The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: George Anderson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Mining Industry

Pete Davis: Mining is one of the industries that built British Columbia. From the earliest days of our province, mining created towns, opened roads, provided good-paying jobs and shaped who we are. It has always been an industry built on hard work, skill and courage, and it remains a foundation of our economy today.

This summer I travelled across the province visiting mine sites and talking to people who keep this industry moving forward. From the Cariboo to the northeast, from the northwest to the Kootenays, I saw the same thing everywhere: pride, professionalism, and a strong commitment to do the job right. These workers, engineers, technicians and families are the reason British Columbia’s mining industry is world-class.

In my riding, the Kootenay-Rockies, the four mines in the Elk Valley produce an estimated 24 million tonnes of steel-making coal every year. That production alone adds $4.5 billion to B.C.’s GDP. That’s not just statistics. It’s paycheques for families, customers, for small businesses and stability for entire communities.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

For me, Mr. Speaker, mining is not just an economic driver. It is personal. My grandfather spent most of his life working at Fording River. He raised his family in Elkford. Mining gave him the ability to provide for his family and pass down the values that defined him — hard work, pride in a job well done and a deep sense of community. His story is shared by thousands of British Columbians. When we support mining today, we honour those generations who built this province.

We also need to have an honest conversation about what is holding this industry back. While other jurisdictions can approve a mine in three to five years, in British Columbia it takes 15 years. Fifteen years. My question is simple. Why are we so far behind? With billions of dollars on the line, dollars we desperately need, it shouldn’t take this long. It shouldn’t take this long, it can’t take this long, and it must not take this long.

Companies are ready to invest. Workers are ready to work. Communities are ready to grow. But the system is too slow, too unpredictable and too frustrating for the very people trying to create economic opportunity in this province.

After speaking with people across the mining sector, one message came through loud and clear. The permitting process is too inconsistent. Two companies can apply for the same type of permit and get completely different timelines and requirements. How does this make sense? Why is there no consistency? How can we expect companies to invest billions when the process is unpredictable from start to finish?

Now the industry is deeply worried about the new Heritage Conservation Act changes, changes that many fear will add even more delays, more layers and more uncertainty. Once again, instead of helping projects move forward responsibly and efficiently, we are slowing them down. We have the resources. We have the talent. We have the opportunity. What we need for this government to do is get out of the way and start encouraging real investment in this industry. They say they want mining to grow. Well, actions speak louder than headlines and photo ops.

Looking forward, the opportunity is enormous if we choose to take it. If British Columbia becomes a place where responsible development is welcomed, where innovation is encouraged and where regulations are clear and predictable, we can unlock billions of dollars of investment. That money can build hospitals, schools, housing and infrastructure. It can help pay down the growing debt that is weighing down this government and this province.

Let us not forget. Without exploration, there is no mining. Small exploration companies, often family-run, are out in the bush taking risks, doing the groundwork and making the discoveries that make the next major project. If we want a strong mining future, we must support exploration today.

I also want to thank the organizations that stand behind the industry every single day, groups like the Association for Mineral Exploration and Mining Association of British Columbia.

[10:10 a.m.]

Their members devote their lives to responsible development and represent generations of families who live and breathe mining. Their commitment deserves our gratitude and our respect.

The world is demanding the very minerals and metals that we have right here in British Columbia, resources needed for clean energy, technology and modern infrastructure. If we don’t move now, other jurisdictions will. But if we do this responsibly, efficiently and with strong standards, mining can again become an engine that provides for our province.

Mining is not just rocks in the ground. It is the people, the hard-working British Columbians, who take pride in what they do and quickly keep this province moving forward. They don’t ask for recognition, but they absolutely deserve it. Mining built the province of British Columbia. If we support it, believe in it, and create an environment where it can grow again, mining will continue to build our future.

Apprenticeship Month
and New Training Centre

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to begin with acknowledging the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People known as Songhees and xʷsepsəm, whose lands I am on today.

Today, I want to recognize Apprenticeship Month here in British Columbia and to celebrate a milestone for workers and families in my community and on the south Vancouver Island, the opening of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of Local 324 training centre in Langford. I will be sad to say they were in Esquimalt, but due to land they had to move, so I do wish them luck in my neighbouring riding.

Apprenticeship Month gives us a chance to highlight the vital role that skilled trades play in every part of our province. Whether it’s building the homes we live in, the hospitals we rely on or the infrastructure that keeps people and goods moving, none of that happens without the dedication and expertise of the tradespeople. British Columbians count on them every single day.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour, I have had the privilege of meeting apprentices, journeypersons, instructors, union leaders and employers across many sectors. What stands out in every conversation is their pride — pride in their craft, pride in their workplace and pride in the contributions they make to our communities. They bring professionalism, precision and unwavering commitment to safety. That work deserves recognition.

The skilled trades also represent one of the most promising pathways forward for young people in our province. Fun fact: I wanted to be a welder. My dad talked me out of it — something I will say that sometimes I slightly regret. Trade careers offer good wages, stability and opportunities for advancement. They give young people the chance to support a family and build a life and community they know and love. In a time when so many jurisdictions are struggling to keep young people close to home, trades training is one of the strongest tools we can have to help them stay, work and thrive right here in British Columbia.

That is why the opening of the UA 324 Training Centre is so meaningful. The new state-of-the-art facility in Langford is more than just a building. It is an investment in people and the future of the West Shore and the Island. It gives apprentices access to modern equipment, high-quality instruction and hands-on training that reflects the latest industry standards. It strengthens our local workforce at a time when demand for skilled tradespeople has never been higher.

For Esquimalt, Colwood and surrounding communities, it also means local students can train close to home instead of travelling long distances or relocating to pursue their certification. That matters for families; it matters for employers who want to recruit and retrain the talent right here within our region.

The impact of this new centre will be felt for decades. It will help ensure that major projects, from housing to clean energy to infrastructure, can be built by well-trained, high-skilled British Columbians, and it reflects our accomplishment when labour, industry and government all work together.

Above all, Apprenticeship Month is about the people themselves — the apprentices putting in long hours in the classroom and on job sites, the journeypersons passing down their knowledge and mentoring to the next generation, and the instructors and union leaders who dedicate themselves to building programs, updating curriculum and supporting learners. Their commitment keeps our province moving forward.

Today I want to say a heartfelt thank you to all the apprentices, skilled-trades professionals and everyone who contributes to apprenticeships training in British Columbia. Your work is essential and is deeply appreciated. That is why last week we made a major investment in training in this province, of $241 million over three years, to ensure we are keeping those skilled tradespeople here.

This week when I went and had the privilege to attend, there was a woman — Brynn, for no one knows her — in skilled trades. She talked about this young mom who could barely afford groceries. Then she talked about how she got into skilled trades, the B.C. women in trades program, and how now not only can she support her family but she makes six figures. She’s contributing, and she will have a long career in trades, building parts of our province.

[10:15 a.m.]

Again, to everyone who’s listening, to all our trades, our apprentices, I want you to know that you build the economic foundation of our province, and your contributions strengthen our communities, every single one of them, including my own. Thank you all for all the work that you do today and will continue to do in the future and for the work that you do in building up our province.

Community Safety in Chilliwack

Heather Maahs: Today I’ve chosen to make my five-minute statement an open letter that was written to the Premier, and it’s signed by myself, MLA Warbus and MP Strahl.

In Chilliwack, we regularly hear from constituents expressing serious concerns with the increased numbers of homelessness, addictions and mental health in our community. This growing crisis is causing significant anxiety and stress, not only for those living on the streets but also for many residents who witness and bear the impact daily.

Community members are concerned about individuals sleeping in public parks and the debris and paraphernalia left behind. They fear for children inadvertently stepping on a needle or touching something toxic. Open drug use has become a regular occurrence in our parks. While we understand that homeless individuals are permitted to stay overnight in municipal parks, we have to ask: is this the best place for these individuals to shelter?

