First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 78

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

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

Hon. Niki Sharma

Bill 22 — Statutes Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Bruce Banman

Hon. Randene Neill

Amelia Boultbee

Rosalyn Bird

Sunita Dhir

Hon Chan

Korky Neufeld

Reporting of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Second Reading of Bills

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

Korky Neufeld

Larry Neufeld

Speaker’s Statement

Legislature Staff Thanked

Second Reading of Bills

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

Tony Luck

Kristina Loewen

Misty Van Popta

Kiel Giddens

Brennan Day

Scott McInnis

Lynne Block

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Brennan Day

Hon. Josie Osborne

Anna Kindy

Scott McInnis

Donegal Wilson

Bill 10 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Attorney General

Statutes Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

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

intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

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

I am pleased to introduce the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

This bill amends the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

The proposed Insurance (Vehicle) Act amendments ensure that the province retains the

reimbursements made by the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, ICBC, since the early

1970s for health-related services costs arising out of vehicle accidents.

The bill also includes amendments to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act relating

to the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia as a property guardian

for children.

When the Public Guardian and Trustee is a property guardian for children, the Public

Guardian and Trustee is responsible for protecting the legal and financial interests

of those children. The amendments will support the PGT in this role by consolidating,

updating and clarifying the public property guardianship framework and responding

to practical challenges faced by the PGT.

Amendments will also provide greater consistency in the application of the framework

to all circumstances where the Public Guardian and Trustee is property guardian for

children and will ensure that the public property guardianship services are equitably

available to all children in the province that may require them.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[1:35 p.m.]

Bill 22 — Statutes Act

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

intituled Statutes Act.

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

I am pleased to introduce the Statutes Act. This bill makes online versions of acts

and consolidations official under the Evidence Act, which means that people will be

able to use, for evidentiary purposes, online versions of statutes and consolidations

accessed through a government website.

This is another step in government’s ongoing work to improve and modernize access

to justice for all people in British Columbia. Currently only printed copies of acts

published by the King’s Printer can technically be presented as evidence of the law.

Under this new Statutes Act, official versions of the acts and consolidations published

online by the King’s Printer can also be used for evidentiary purposes.

Users will be able to present official copies of acts on their electronic device or

printed from a home printer as evidence of legislation. Official printed versions

would still be available from the King’s Printer on request, but the option of accessing

official legislation online places more power in the hands of individuals, making

it easier to obtain material that can be used in evidence in people’s interactions

with the justice system, with business and with each other.

The bill tells the story of legislative publishing in B.C., providing clear descriptions

of publishing relationships and responsibilities and setting out current and long-standing

practices for the publication and consolidation of acts enacted by the Legislature.

It also updates the Queen’s Printer Act, the

Interpretation Act and the Evidence Act

to accommodate the new official status of statutes and consolidations published online.

text and information features like not-in-force notions and historical references

in official versions of legislation, improving user experience without legal impact.

These features help to ensure that our access to justice benefits from recent advances

in digital information technologies.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

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

intituled Regulations Act.

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

I am pleased to introduce the Regulations Act. This bill updates the existing Regulations

Act. As the bill for the Statutes Act makes online versions of statutes and consolidations

official, this bill makes online versions of regulations and consolidations official

under the Evidence Act.

This means that people will be able to use, for evidentiary purposes, online versions

of regulations and consolidations accessed through a government website.

This also continues the government’s work to improve and modernize access to justice

for all people.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

The Speaker : In the House?

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Of course, absolutely.

The Speaker : We’ll give it to you.

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

Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

[1:40 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Well, thank you, Members. We will call this House back to order, and we will continue

Bill 12 debate, which is the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act of 2025.

Recognizing the member for Abbotsford South.

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

Bruce Banman : I do apologize. I thought the previous speaker reserved their right to continue to

speak, but I guess they’re declining. They’ve said all they want to say.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Member.

Continue.

Bruce Banman : As I’ve said before, it’s always an honour and a privilege to stand up and talk about

the business of this, especially when it comes to this particular bill in front of

the House or legislation in front of the House.

For those that don’t know, I’m an avid gearhead. Maybe I’m a dinosaur, but I absolutely

grew up in that era where the automobile and motorcycles…. Pretty much anything with

an engine on it was something that was…. I could hardly wait to get my driver’s licence.

I think I was…. Day two after I turned 16, I was taking the course.

Having said that…. This party, the Conservative Party, actually is in full agreement

to streamline the system that we have in front of us now. Let’s just start off with

that. We want to streamline it. We want to improve it. We want to improve not only

the timelines and the frustrations that I have heard from many of those going through

this system. But probably the single most important thing is that we want to improve

safety.

My wife relayed a story to me where a father came into her office and broke down and

cried because his son had succumbed to his injuries in a single-vehicle accident.

Making sure that we protect the most precious thing that we have, our children, this

party is in 100 percent agreement with. We need to make sure when someone is on the

road that they are competent and that they are safe and that they are not going to

risk injury to themselves or others.

Road accidents. I was a chiropractor. I saw the aftermath of accidents. Sometimes

as simple as a low-velocity-impact, rear-end collision had devastating consequences.

So this party is in full agreement on How we make our roads actually safer. However,

where we do disagree is in creating a system that’s confusing, that lacks consistency

and that is open to one of the worst things, especially in this House — political

manipulation.

