questions here.

How will ICBC determine equivalency between jurisdictions? Will there be public transparency about which jurisdictions are considered comparable?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: To reiterate, I think, a response that I offered earlier, there is no change to ICBC’s practice of recognizing licensing from other jurisdictions, and their policy is transparent and available on the ICBC website as well.

Macklin McCall: How will the government ensure that driver education courses approved under this act meet a rigorous, consistent standard across all licensed training schools?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question about driver training. There is no change to how this will be approached. ICBC currently has a structure in place to oversee approved driver training in B.C., which includes licensing and certification of driver-training schools and also course approval.

To ensure oversight and compliance, ICBC has school inspectors and investigators who conduct regular inspections of schools and certification facilities. They evaluate course delivery, assess training officers, investigate any complaints, and they also have the authority to issue compliance notices or tickets for violation of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations.

These practices will continue in the proposed legislation.

Macklin McCall: Will ICBC publish annual statistics showing how many drivers advance without testing compared to with testing in previous years and their comparative safety outcomes?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: There is a commitment that ICBC will monitor and evaluate these changes, as I referenced, and that crash data will continue to be published by ICBC on an annual basis.

Macklin McCall: My next question here. How will the government ensure that the new regulation-making authority regarding the issuance of licences and the imposition of conditions does not lead to arbitrary or inconsistent decisions?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Can you repeat the question?

Macklin McCall: Yes. How will the government ensure that the new regulation-making authority that’s coming in, in this act, regarding issuance of licences and imposition of the conditions doesn’t lead to arbitrary, inconsistent decisions?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’ll start by saying that providing ICBC discretionary authority to make decisions to administer driver licensing is not new. That is already established.

[5:20 p.m.]

ICBC has been exercising their discretionary authority for driver licensing matters under the Motor Vehicle Act for decades, since they assumed responsibility for driver licensing, and that will continue.

If there are any concerns about an ICBC driver licensing decision, that concern can and will continue to be able to be raised with ICBC’s fairness officer, who reports to the minister responsible for the corporation and is appointed by the government. That process to address any concerns remains.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

My quick question is: if ICBC has the full power of the discretionary power right now in the existing act, why do we need these changes, then?

Hon. Nina Krieger: As we’ve noted, ICBC has these authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. Because we’re making changes to the GLP program, we need to ensure that ICBC has the authority to act in accordance with these prescribed changes, such as the new pathway for mature drivers.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

Now, prior to the last answer you just provided, you mentioned a step that’s in place for a driver, or someone that’s licensed, if they…. Basically, like a complaint or some kind of appeal process — you mentioned that process. I appreciate that.

I just want to cover off another avenue in that world, basically. What safeguards are in place or will be in place here to prevent the misuse of this regulation-making authority and to ensure that it prioritizes road safety?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much for the questions linked to safeguards. I’ll reiterate that there is ICBC’s fairness officer, who reports to the minister responsible, who in this case is the Attorney General.

Concerns can also be raised to the Ombudsperson or could be raised directly to the minister responsible, the AG, or even an MLA who can advocate further.

There’s also, within the current Motor Vehicle Act, an appeal provision under section 118.

Macklin McCall: My next question. What criteria will be used to determine the minimum waiting period for novice drivers, and how will this period be enforced to ensure it contributes to road safety?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: We are not planning on changing any minimum period for drivers aged 16 to 24. The only change is to the mature pathway, which is based on the evidence and consultations that I referenced.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the clarity there, Minister.

We’ve gone to this age 25 thing a few times. I just want to ask something specific to this topic of the minimum waiting period.

If a person is 16 and they don’t get their licence…. They go through, and they do their thing. Maybe they have their learner’s, and they’re not driving at all. There’s no indication that they’ve done other tests. They’ve done nothing. They just show up. They’re 25 years old. So they have the age, but they haven’t driven.

Is there anything in this minimum waiting period or anything in the act that differentiates between someone 25…? It’s not just: “You’ve met the age, and then we’re giving you your licence.” Is there something where you could say: “Well, you’ve driven, and here’s the proof that shows that you’ve done all this driving experience”? Is there a difference between the two?

[5:35 p.m. - 5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think it’s important to point out that regardless of age, there’s the requirement to pass the knowledge test and the road test.

A driver completes the graduate licensing program at the age the driver starts the program. So if you’re 16, you are completing the stream for 16- to 24-year-olds, but if you are 25, you would follow the pathway for mature drivers.

Macklin McCall: I just want to be clear on this point, because I think there’s a bit of a change, obviously, from 16 going up and getting your full class 5. The age, 25, is significant with this, so I just want to be clear.

Correct me if I’m wrong here on this. The way I’m understanding it, there’s what we’ll call the original path, where you are 16, you get your learner’s, and you go through it. When you become 18 or 19, you continue on, and you might get your class 5. You have to do your knowledge test and maybe your learner’s.