The lack of safety continues to be a recurring theme. Vandalism has become an everyday concern for both residential and commercial constituents who are bearing the cost of acquiring security systems, additional lighting, access-controlled gates and cameras to try to mitigate this problem, and it’s expensive. They still see theft. Properties are vandalized, and community members are afraid to walk after dark. People do not feel safe. Many are trying to sell and move, out of desperation, but are financially impacted as property values decrease, making it more difficult.

Businesses have expressed concern, sharing the sad and frightening stories of drug paraphernalia, human excrement and garbage left in business entryways, on sidewalks and around their premises. We are told of the devastating impact this is having on clientele, as customers are afraid to access these businesses, deterring customers and impacting revenue. Break-ins and attempted break-ins create a whole other level of stress, with significant cost implications borne by owners who are trying to keep their businesses afloat.

While constituents understand the importance of reporting criminal activity, many believe that the community is spiralling out of control. Police are inundated with calls and challenged to meet these considerable demands, to say nothing of the manpower and cost implications. Some community suggestions have included eliminating the B.C. safe supply program — “safe” being the key word here — reforming the justice system, improving enforcement, removing barriers to reporting crimes and rethinking the decision on overnight sheltering in parks.

Reforming our justice system and ineffective bail system is essential. Repeat offenders are prevalent and contribute to the rise in local crime. It is understood that many components of the bail system fall under federal jurisdiction, but we believe that the federal government needs to be lobbied to repeal Bill C-5, which directs judges to give leniency to drug traffickers.

The B.C. safe supply experiment needs to stop. I think we all know it’s not safe. It is not working, and quite honestly, it’s killing people. Why should B.C. taxpayers be funding this when the federal government has admitted failure and withdrawn support? The Premier himself has stated: “I was wrong on drug decriminalization and the effect that it would have. I wasn’t alone, but it wasn’t the right policy.”

[10:20 a.m.]

Why wait to eliminate so-called safe supply? It must be eliminated and replaced with detoxification and treatment centres.

With FIFA 2026 quickly approaching, there is concern that Fraser Valley communities such as Chilliwack may be seen as relocation destinations for homeless, drug-addicted and mentally ill populations in the greater Vancouver area. This is an untenable solution.

The goal is that our beloved community and our province can be restored to the wonderful place it once was, in one of the most beautiful places in the world: Chilliwack, British Columbia.

Remembrance Day

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to something that has shaped my life for almost 50 years.

Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm, who graciously greet us, bless us and encourage us to carry out our legislative work with wisdom and meaning.

I also recognize and acknowledge in North Vancouver–Seymour the səlilwətaɬ and the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Peoples, guardians of the land and waters of Burrard Inlet.

For many years, Remembrance Day season was heralded by the first cenotaph guard practices in September. Young people would learn ceremonial drill, how to lower their rifle without dropping it, how to let it touch the ground without so much as a sound. Then came drill practices for the rest of us, figuring out who belonged in which platoon, who was leading, whether we could all march in step. These rituals became almost a rhythm of the year.

Then the day itself would arrive, sometimes bright and frosty, sometimes cold and rainy, sometimes something in between. We would gather, form up our platoons and march in parade to the cenotaph — left, right, left — arms swinging, boots striking the ground in unison. Then halting, left turn, shoulder dressing to the right, standing at attention for prayers or at ease while listening to school children read poems or choirs sing hymns.

Everywhere you looked you would see the deep symbolism of service, black, green, blue and red serge uniforms of those serving today. The Navy League, Army Cadets, Air Cadets, reservists, regular force members and the RCMP all gathered together, remembering, supporting and grieving veterans, both present and past.

Poppies pinned to each left lapel, medals resting on chests that carried stories of service, sacrifice, deployments in places whose names many Canadians will never hear. Wreaths laid with care with a steady salute by dignitaries representing governments and community groups.

And always we watched the ever-diminishing group of veterans, some in navy blazers and grey slacks, berets perfectly angled, others bundled in warm coats and toques, but always there, always remembering.

Scenes like this unfold every November 11 in communities across British Columbia. It is important, too, to reflect on the broader story of remembrance in Canada.

In 1991, a group of Indigenous veterans were asked not to lay their wreath at the cenotaph in Ottawa. In wake of that painful moment, national Indigenous Veterans Day began to be observed on November 8.

The pageantry is different — blankets, ceremony, the presence of elders — but the remembering, honouring and grieving are the same. There are photographs of loved ones that went to war and never returned, stories of inequity in service and post-war benefits.

On the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation, a Veterans Powwow is held, with a grand entry that honours those present and those who came before.

Our legions also play a vital role in keeping traditions strong. They organize Remembrance Day services and open their doors afterwards to service members, veterans, families and the community members.

My own Lynn Valley legion branch, 114, of which I’m a proud member, is a shining example of this commitment. Every year the poppy campaign raises funds to support veterans and assist community groups, sports teams, guiding and scouting units, dance companies and school programs.

The legion applies for and distributes gaming grants, augments poppy funds and creates a warm and welcoming space where people gather, sometimes for live music, sometimes trivia or bingo, sometimes seasonal festivities and others simply for the comfort of community. It is a gathering place of service and honour.

[10:25 a.m.]

Schools also play a powerful role in remembrance. Many host ceremonies with a veteran or a serving Canadian Armed Forces member speaking to students about Canada’s contributions in global conflicts — Crimean War, First and Second World Wars, Korea, the Gulf War and, most recently, Afghanistan.

They highlight Canada’s long tradition of peacekeeping, disaster relief in the wake of earthquakes, typhoons and hurricanes and the domestic operations during fires and floods. Training missions conducted around the world also help local forces strengthen their skills and capacity.

Students respond with songs, poems, dance pieces and reflections, reminders of the children and youth whose lives are shaped by the example of brave, selfless individuals serving our country.

Across nearly every ceremony, certain words resonate each year. Lt. Col. John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields,” written amid the devastation of the First World War, remains central to our collective memory. Laurence Binyon’s famous lines from “The Fallen” echo through time:

“They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.”

Forest Industry Conditions
and Support

Donegal Wilson: I rise today as the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen but also as someone who has lived in rural British Columbia my entire life.

No matter where I have lived in this beautiful province, the forestry sector has always been the strongest cultural and economic cornerstone of our province. Forestry provides good, family-supporting jobs in every corner of B.C. It is our millworkers, our loggers, our fallers, the truck drivers and the silviculture crews planting millions of seedlings each year.

But for those of us in rural B.C., we also know that forestry reaches far beyond the bush. Every day small businesses, repair shops, welders, tire suppliers, fuel distributors, equipment dealers and grocery stores keep our industry moving. Behind them stands an entire network of professionals — foresters, engineers, surveyors, road builders, biologists and resource specialists who ensure our forests are managed responsibly and sustainably. These are the people who take pride in doing things the right way, the B.C. way, balancing both the environmental and our economy.

When forestry is strong, that strength ripples through our communities. Our schools stay open, our restaurants and rec centres are busy, our fire departments have volunteers, and our youth have coaches. Forestry families are the backbone of rural British Columbia, and far too many of them are worried today about their future.

The reality facing this foundational industry is stark. This sector that helped build this province is now on its knees. We are seeing mills continue to close. Harvest levels continue to drop. Generational businesses are folding. Communities that once hummed with activity are now holding town halls to talk about survival.

Yet what we hear from this government is excuse after excuse: global markets, Trump, climate change, wildfires, previous governments. Ten years and the talking points don’t change, and all point to something outside this government’s control.

But the truth is many of the barriers holding the forestry sector back in British Columbia are within this government’s control. Permitting delays, overlapping land use strategies that contradict each other, unclear tenure direction, uncertainty in fibre supply and a regulatory environment so unpredictable that contractors can’t plan their next month, let alone the next five years.

Industry has been crystal clear about what needs to change. They’re asking for timely, predictable permitting, with firm timelines and a one-window system so companies aren’t stuck navigating multiple overlapping processes.

They need certainty in timber supply, stable annual allowable cut decisions, clear fibre forecasts and timely access to salvage and wildfire-impacted wood.

They need alignment of provincial strategies so old growth, caribou, watershed and biodiversity work together instead of pulling in opposite directions.

They need First Nations, industry and communities working at the same table.

They are asking government to support contractors with fair and sustainable rates, fuel indexing, recognition of equipment depreciation and enforcement of prompt payment so small operators can survive.

[10:30 a.m.]

They want real support for value-added manufacturing, including incentives for B.C. wood in public procurement and help for companies looking to modernize and reinvest.

They want government to rebuild our global market presence by restoring trade offices and supporting diversification so we are not relying on a single market to keep our lights on.

None of these are unreasonable requests. These are all practical, actionable, commonsense steps that any government serious about forestry would have implemented years ago. Every single one of these actions has been within this government’s control. What we need now is a government that is willing to fight for this province, a government that removes its own roadblocks instead of creating new ones, a government that stops hiding behind excuses and starts delivering real solutions.

I want to end with this. I am profoundly proud of the people who make up British Columbia’s forestry sector. Through shifting markets, fires, floods and even the barriers created by their own government, they’ve never given up on this province. I want them to know that I haven’t given up on them. The Conservative Party of British Columbia will continue to fight for a sustainable, competitive and resilient forest industry that keeps people working and keeps our rural communities strong.

My hope is that this government will choose to join us, and they need to start today. They need to take every action within their control to support our sector, and B.C. forestry workers deserve nothing less.

Women and Girls in STEAM

Stephanie Higginson: Today I am delighted to stand to recognize the phenomenal efforts of women and girls in science, technology, engineering, art, design and math. The province has proclaimed this week, from November 14 to 21, Women and Girls in STEAM Week.

We know that early positive experiences in science, technology, engineering, art, design and math, known as STEAM, can inspire girls to study these subjects in school and choose related careers. That’s why our government is committed to supporting access and raising awareness of STEAM fields for all students, so that they can see themselves as innovators and leaders.

In today’s rapidly changing world, ensuring every student has access to science, technology, engineering, art and math is critical to ensure that the students we educate today are ready to face the problems and challenges we face tomorrow. STEAM paves the way for cross-sector collaboration that opens doors to the kind of innovative thought and problem-solving that is necessary to tackle the evolving and changing problems of today and tomorrow with confidence and skill.

As we celebrate women and girls in STEAM by shining a light on the remarkable contributions of women and girls who are shaping our world through curiosity, creativity and innovation…. These fields are not just about knowledge. They are about imagination, problem solving and building a future where everyone has a voice.

Across British Columbia and right here on Vancouver Island, we see incredible examples of this spirit in action. I want to say a huge thank you to all of B.C.’s female innovators at every level, from classrooms to research labs to creative studios.

There are several exemplary women whose work embodies the essence of STEAM: Dr. Ruth Grunau of Vancouver, who pioneered research advancing neonatal health and transforming the global understanding of infant pain; Martha Sturdy of West Vancouver, who has made contributions to art and design while inspiring generations through bold creativity, global influence and a lifelong commitment to trailblazing for women in business and arts. Fun fact: my sister was best friends with her daughter when we were little kids.

These Order of B.C. recipients, and so many more across B.C., remind us why the Ministry of Education and Child Care continues to invest in inclusive, hands-on learning, encouraging curiosity, confidence and opportunity for all students. That’s why we continue to support education and development opportunities for STEAM, while always acknowledging there is more work to do.

[10:35 a.m.]

Here on Vancouver Island, we have incredible organizations leading the way. Nanaimo Science, a charitable non-profit, offers hands-on education for children and families, sparking curiosity from an early age. We also have iWIST, or Island Women in Science and Technology, that is creating vital spaces for women and non-binary people to connect, share knowledge and grow professionally in the STEAM fields along the west coast.

I see STEAM in action in the community of Qualicum Beach at the Old School House art gallery. At TOSH, as we call it locally, the executive director, Illana Hester, while not an Order of B.C. recipient yet but still a fairly badass woman doing incredible things, utilizes data mapping and visualization to support a thriving arts community across both Oceanside and Vancouver Island. The intersection of art and data doesn’t get more STEAM than that.

These efforts matter. From robotics clubs and coding camps to Indigenous science programs and creative design labs, they help build confidence, curiosity, experience, expertise and leadership. They ensure that every girl knows she belongs in these spaces.

And let’s not forget the unique role that Vancouver Island plays in STEAM innovation. Our communities are home to cutting-edge marine research, sustainable forestry initiatives and creative artist and technology hubs. These opportunities show young people that STEAM careers aren’t just in big cities; they’re thriving right here in our coastal communities.

I want to thank the educators, the mentors, the families and the organizations throughout British Columbia, and especially here on Vancouver Island, who are working tirelessly to break down barriers and open pathways for girls in STEAM. Your dedication is shaping a future where inclusion and innovation go hand in hand.

So as we celebrate this week, let’s continue to champion inclusion, spark imagination and ensure every girl in British Columbia knows that the future of science, technology, engineering, art and math belongs to her too.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will continue second reading of Bill M216, intituled Professional Reliance Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act
(continued)

Amna Shah: I’m pleased to continue speaking on my support for the Professional Reliance Act. Just to pick up where we left off, I want to reiterate that this legislation does not take power away from local governments. Councils will still get to decide what gets built where and how that fits within communities. This bill simply removes unnecessary duplication of technical reviews.

For smaller municipalities, which often struggle to hire in-house engineers or architects for peer review, this bill provides real relief. It allows them to rely on provincially certified professionals, reducing both costs and delay.

At the core of this legislation, it’s about trust — trust in our professional systems and trust in the people who are building our communities. It’s also about hope. It’s about hope for people who are trying to get into the market, families who are searching for stability and local governments who are simply doing their best to keep up with demand.

When we make it easier to build, we make it easier for people to belong. When we trust the professionals who build our communities, we make it easier for local governments to focus on the big picture and for housing to move forward from the drawing board to the construction site much faster. When we reduce duplication and streamline process, we make housing not only faster to deliver but more affordable for everyone.

This is really about efficiency. It’s about affordability. It’s about accountability. Above all, it’s about people. It’s about giving communities the tools that they need to deliver homes faster, and it’s about reducing red tape without reducing standards. It’s about building a housing system that works for young families and for the communities that we all love.

So really, as we look to the future, we hope for a future in which professionals are trusted, their work is trusted, their work is accountable, that local governments are supported and that people can once again believe that finding a home in a community that they love is possible.

[10:40 a.m.]

Linda Hepner: I rise today to speak to Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act.

The member for Nanaimo-Lantzville says this bill will cut red tape and speed up housing. I say: look closer. This bill doesn’t cut red tape. It re-rolls it in Victoria. It doesn’t speed up housing. It slows it down with new provincial bottlenecks. It muzzles the very municipalities that know their neighbourhoods best.

Let’s be crystal clear about what it actually does. It strips cities of the right to double-check professional reports on drainage, slope stability, traffic, wildfire risk. If a city dares to ask, “Are you sure?” the file is shipped to an eight-person office in Victoria that has no extra staff and no extra dollars. That tiny office becomes the sole judge and jury for every disputed driveway in Dawson Creek and every retaining wall in Kelowna. That is not streamlining. That will become centralized paralysis.

In my years as the mayor of Surrey, I remember the lengthy delays we suffered through if there was the need for any provincial comment on something like a red frog in a ditch. That can take months of paralysis, getting through that system.

The members say the professionals are qualified. Of course they are, but they are hired and paid for by the applicant, not the public. That is not a conspiracy. That is a built-in conflict of interest. Ask any mayor. We’ve all seen the glossy report that says “zero flood risk,” until the first atmospheric river provides and proves otherwise. Local staff catch those errors before the concrete is poured.

M216 says: “Hands off. Trust the stamp.” I say: “Trust, but verify.” That’s not bureaucracy. That’s due diligence.

Now let’s talk capacity. The superintendent’s office currently oversees about 110,000 professional registrants across six colleges. Eight staff — that’s one bureaucrat for every 13,750 professionals. Now we’re going to ask them to look at every municipal dispute in the province that lands on their desk. I say, “Good luck getting an answer before the next election,” from my personal experience at trying to get things through provincial bottlenecks.