Maybe you don’t do your learner’s. The other option is that you don’t do any of that stuff. You just turn 25, and there’s a different process, then, to get your licence? You don’t have to do the other things? The second part of that question would be: if that’s the case, what does it look like? Can you explain? What happens when you’re 25?

To hone in on what I’m asking: is it like a hybrid, where there’s part of the learner’s and all this stuff in getting to 25? Do you have to have some benchmark met, or is it just: “Hey, it’s your 25th birthday. You’ve never driven before. Here, because you’re mature, you now have your licence.” Does that makes sense?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

Maybe to answer in a comprehensive way, I can walk the member through the phase-based approach that will be followed.

For those that are age 16 to 24, there is the knowledge test to acquire the learner’s licence that has to be held for 12 months before going for the class 7 novice licence, which requires 24 months — or 18 months if you take approved training. After that period, there’s the class 5 licence. This includes the additional 12 months of monitoring, which is an important aspect of the proposed changes.

For drivers that are mature, age 25 plus, there is still the knowledge test to receive the learner’s licence. The period is nine months before one takes the test for the class 7 novice licence. It’s a nine-month period, then 12 months with the class 7 novice licence and an additional 12-month monitoring period.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think it’s also important to note that after receiving your learner’s licence, you have to proceed with the test in two years. Otherwise, you have to retake that knowledge test and restart that process.

Macklin McCall: My follow-up question: what measures will be taken to evaluate the effectiveness of these driver education courses on reducing crash rates and improving road safety?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’ll begin by affirming that driver-training schools play an important role in developing safe driving behaviours for new drivers, and they have been key partners who have insights on what students need to build safe driving habits.

That’s why industry representatives from driver-training programs have been at the table during the consultation progress and have supported the modernization of the graduated licensing program in B.C.

There will be no changes to how driver education is monitored. The process that I outlined, I think, in an earlier answer — that we have to oversee approved driver training programs in B.C., course approval, licensing and certification of driver training schools — remains unchanged.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister.

What specific incentives will be provided to encourage new drivers to enrol in ICBC-approved driver training programs, especially in rural and remote areas?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the question.

Any incentives are provincewide and not specific to regions.

[5:50 p.m.]

The current GLP program provides a reduction in time in the novice phase if they complete an approved GLP test within one year or 12 months of getting their learner’s licence. We are not changing this incentive for drivers under the age of 25.

So 90 percent of drivers that take advantage of this incentive are aged 16 to 19. As we are reducing the GLP requirement for those over 25, there will not be an incentive to further reduce the time requirements. We don’t want a further reduction in the time requirements that could negatively impact road safety.

Macklin McCall: How will the government address the cost barriers associated with driver-training programs to ensure that all new drivers can access high-quality training?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the question.

B.C. has over 1,300 driver-training schools and over 3,700 licensed instructors across the province. We know that B.C. driver-training schools offer a range of training from on-road sessions to fully approved graduated licence program courses.

The GLP programs, which are used, as we know, across Canada as well as internationally, build skills over time through learner and novice stations. These systems, the graduated licensing programs, are proven to reduce crashes even for those who don’t take formal driving training.

Some reasons why driver education is not mandatory include a need to have a balance between affordability and safety, fairness and practicality. Provinces know that the right driver education can help, but we also don’t want to make driving more expensive and inaccessible, especially for youth and rural residents.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the response, Minister.

I just want to tie back to something very early on in our conversation today. We talked about other jurisdictions. We talked about some stats from outside of B.C. and across the country. I just want to tie it into this conversation we’re having right now about driver education and incentives.

With all the things we’ve just discussed here right now on this driver education and these incentives, my question is…. With what you’ve mentioned about things having to be consistent…. You mentioned that the incentive currently is that it reduces the amount of time that you’re driving for. I forget the numbers exactly, but if you have, let’s say, 12 months, it gets reduced down to nine months because you’ve done the course — something to that effect anyway.

I’m wondering. When you look at other jurisdictions in the country, other jurisdictions that, as you’ve mentioned, are doing things like this, you’re wanting to modernize it to do what others are doing. What they’re doing in some jurisdictions is actually providing an incentive, more than what you’ve said, to the driver.

It’s not just that they reduce your time with your restrictions, but they might actually reduce the cost of your insurance or other things that make it less cost-prohibitive for their citizens to actually get more experience and training.

With this act, or at any time when you were considering this, was that looked at and considered by the province, and if it wasn’t, why not?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This was, in fact, carefully considered and studied with available evidence. In fact, there wasn’t enough evidence that suggests that driver training decreases crashes to be able to justify that reduction in insurance rates.

Macklin McCall: I just want to be clear. When you said there wasn’t enough evidence or data or whatever, was that B.C. evidence and data, or were you looking to these other jurisdictions that have this currently implemented and that was the finding? I just want to be clear.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I can confirm it was ICBC data.

The Chair: Through the Chair next time, if you don’t mind, Minister.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Oh, I’m so sorry. I should know better.

The Chair: No worries.