The bill talks about no ordering of a peer review unless Victoria says it’s okay. So when a biologist signs off on a stream buffer that every local fisher knows is wrong, the city’s hands are now tied. That’s not professional reliance. That’s professional roulette.

We do need more homes faster. Here’s what may actually work and what the Conservatives will fight for: one-window digital portals, so applicants don’t fill out the same form six times; concurrent reviews, so that engineering, arborist and traffic reports are checked at the same time, not one after the other; and pre-approved building typologies — and councils have already blessed those in many places. None of that requires gagging and castrating cities or overloading an eight-person office.

Schedule 1 professionals in the proposed bill — engineers, architects, agrologists, planners, landscape architects, fire safety specialists — have been left out. A city can still review that from a fire engineer. It can look at those comments. But it has zero scrutiny on the geotech who says the hillside is stable. That’s just not consistency. It’s Swiss cheese legislation.

[10:45 a.m.]

Who pays when the superintendent rules against the city? The municipality, your property taxes, foots the bill for provincial arbitration. Developers win, taxpayers lose, and the only jobs created will be government lawyers.

Conservatives believe in local decisions for local conditions. Prince George doesn’t have Vancouver’s rain, and Fernie doesn’t have Surrey’s traffic, yet this bill says one office 400 kilometres away knows better than the mayor who walks those sites every day. The constant neutering of local government decision-making is, frankly, astonishing.

Housing affordability is the fight of our generation, but we will not win it by trading accountability for provincial bureaucracy. We will win it by trusting cities, empowering staff and measuring results by homes built, not forms shuffled. Because a family waiting for a basement suite in Langley shouldn’t need permission from a superintendent they’ve never met to come home.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, at second reading.

This legislation addresses an issue that affects people across British Columbia every single day: the ability to find a safe, affordable home in the community they love. Families, young people and seniors are waiting far too long for housing that meets their needs. If we want to make real progress on housing availability and affordability, then we must ensure that unnecessary delays in the approval process are addressed. Bill M216 is a step toward doing exactly that.

This bill has the potential to speed up the process for building homes faster. We have already heard public support for this approach, and we have also heard questions and concerns about certain details. That is normal and healthy for a bill of this importance. And that is why I’m supporting this legislation at second reading, so we can move to committee stage, where clause-by-clause review, public input and stakeholder engagement can occur. Committee is where the refinements happen and where those thoughtful concerns can be addressed.

At its core, Bill M216 provides clarity on how municipalities can rely on work completed by licensed professionals, engineers, architects and other experts who are governed by provincial legislation, require extensive training and carry professional liability. These professionals already certify the technical work required for building projects. Yet in many cases, municipalities re-review the same technical work even when it has already been completed to standard.

This duplication takes time, weeks or months in some cases, which slows down projects and keeps families waiting longer than necessary. Meanwhile, municipal staff spend valuable time rechecking work that has already been checked and certified. Bill M216 allows municipalities to accept certified technical work so that projects can move forward more efficiently. Oversight and safety remain entirely intact.

[10:50 a.m.]

Professionals remain fully accountable for their work. The office of the superintendent of professional governance continues to enforce standards, training and disciplinary processes. Importantly, local councils retain full authority over zoning, design, land use and community planning. Nothing in this bill diminishes local decision-making. It simply streamlines how technical work is handled. The result is a process that is more predictable, efficient and effective for everyone involved.

Families will see homes delivered sooner. Young people entering the housing market will have more options. Municipal staff will be able to concentrate on complex planning and community priorities. And smaller municipalities with limited staff capacity will have a clearer, more reliable framework to follow.

Let me share an example from my constituency of Vancouver-Langara. We have young families waiting for housing that fits their needs. Imagine a local couple with two young children hoping to move into a small multi-unit development designed specifically for our community. The building plans have been certified by licensed professionals, but under the current system, the municipality may need to recheck every technical detail, a process that can take months. That delay prolongs the uncertainty for families who are simply waiting for a home that suits them.

Under Bill M216, the municipality can rely on the certified work and allow construction to begin sooner. Families can move in months earlier. This is not theory. It’s a real, practical example of how this bill can positively affect people’s lives.

This legislation also plays an important role in supporting infill housing. Infill development is one of the most effective tools we have for increasing housing supply while using existing infrastructure efficiently. It helps us build smarter, reduces pressure for sprawl and supports vibrant, connected neighbourhoods. But infill projects frequently face delays not because of safety concerns but because technical reviews are repeated. M216 helps us move infill housing forward in a responsible and timely way.

This legislation is not about shortcuts; it’s about smart governance. Professionals are still accountable for their work, municipalities still maintain authority over the decisions that shape their communities, and the public remains protected by a strong framework of standards and oversight.

Housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges we face as a province. We cannot solve it with a single policy or a single bill, but we can make meaningful progress by improving the systems that slow down housing delivery. When we reduce unnecessary duplication, we shorten timelines. When we shorten timelines, we reduce costs. And when we reduce costs, we give people a better chance at finding a home they can afford.

This bill also strengthens trust — trust in licensed professionals, trust in municipal staff to focus on strategic priorities and trust in government to remove barriers that do not add value. Trust is foundational to stronger communities, and this bill reinforces that foundation.

[10:55 a.m.]

M216 is a practical, balanced and forward-looking piece of legislation. It helps municipalities, supports professionals and benefits families waiting for homes. It supports infill housing. It maintains safety and accountability, and it improves efficiency across the board.

By supporting the bill at second reading, we are enabling the important work at committee to proceed, the stage where public voices, technical experts and community members can guide improvements and strengthen this legislation. That process is essential, and I look forward to those conversations. For these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, at second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. You’ve got about eight minutes.

Sharon Hartwell: Eight minutes?

Deputy Speaker: Eight minutes, yeah, because we’re at our allotted time, and the mover has five minutes.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, and I’m going to have to cut down my remarks, because I’m sure it’s more than eight minutes.

This bill is being presented as a way to streamline the development approvals process and reduce administrative costs for local governments. On paper, that sounds like something we could all support. Every local government, every council, every staff member working in community planning knows how frustrating and time-consuming the development process can be. We have all heard from residents and builders who are frustrated by delays, red tape, inconsistent decisions, so when we see legislation that claims to fix these problems, it is natural to want to take a closer look.

But when you look closely at this bill, you see something very different from what is promised. This is not a bill that empowers communities; it is a bill that weakens them. Under Bill M216, local governments would be compelled to accept technical submissions from certified professionals, engineers and architects, and other specialists, regulated under the Professional Governance Act as meeting municipal permit or bylaw requirements. If a municipality has any dispute or concern about a submission, the bill says the matter must be referred to the superintendent of professional governance for resolution.

Now, that might sound fine to someone sitting in an office in Victoria, but for those of us who have worked in local government, it raises serious red flags. This process removes a community’s ability to independently verify, question or even discuss technical details, even when local concerns are legitimate and well founded. It means that if a town council or planning department believes a report is flawed, incomplete or inappropriate for local conditions, their only recourse is to send it off to Victoria and wait for someone else to decide. That is not streamlining. That’s stripping away local government decision-making.

Let us think practically about what that means. The superintendent of professional governance is already responsible for oversight of engineers, geoscientists, biologists, foresters and other professionals across the province. That office currently has a small staff and a long list of responsibilities. Now, this bill would make it the final authority for disputes between municipalities and professionals on everything from stormwater plans to seismic design to environmental mitigation. How many referrals could that office realistically handle? Dozens? Thousands?

Each one of those disputes will take time, and while that time passes, projects will stall. Councils will be stuck waiting, and local residents will grow frustrated. We keep hearing from this government that it wants to speed up housing and development, yet with this bill, they are creating a new layer of bureaucracy that will almost certainly slow things down. This is not efficiency; it is the opposite.

I served my community for 20 years. I know firsthand that what works in Vancouver or Burnaby does not necessarily work in my home, Telkwa, Smithers or in Vanderhoof. There is no mention of this in the bill, how small and rural communities are supposed to adapt to these new rules. There is no reference to northern realities or to the capacity challenges that smaller municipalities face.

Too often legislation comes from this government that assumes every community looks like the Lower Mainland, but in much of the province, we do not have large planning departments. We do not have teams of engineers sitting in city hall. We have one or two staff who do everything from approving business licences to inspecting buildings. These are the same people who will now be expected to navigate a system where they can no longer rely on their own judgment and must defer to outside professionals who may not even live in their community. That’s not fair to them, and it’s not fair to the people that they serve.

[11:00 a.m.]

One of the most troubling parts of this bill is the section that says that municipalities cannot require a peer review of a certified professional submission unless they get permission from the superintendent. Peer review is a basic safeguard. It allows for a second qualified expert to verify that the first one has done their work properly. In many cases, that extra layer of review catches mistakes that could cost lives or millions of dollars to fix later, extending timelines.

Taking that authority away from municipalities is dangerous. It reduces accountability and increases risk. It also sends a message that local councils and staff cannot be trusted to do the jobs that they were elected to do. This is another example of top-down government, a belief that Victoria always knows best and that local communities should simply fall in line.

When I was in local government, I saw firsthand the value of professional advice. I worked with engineers and planners who were outstanding in what they did. But I also saw mistakes, sometimes simple ones, sometimes serious ones, that were only caught because local staff took the time to ask questions.

In one instance, we had a project that looked fine on paper but would have redirected drainage in a way that flooded a nearby road. Our local engineer caught it. If this bill had been in place, the municipality would have had no authority to challenge the plan without first appealing to Victoria. That delay alone could have cost tens of thousands of dollars and months of extra work.

Local oversight is not a barrier; it is a safeguard. It protects communities from bad design, from poor assumptions and from mistakes that happen when people do not understand local geography or climate. When government removes that layer of protection, it is the residents who pay the price.

This bill is being sold as a way to streamline approvals and speed up housing, but nothing in it actually guarantees that result. Developers will still have to submit applications. Local governments will still have to process them. The only difference is that municipalities will have less control, less input and less accountability.

If the government truly wants to speed up approvals, it should invest in building local capacity, hire more staff, fund training and modernize systems. It should not be taking authority away from the very people trying to make this system work. We keep hearing about backlogs in permitting across the multiple ministries. The problem is not local government. The problem is the provincial bureaucracy itself. Another law that adds more paperwork and oversight will not fix that.

The bill says nothing about how smaller communities are supposed to pay for these changes. If municipalities cannot do peer reviews, they will have to rely on professionals hired by developers. That creates a potential conflict of interest, where the person approving the work is also paid by the person benefiting from the project. If local governments do not trust these submissions, their only option would be to refer the issue to the superintendent, which will cost more money and take more time.

In the end, this legislation could actually increase costs for rural and northern communities rather than reduce them. We have seen this pattern before. The province says local governments still have authority over zoning and official community plans, but at the same time, they continue to pressure municipalities to adopt higher density, to remove parking requirements and to change their bylaws to meet provincial housing targets. When the province holds the power to approve or deny grants, local governments quickly learn that resistance is not an option.

This bill follows the same logic. It tells municipalities they still have their authority but then quietly takes away their ability to exercise it. The bill also creates new uncertainty. If a dispute arises between a municipality and a professional, who decides what is a technical issue? Where does the local judgment end and provincial jurisdiction begin?

These are not small questions. They will shape how this law operates in practice, and until we have those answers, communities are left guessing.

The government must stop treating local councils and rural communities as obstacles. They are the heart of this province. They are the ones who know their land, their infrastructure and their people the best. I urge the government to go back, consult meaningfully with local leaders and bring forward legislation that supports communities instead of undermining them.

At the end of the day, the goal should not be just faster approvals. The goal should be better decisions, decisions made with care, with local knowledge and with accountability to the people who have to live with the results.

Deputy Speaker: I’ll now call the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville to close debate.

[11:05 a.m.]

George Anderson: Thank you to everyone for a very spirited debate.

Before I continue, I would suggest to everyone to go to Google and type in “certified professional program B.C.” And what will you find? Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, Nanaimo, the district of West Vancouver, Ladysmith, Squamish, Abbotsford, Esquimalt and Prince George — wow — communities across British Columbia that are already doing this right now.

Like my friend from across the way said, as I’m also a former elected official from Nanaimo and a city councillor, I have tremendous respect for local government. That’s why I’ve put this bill forward: to uplift the work of local governments.

The ones who’ve asked…. UBCM asked a question: what is the problem being solved by the proposed legislation?

What’s being solved? The fact that young people…. The fact that builders want to help build our community. They want people to have access to reliable, safe homes, and that’s why these local governments have implemented a plan to streamline housing approvals, such as the ones that I’ve mentioned.

That’s what people are asking for: a system that works, a system that gets homes built, a system that gets projects approved faster, and that’s what this bill is about. It’s not about ideology. It’s not about partisanship. It’s not about weakening safeguards within our systems. It’s about building a modern system.

Over the last decade, one message has emerged from every corner of this province, from young families trying to get into the housing market to small businesses navigating red tape, to municipalities trying to keep up with demand. What have those municipalities said? This process is too slow, too complex and too unpredictable. The delays don’t help the environment, they don’t strengthen oversight, they don’t make homes more affordable, and they don’t create jobs.

That’s why we’ve seen endorsements of this proposed legislation from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade and Urban Development Institute, which talked about the builder who recently reviewed their project performance over the past 15 years and revealed that construction costs have soared to over $562.59 per square foot, up from $204.19 per square foot, well beyond the consumer price index.

That’s why you’ve seen groups like Homes for Living in Victoria, which is an affordable housing advocacy group, state that this would be great for infill projects. You’ve seen groups such as Strong Towns Nanaimo, which is a group of urbanists, saying that we need to do better and we need to modernize the system that we have to meet the moment that we’re in, which is demonstrating that the most expensive material in construction today is delay.

The Professional Reliance Act takes the approach that says let’s trust people who are trained, certified, insured and regulated to do this work — what local governments are already doing at this very moment.

Some people have raised concerns. I’ve met with EGBC, Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia. I’ve met with the Planning Institute of British Columbia. And I’m hopeful that if this legislation does move forward, we will have more conversations about how to get things done, rather than bickering about trying to be partisan. That’s what I’m focused on.

That’s what we need to focus on in this Legislature, actually dealing with the problems that are at hand. That’s what I’ve heard from every single member in this House who has spoken about the bill — that there is a problem that needs to be solved and that we should work together to find a solution to it.

To young people who feel locked out of the housing market, to skilled workers who are seeing projects stalled for years, to municipalities that are overwhelmed with duplicative processes, small businesses facing uncertainty, we owe them more than debate. We owe them results.

So let’s find those results together, should this bill move on to second reading. Let’s go to committee, have the discussions, make the amendments and make this bill work for British Columbians, because that is what we are here to do, not to just put forward partisan debates but to actually get things done.

Let’s show British Columbians that we can still work together efficiently, responsibly and with the public interest at its core. I urge all members to support this bill at second reading so we can continue this important work at committee stage, strengthen it where it’s needed and deliver the results that British Columbians expect of us.

[11:10 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is the second reading of Bill M216, intituled Professional Reliance Act.

Division has been called.

Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer: I move that Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, be now read a second time.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this bill, which is not theoretical nor ideological, and it’s not optional. It is a topic that directly affects the safety of every driver, every pedestrian, every cyclist and every family who uses our roads. That topic is the urgent need for mandatory dashcams in commercial vehicles.

Commercial vehicles are the workhorses of our economy. They carry our food, our materials, our workers, our essential supplies. They move our people, connect communities and allow businesses to operate. But because of their size, weight and exposure to high-risk environments, commercial vehicles face greater danger and greater responsibility than most road users. For that reason, mandatory dashcams in commercial vehicles is not simply an interesting idea; it’s a necessary safety tool to make British Columbia’s highways safer.

To understand the need for the dashcams, we must first acknowledge what this policy affects. Our commercial drivers are on our roads more hours than any other group. They operate vehicles that require more skill, training and awareness. They manage more blind spots and more complex manoeuvring challenges and face higher risks due to weather, terrain and road conditions.