Hon Chan: Just regarding that, when you mentioned driving schools…. Statistically, it actually gives the driver, especially young drivers and novice drivers, a better skill, a better ability to drive. At the same time, you mentioned there’s no data that shows that they reduce crash rates so that they can reduce their insurance costs.

Why is there such discrepancy when they are supposed to save the driver and reduce crash rates, but at the same time, they cannot have a reduction in insurance costs?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I don’t think I said that the driver training had no impact. Certainly, we’ve spoken about the evidence of the graduated licensing program and the benefits of training. Nonetheless, there has not been a determination of significant impact that would justify reduction of ICBC rates.

Macklin McCall: Perfect. I want to just state one thing with what you said about the ICBC data.

[6:00 p.m.]

Considering that through our conversation here, we’ve been looking at what other jurisdictions are doing and that we’re wanting to get more in line, according to this amendment, with what other jurisdictions are doing….

Then, when we look at the incentive, potentially, of making it more readily available to British Columbians to actually get the driver training and get the incentive through insurance, we’re not looking at their data then. We’re just looking at B.C. data and saying: “No, the data doesn’t show anything.”

I really wonder what data across the country or the other countries and jurisdictions that you cited earlier today…. I wonder what their data would say about that. I’ll move to my next question, though.

What criteria will be used to determine the conditions imposed on different classes of persons, and how will these conditions be monitored and enforced?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The only difference is around age, whether a group of persons is in 16 to 24 or 25 and up.

Hon Chan: Back to the insurance rate, not exactly the same question. If this bill has been passed, the current N driver…. You mentioned there are — what? — 25 percent of N drivers still doing N. But then, they have been driving for more than four, five, ten, 25 years maybe. So those people will automatically get a full licence as long as they have not had infractions or prohibition and stuff like that. Have you guys looked into…?

Maybe my first question is: does the N driver usually have a higher insurance rate than the class 5 licence at first? If so, then all those Ns that suddenly graduate — will they all have a drop in their insurance rate, and does that impact ICBC finances?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’ll offer that there are a number of factors that determine insurance rate. The driving experience and the age are among those factors, but there are others in terms of type of vehicle, location. The insurance rates are determined by factors that are broader than what we’re discussing today.

Hon Chan: I do understand that from those different areas, there are many factors to the insurance rate. But keeping all factors the same, does equal driving experience, like years of driving experience, but with an N to it…? Does it have a higher insurance rate than the full licence, given that they drove for 15 years, let’s say?

[6:05 p.m.]

As you mentioned, there are many N drivers that have had their N for so long, but they’re not taking their class 5 licence.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Any questions around insurance rates I believe are better directed to the minister responsible — so in this case, the Attorney General.

Hon Chan: The reason that we ask is about the change in GLP. The change in GLP will lead to this consequence. If possible, I would love to have that answer maybe…. Well, today it is already 6:06. If I possibly can get that answer tomorrow….

We will be having tens of thousands of N drivers suddenly graduating into a full licence after this bill has passed. This consequence can be big for our province. It can be big on our road, not just on road safety but also on ICBC.

I would really want the minister to actually understand the reason why I asked and maybe unintended consequences behind this.

Since we couldn’t get this answered today, I do have another question for the minister. We understand the change to the GLP is to have it be more accessible for people in British Columbia, especially Indigenous communities and maybe to the North or in the rural areas. But if capacity is a problem, why didn’t we or can’t we expand the examiner or mobile testing and mobile testing sites like that?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for your question that relates to accessibility, which is really one of the key factors that we’re addressing with this legislation.

In fact, there are already some examples of mobile testing available in rural remote areas specifically for the knowledge test.

Hon Chan: Yeah, well, I understand there’s already mobile testing, for example, for the knowledge test currently.

[6:10 p.m.]

My question was: if the capacity is a problem, if accessibility is a problem, instead of removing or streamlining or making it more efficient, as you mentioned, why don’t we keep the second test but increase the capacity on road testing?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The changes that we’re making are not around addressing capacity but modernizing the program and aligning with evidence that shows that an extended monitoring period is a better predictor of safe driving.

Just to reiterate, one of the key elements of this legislation is to replace that point-of-time road test with the extended length of time of monitoring for 12 months.

Not only will these changes help build safer driving behaviours, but they will also reduce barriers to obtaining a full licence in rural and remote communities by not requiring individuals to travel long distances to complete the road test and earn their class 5 licence.

Hon Chan: Asking about clause 3(a), we can see ICBC actually can do much stuff — one or more knowledge test, road test, road signs or signal test. It’s one or more.

My question is why ICBC, the Insurance Corp., is given the ultimate discretion to set all these test standards after this bill is passed. They basically have the ultimate power to change anything in testing. Why are we giving that ultimate power to them instead of keeping it in this House?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: For a quick answer, ICBC already has this authority. This doesn’t change the authority granted to ICBC. It confirms what they’re able to do in relation to the changes to the graduated licensing program outlined in the bill.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.