When a collision occurs involving a commercial vehicle, its consequences are often much more severe. Larger vehicles mean greater impact forces. Heavy loads bring greater stopping distances. Passenger-carrying vehicles heighten public safety risks. Freight transport incidents can shut down highways for hours. These realities aren’t criticisms. They’re facts, and facts demand practical solutions.

Dashcams are not intrusive. They’re not complicated. They’re not expensive. They are a safety tool, no different than reflective striping, on-board fire extinguishers, blind spot mirrors, backup alarms or stability assistance systems. They offer a modern, cost-efficient way to reduce risk, protect drivers, shorten investigations and improve the safety of everyone on the road.

A standard, forward-facing dashcam can cost far less than the damage caused by even a minor collision. It costs far less than a day of downtime for a commercial vehicle, and it costs far less than the rising insurance rates that every operator faces. For a modest, one-time expense, the return is certainly worth it.

When a commercial vehicle is involved in an incident, everyone and everything becomes serious very quickly — police investigations, insurance liability, legal costs, public scrutiny, media attention and company risk management systems.

One of the biggest challenges in road safety is that truth can be difficult to determine. Drivers shaken by an accident may recall events differently. Witnesses may contradict one another. A single moment of confusion can lead to months of dispute. But if a dashcam removes much of that uncertainty, it’s worth it.

It also provides real-time, objective video evidence. It has accurate timelines, visual confirmation of road conditions, a clear picture of the surrounding traffic and an indisputable documentation of what happened. This protects innocent drivers, supports fair outcomes and ensures decisions are based on facts, not assumptions, emotions or speculation. Objective evidence is one of the most powerful safety tools available.

[11:15 a.m.]

One of the most documented benefits of dashcams is their effect on driver behaviour. This is true not only for commercial drivers but for everyone who interacts with them. A camera encourages steadier speeds, safer following distances, more attentive lane discipline, fewer aggressive reactions and more cautious decision-making.

This is not about punishing drivers. It’s supporting them. Most commercial drivers take pride in operating safely. A dashcam reinforces that professionalism and discourages the few unsafe behaviours that put others at risk.

But the behavioural aspect also extends beyond the commercial vehicle. Other motorists, when they know a commercial truck, bus or service vehicle has a dashcam, are also like less likely to brake-check, swerve dangerously, cut off large vehicles, tailgate or engage in road rage. The presence of a camera lowers the temperature of risky interactions. It creates a road environment where respect and caution naturally increase.

Across North America, commercial drivers report a rise in aggressive cut-ins, intimidation, deliberate brake-checking, harassment, staging attempts and high-risk confrontations. Commercial drivers often become targets simply because of their vehicle size.

Dashcams can document aggression. They can identify offenders. They can discourage escalation, support law enforcement and protect drivers from false accusations. When a motorist knows that a commercial vehicle is recording, they behave differently. The camera becomes a silent peacekeeper, a constant stabilizing presence that reduces the frequency and severity of conflicts.

Dashcams are also a proactive tool. They’re not just reactive. They help companies create safer fleets by providing real-world data on near misses, hazardous locations, changing road conditions, intersection risks and driver training needs. Dashcam footage also allows safety managers to give targeted coaching where needed, correct behaviours before they can cause harm, adjust route planning, reward safe driving, identify environmental hazards and reduce workplace injuries. This is a modern risk-management measure — practical, data-driven and preventive.

When used responsibly, dashcam footage can build a culture of safety, one where drivers are not scrutinized and not punished but supported in their professional responsibilities. When serious collisions occur, numerous resources are needed. Police, fire department and highway rescue, paramedics, tow operators, Ministry of Transportation staff and, frequently, environmental response teams are needed. Investigations can be lengthy. They can disrupt traffic for hours and close highways.

Dashcam footage can accelerate the investigation process, clarify the contributing factors in the accident, help responders quickly assess hazards, shorten road closures and reduce the risk to first responders. In every major incident, every minute matters. When first responders can understand the situation rapidly, lives can be saved. A dashcam is not simply a video tool. It’s an emergency response tool.

One of the most overlooked but serious problems commercial vehicle operators face is fraud. There are staged collisions. There are moving cut-off scams — we’ve all seen them — false injury claims, exaggerated damage reports and deliberate attempts to provoke commercial vehicle impacts. These incidents cost tens of thousands of dollars and raise all of our insurance premiums.

Dashcams reduce fraud dramatically because they make deception almost impossible. A fraudulent claim cannot survive video evidence from a dashcam. This protects all of us. It protects small operators, our independent contractors, our delivery vehicles, taxis and ride-hail companies, freight carriers and public transit agencies as well. Lower fraud means lower costs for everyone.

Commercial drivers are among the most heavily regulated drivers on our roads. They undergo mandatory training, licensing and compliance checks.

[11:20 a.m.]

We have made improvements with electronic logs and mandatory off hours. We’ve started implementation on costly speed limiters and maximum speed limits for trucks — up to 105 kilometres — but there’s still much work to be done.

Yet in many collisions — most of these collisions that are involving or caused by unsafe behaviour from other drivers, pedestrians stepping into traffic, cyclists weaving unpredictably or drivers attempting dangerous passing — dashcams can document the behaviour of everyone involved. This creates equal accountability, fair investigations and consistent enforcement. Safety is not about blaming one group. It’s establishing the truth. Having a continuous implement system in place will make us do that.

George Anderson: The safety of everyone in British Columbia is important to this government. Looking at the roads and highways is critical for ensuring that commercial motor vehicles and drivers operate safely. Of course, commercial motor vehicle safety has garnered attention in recent years because of unacceptable instances of reckless driver behaviour, including hitting overpasses.

While the vast majority of truckers operate safely and responsibly, our government has responded swiftly and decisively to address the small numbers of drivers and companies that do not. We’ve brought in tough new enforcement measures to deter these collisions, including some of the highest fines in Canada, suspension of entire fleets and the ability to recommend increased penalties through the courts, which can now impose fines of up to $100,000, imprisonment up to 18 months or both.

Our mission to improve safety has not stopped. In 2021, we made mandatory entry-level training a prerequisite for class 1 commercial drivers. Over the past two years, we have mandated equipping certain commercial vehicles with electronic logging devices to reduce fatigue-based motor vehicle incidents. These devices are connected to the commercial motor vehicle and track driver hours of service based on vehicle movement.

Speed limiters in heavy commercial vehicles to reduce speed-related collisions, set at 105 kilometres an hour, currently align with Ontario, Quebec and eventually, hopefully, all North American jurisdictions. In-cab warning devices to reduce overheight commercial vehicle infrastructure crashes, for vehicles that have boxes that raise above 4.15 metres…. Despite the frequency and added costs of these mandates, industry has borne their implementation with grace and professionalism.

We continue to actively explore ways to improve commercial motor vehicle safety in British Columbia, in harmony with the federal government, provincial standards and territorial standards where possible.

Following a series of fatal incidents on Highway 5 in late 2022, the ministry increased commercial motor vehicle enforcement, made safety improvements to the highway and engaged with local leaders on how we could further improve road safety. The ministry has also installed road sensors in Fishtrap Canyon, south of Barriere. These measures resulted in a decrease in serious collisions on Highway 5 north.

We are also launching a new average speed data collection system that uses cameras to obtain vehicle speeds along the highway and help inform future safety improvements along the corridor.

[11:25 a.m.]

There have been a number of road safety improvements throughout the province. Just to name a few: brushing along 70 kilometres of Highway 5 north to improve sight distances, a reduced winter speed zone of 80 kilometres per hour introduced in winter 2024 for approximately three metres through Fishtrap Canyon, centre line and shoulder rumble strips, LED curbs, warning signs and overhead changeable message signage.

During past conversations with the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson, and at that point in time he was the mayor, the MLA raised issues related to dashboard cameras. Since then, the Ministry of Transportation and Transit has been assessing the benefits and challenges of dashboard camera requirements for commercial vehicles. There is strong industry support for the benefit of these devices.

I see the member is nodding along, so I’m glad that we agree, because these devices promote safer driving, enable post-incident reviews, potentially support driver exoneration and enhance organizational safety culture. These are things that we agree upon.

However, government has privacy concerns under the Personal Information Protection Act and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This includes the potential for over-collection of personal information, such as faces of pedestrians and other drivers, licence plates, GPS locations and audio. There are other security risks, such as cloud-based storage outside of Canada, including data breaches, hacking, physical theft, especially footage if it’s not properly encrypted or securely stored.

To date, no Canadian or international jurisdiction has mandated dashboard cameras in commercial vehicles except for training purposes. Approving private member’s bill M217 would make B.C. the only jurisdiction in North America with such a requirement, creating enforcement challenges and reducing harmonization across our borders.

It would also cost industry in British Columbia, as well as create…. Extra-provincial operators travelling in B.C. would be required to purchase, install and operate dashboard cameras. There are numerous costs. We want to ensure that if we are going to move in this direction, there are consistent standards nationwide and fairness for operation and enforcement across jurisdictions.

Our government supports exploration of a national approach led by Transport Canada or the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. Our government has led the way in putting commercial vehicle safety on the federal agenda by initiating a national approach to dealing with infrastructure strikes by out-of-province carriers, like the 11 companies to date whose drivers have been involved in these incidents.

I’m confident that this will also be the most effective way to ensure improved safety with dashboard cameras. Ministry staff have been directed to initiate discussions with colleagues across the country about a national approach to a commercial motor vehicle dashboard camera mandate.

Nationally or provincially, mandating the use of dashboard cameras would require significant time, planning and resources in order to address privacy and data security concerns as well as other potential policy and legal issues, including the scope of the vehicles and law that it should apply to, establishing enforcement mechanisms, amongst other things, and also developing an appropriate legislation and regulatory framework as well as establishing operational standards.

So it is my recommendation and request that all members vote no to the private member’s bill M217 following this second reading, allowing the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to conduct these discussions and report back.

[11:30 a.m.]

Steve Kooner: I rise today in support of my colleague’s bill, M217. My colleague has provided elaborate discussion on why we need to have this legislation, and I agree with my colleague on that.

I’m pleased to rise today in support of my colleague’s private member’s bill, M217, the Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, 2025. This is a clear, concise and practical piece of legislation that strengthens road safety across British Columbia while imposing only minimal cost and burden on commercial operators. This bill does exactly what good legislation should do. It identifies a real problem, proposes a simple solution and outlines responsibilities that are easy to follow and easy to enforce.

I’ll briefly go through the bill. The first section deals with definitions. There are two main definitions. The two definitions refer to the dashboard camera, as well as to commercial vehicles. “Commercial vehicle” is defined in line with the Commercial Transport Act, so this legislation shows some consistency in terms of dealing with previous legislation.

But in terms of “dashboard camera,” it defines dashboard camera as a device capable of continuously recording the view through the vehicle’s front windshield whenever that commercial vehicle is in operation. This matters because it ensures consistency. Every commercial vehicle, regardless of size or type, is using the same core safety tool, a forward-facing recording device that captures what actually happens on the road.

The bill goes further in section 2. It talks about installation and maintenance. This section establishes a clear responsibility. Commercial vehicles must have a dashcam installed and maintained. If the vehicle is owned, the owner is responsible. If leased, the lessee is responsible. This is a practical approach, placing responsibility with the party who manages the vehicle’s day-to-day operation.

The cost of compliance here is truly minimal. Dash cameras today can be purchased for as little as $36. This is not a financial barrier for commercial operators, large or small, but the value that the dash cameras provide is immeasurable. It’s going to really help road safety.

Section 3 goes into operation. This is the heart of the bill. It requires that dash cameras must be recording at all times the commercial vehicle is operated and that the camera must not be obstructed. This provides for a clear view, making sure there is no partial recording.

This type of legislation that will provide for dash cameras throughout the commercial industry has a lot of benefits. It will help resolve liability issues. It’ll help solve false accusations in terms of how accidents have happened. It’ll support ICBC insurance assessments, and it’ll also give the investigators clarity in moments when eyewitness testimony simply isn’t enough. Dashcams don’t take sides. They don’t guess. They show what happened. That is why they are valuable.

Now, the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville raised some points about this legislation. To the extent that the member talked about road safety, I agree. Road safety needs to be paramount. I agree that we need to do more, and the government has been doing stuff in terms of road safety. I think this legislation goes in line with that to further road safety. I don’t agree with the concerns raised, because I think this legislation actually deals with those concerns already.

In terms of privacy issues, we already have seen legislation that has come in this House — for example, in Bill 7. Bill 7 dealt with tolls and talked about…. The inference was that there would be some data collection already as a result of that. This government was fine with Bill 7 when it came to data collection and privacy issues there.

[11:35 a.m.]

Why is there an issue now to talk about commercial vehicles? There’s already legislation that has come here and been passed here. I don’t see how those concerns make sense when the government has already introduced legislation that the government has passed that has already dealt with privacy issues.

Other issues. We already have a precedent with dashcams. A lot of people already have dashcams. It’s already happening. So it’s nothing that’s really new. It’s happening already. A lot of people have access to them, and the aspect of the argument from the other side saying that requiring people to have it might be onerous…. It’s something that’s already happening. It’s not like a new innovation. It’s been around for, like, probably a decade. A lot of people use it.

My past experience has been in civil litigation law as a lawyer. I’ve dealt with a lot of motor vehicle accident claims. I know, when the discussion comes forward, it’s always encouraged to deal with dash cameras, because dash cameras can actually help prevent accidents. When more people know what’s happening on the roadways around them, and they know that certain images are going to be caught, people are less likely to drive recklessly.

That’s the whole thing behind why we have traffic enforcement. When people know there’s traffic enforcement along the roads, people are less likely to drive recklessly. So dashcams provide an important purpose, and we’re talking about providing dashcams in the commercial setting.

This doesn’t address the general public. It talks about commercial vehicles. There are already rigorous regulatory frameworks in terms of commercial vehicles. So this is in line with that. This is in line with making sure the drivers that are in commercial vehicles are safe and safer, and also in line with the people that are from the general public driving around these commercial vehicles. They are also safe, because there are dash cameras to kind of keep the safety in check.

As for the concern that was mentioned in terms of cost, I just mentioned you can get a dashcam for as low as $36. Just imagine how much money that will save commercial drivers or commercial businesses. If they can get the proper footage of how the accident happened, they can prove to the insurer — they can prove to ICBC — that they never caused the accident. That may actually save them thousands of dollars in premiums — so $36 versus thousands of dollars in premiums. It makes sense to have consistency with dashcams and having this in the industry.

Now, another example was mentioned by the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville — that there are a lot of other jurisdictions that don’t have legislation to make dashcams mandatory. Well, B.C. has the opportunity to become a leader here. I think that’s in line with what B.C. has been doing in the past. The member for Nanaimo-Lantzville stated that B.C. has done a lot for road safety, and B.C. has played a role in being a leader. So this goes in line with all of that.

All in all, I feel that this legislation is much needed. It will protect British Columbians. The cost for doing it is very low, and it can actually end up saving British Columbians money in terms of increases to premiums, say, if they didn’t have dashcams. So I’ll be supporting this bill.

Rohini Arora: I would like to begin by thanking the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for bringing forward Bill M217, the Dashboard Cameras Requirement in Commercial Vehicles Enforcement Act, 2025. That is a mouthful.

The member has been a strong, consistent advocate for improving safety on Highway 5 north and across our province, and I deeply respect his commitment to ensuring that every family, every worker and every visitor travelling through B.C. returns home safely.

[11:40 a.m.]

Safety on our highways is a responsibility we all share, and I want to acknowledge the families and communities who have been affected by the tragic collisions, particularly the series of fatal incidents on Highway 5 north in late 2022. These losses are felt to this day, and they are a part of why this conversation is so important.

Our government has made road safety a priority, and we have taken significant steps over the last several years to strengthen safety standards for commercial vehicles. We brought in mandatory entry-level training for new class 1 drivers. We have implemented electronic logging devices to reduce fatigue-based incidents.

We have aligned with Quebec and Ontario in mandating speed limiters for heavy commercial vehicles. We have required in-cab warning devices to prevent overheight collisions, an issue that has caused real harm not only to infrastructure but, of course, to the public.

Following the tragic incidents on Highway 5 north, the ministry increased enforcement and improved the corridor’s safety infrastructure. Commercial vehicle safety and enforcement officers have been patrolling the corridor heavily and have issued over $1 million in fines to non-compliant operators since early 2023. We’ve added brushing, rumble strips, LED curve warning signs, new message signage, a reduced winter speed zone and road sensors tied to flashing warnings for microclimate hazards. These combined measures have contributed to a decrease in serious collisions, especially in that area.

I want to thank the trucking community, because despite the frequency and cost of these new regulations, industry has taken them on with professionalism and grace.

I also want to acknowledge that dashboard cameras can and do contribute to safety. We know many companies in B.C…. About half of the BCTA members who responded to a 2025 survey already use these systems voluntarily. Dashcams can support safer driving habits, allow for post-incident review, help exonerate drivers when they are not at fault and strengthen overall safety culture. Industry sees real value in these tools, and so does the ministry. These are important benefits, and they deserve recognition.

However, the question before us is not whether dashboard cameras are useful. It is whether British Columbia, and British Columbians, should be the only area and jurisdiction in North America to mandate them for commercial vehicles. No province, no territory, no U.S. state currently does this, not for enforcement purposes, not for day-to-day operations and not for safety management. Dashcams are only mandated in a very particular manner for training. There are reasons for that.

One of our most serious concerns is privacy and data security under British Columbia law, specifically under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act. These issues matter. They’re not hypothetical. Dashcams collect a great deal of personal information — faces of pedestrians and other drivers, licence plates, GPS locations, sometimes audio and often footage of individuals that don’t even know they’re being recorded.

Most commercial dashcam systems used today by carriers, systems like Samsara and ISAAC, store data on cloud servers outside Canada, typically in the United States. That creates significant risk. Sometimes that risk doesn’t even come from hackers. It comes from the companies themselves.

One of the clearest examples was in 2024, when Google was fined approximately €270 million, or about $321 million Canadian, in France for improperly using people’s personal information. This wasn’t a hack. It was wrongful use by the company itself, one of the largest and most sophisticated tech companies in the world.

If a corporation like Google can mishandle data of millions of people, we just have to ask ourselves: what protections are in place for the footage of British Columbians collected 24-7, stored outside our borders and analyzed by proprietary AI tools we do not control? This is not a small question, and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been very clear that these issues require careful and deliberate action.

[11:45 a.m.]

In fact, a recent 2024 arbitration ruling determined that rear-facing driver cameras were unreasonable and emphasized that employers remain fully accountable for the protection of personal data, even when using third-party vendors. That does give me some pause.

Beyond privacy concerns, a B.C.-only mandate would create real-world enforcement challenges. Commercial trucking is a national and often international industry. If B.C. becomes the only jurisdiction in North America requiring dashcams, then out-of-province operators entering B.C. would face new, complex and costly requirements. We could unintentionally create trade barriers and regulatory misalignment with our neighbours.

This is exactly why standards for commercial transport, whether it’s electronic logging devices, trailer-dimension training or speed limiters, are typically developed federally or through national councils like the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. A national issue requires a national solution. If dashcams are to be mandated, Transport Canada is the right body to lead that process.

I want to be clear. The member’s intent is honourable. The desire to prevent further tragedies is something every member of this House shares. But we must ensure that any legislative mandate is enforceable, legally sound, compatible across borders, protective of personal privacy and responsible in regard to industry costs.

In its current form, Bill M217 raises significant concerns. One, it lacks clarity around enforcement. Two, it leaves many operational and regulatory questions unanswered. Three, it puts B.C. out of step with the rest of the continent. Four, it places a substantial financial burden on industry without national alignment. For those reasons, while I fully support the member’s dedication to safety, I cannot vote for this bill at this time.

However, I want to emphasize what I can support. I support a national, harmonized discussion on the role of dashcams in commercial vehicle safety. The minister has already directed our officials to initiate conversations with federal partners and other provinces to explore what a national approach could look like. This is how we ensure consistent standards. This is how we ensure fairness to operators. This is how we ensure that privacy and security risks are addressed that are currently unresolved.

I again want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward. His advocacy on behalf of the community is important and deeply respected.

While I cannot support Bill M217 at this stage, I want to be very clear. I look forward to working together — government members, opposition members and every MLA in this chamber — to advocate to the federal government for a national, harmonized and safety-focused approach to this issue. Every single person who travels our highways deserves to get home safely. That is our shared goal, and I am committed to working with all members on this issue.

Hon Chan: Thank you to all my colleagues for the opportunity to speak in strong support of Bill M217. I believe this legislation marks an important step forward for road safety, accountability and data-driven enforcement in British Columbia.

Let me begin by outlining what this bill actually does. This bill would require that all commercial vehicles have an operating dashboard camera installed and recording whenever a vehicle is engaged in commercial activities. If a commercial vehicle is used for dual purposes, such as personal use, this requirement would not apply during non-commercial operation.

The purpose of this legislation is simple and practical: to ensure that in an event of collision, incident or dispute, objective video evidence is available to support investigators, insurance adjusters and law enforcement. Dashcam recordings are impartial, and they provide a clear and accurate record of what actually occurred.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Under Bill M217, owners or lessees of commercial vehicles must ensure that a dashboard camera is installed, maintained and unobstructed while the vehicle is in operation. If passed, this legislation would take effect six months after royal assent, giving commercial operators sufficient time to purchase and install a suitable dashcam device.

[11:50 a.m.]

Now, why is this bill so important? First, commercial vehicles travel tens of thousands of kilometres every year across our highways, city streets and rural roads. When an accident occurs, investigations often depend on witness statements or partial evidence. A dashboard camera provides real-time, factual footage, allowing investigators to determine fault quickly and accurately. In jurisdictions where dashcams are already required, the data has led to faster claim resolutions, clearer accountability and safer driving habits.

Second, as I mentioned during my debate on Bill 12, our roads have become increasingly complex. Every day we see countless videos online showing reckless or confused driving, often recorded by citizens themselves. These videos reveal the challenges and the dangers that exist on our roads today, especially with inexperienced drivers. More data can help the Ministry of Transportation and road safety authorities make better-informed decisions. M217 institutionalizes this data collection, turning these videos into consistent and reliable tools for improving public safety.

Third, dashcams promote a culture of accountability. Many commercial drivers already voluntarily use dashcams because they understand how valuable that footage can be, whether for proving innocence in an accident or avoiding false claims.

Fourth, this legislation is proactive, not reactive. Too often, new safety measures are introduced only after tragedy strikes. Bill M217 helps prevent future incidents by ensuring that critical and crucial evidence exists before the next serious collision happens. It empowers investigators to act quickly and fairly, while providing valuable lessons for training, education and enforcement.

Some — and I heard some of the members — may raise concerns about costs or privacy, particularly for small operators. These are legitimate questions, but let us look into the facts. Dashcams today come in a wide variety of models and price ranges, with reliable HD or even 4K options costing as little as $30.

In fact, my colleague mentioned $36. I just want to correct him. I can see one that is actually on sale for $24.99 because of a Black Friday sale. The potential savings in reduced disputes, insurance claims and investigations time will easily outweigh the small upfront cost.

I heard about privacy concerns, which can be addressed through clear regulations on data use, storage and access. Remember, there are already thousands, if not millions, of dashcams on the road, currently, and even online intersection cameras throughout various cities and highways. If there are members on the other side that are very concerned about privacy, does that mean that they want to shut down all the videos that we have showing online right now, currently, on our roads?

In fact, ICBC also always asks for a copy of your dashcam footage if you’re involved in an accident. Right now, dashcams are in use, and even our own jurisdiction collects this data. So I don’t see why the privacy issue is a problem right now.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my right to continue and ask to adjourn the debate.

Hon Chan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Terry Yung moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.