This, of all things, should not be about political manipulation. It should be really

about safety. And well, I would hate to see it become confusing, inconsistent and

open to political manipulation instead of common sense, competence and, most importantly,

fairness. It has to be competent and fair.

Now, I’ve been going through the abridged notes that we do have. Let’s start with

a couple of things. The amendments give ICBC the power to compare out-of-province

licences and offences within the B.C. system.

[1:45 p.m.]

Well, if you’re coming from out of province and you want to get a licence, and considering

that we have a single…. There aren’t really a lot of options for insurance. I think

that that is something that’s important.

If you’ve had four DUIs or whatever or you caused multiple accidents in another jurisdiction,

I believe that ICBC should have the ability to know that, regardless of where that

jurisdiction may be from. Most commonly it’s going to be from across Canada and other

provinces, but with the immigration as it is, we could also be looking at infractions

from other parts of the world.

I believe that ICBC having the ability to compare and determine risk is important,

within limits. I’m sure when we get into the next stage of this bill, we’ll be able

to discuss those.

It also, which I think could potentially be a good thing for streamlining, no longer

requires mandatory testing. People will only have to take tests if required by ICBC.

Well, that’s a bit of an issue perhaps. ICBC, once again, is being put in as the judge

and jury, and it may or may not pass the commonsense test in some cases.

I would look forward to what’s going to be in the next stage of the bill. What does

that actually mean, and how does that actually play out? I’m sure that we will have

some comments and some questions with regards to that.

The bill will reduce the requirement of road tests for novice drivers to get their

class 5, which is their full licence. Well, what does that mean? I heard the previous

speaker actually talk about modernizing this system. I could not agree with her more.

We need to modernize the system.

But let’s go back to…. The bill will reduce the requirement of road tests for novice

drivers to get their class 5 full licence. Well, if we go back to competence, would

it make sense perhaps…? Defensive driving is a course that was available when I was

younger, and I did not take it at the time. Perhaps I should have. I know on at least

one occasion I would have avoided an accident.

I know right now I am looking up…. My head is on a swivel because I don’t know where

people are, what they’re about to do.

I take a look when I get in the car with my grandchildren, who are…. Well, they’ve

been driving now for a while, but I’ve got another one that will be learning pretty

soon. I’m pointing out: “Look out. That car that’s stopped right there, you don’t

know if they’re going to pull out or not. Is that car going to turn in front of you?”

There are many things that you learn that actually can be taught in a defensive driving

course.

When I was younger, I had aspirations of being a race car driver — in particular,

a rally driver, because I think they’re the finest drivers in the world. How to handle

a car when things go wrong is actually important.

I remember my daughter, when I taught her how to drive, had a problem driving in snow,

especially in the Lower Mainland. It’s not like snow in other places. You drive four

cars over it, you might as well be out there with an ice polisher, polishing it up.

It gets pretty slick because we get a different kind of snow. It’s got a lot more

water and more humidity in it.

What I did with her, because she got into a car and it started going…. The rear end

started to come out, and she did absolutely everything wrong. So we went out into

an abandoned parking lot, because it was slow, had not been plowed, and I taught her

how to control a car when it starts to go into a skid. It was safe. It was controlled.

There are classes that you can do that.

If we want to actually protect those that are getting behind the wheel of a car, especially

as we now have autonomous driving and everything else that’s coming along down the

pike, are we teaching driving skills? Are we teaching what to do when you hit a patch

of oil on the road after a long dry spell and it gets rainy? Your car starts to go

out of control. Do we actually teach people what to do?

[1:50 p.m.]

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

One of the things maybe we should look at is that instead of reducing what we’re doing,

is there a way that we could actually improve the overall competency of those that

get behind the wheel of a vehicle? I can tell you, in talking to some of the truck-driving

organizations, it would be something they would support as well. We did something

similar with 18-wheelers, where we increased the requirements of what is required

to get in behind the wheel of a big rig.

Should we also be looking at something like this? In return, if you have passed a

course like this, should there also be a lowered insurance rate? There is a correlation,

my understanding, between those who have taken these types of courses and their safety

on the road.

Maybe we should be looking at, in order to help subsidize those courses, or maybe

they should be part of our curriculum in schools, like they used to be at one point….

You know, there was a point, actually, where you got your driver’s licence…. If you

didn’t learn how to drive on a standard, there was actually a restriction on your

driver’s licence. You weren’t allowed to drive one. Then that got lost. That got disappeared.

Now a standard is pretty rare. I mean, go try and find a vehicle now that has a standard

in it. Most people don’t want to drive them. I prefer that. Like I said, I’m a bit

of a dinosaur, and I’m old school that way. But maybe that’s something we should be

looking at.

The other thing that’s working on this is the amendments will allow cabinet to approve

a driver’s education course given by a driver training school licensed under the regulations,

which is where I was talking about with regards to this bill.

What exactly does that mean? How does it play out? How are we going to…? Are we going

to inadvertently actually create other regulations to be able to…? Who’s going to

police those that are teaching? Will they be able to actually say that they have passed

in some remote areas of the province?

I know that there were kids that were talking about…. They would book a licence in

Nanaimo or Victoria when they lived on the Lower Mainland to try and jump the queue.

Is this one of the things that government is going to look at, that if you do take

one of these courses, that driving school be able to then say you are proficient and

graduate you so that you don’t actually have to take the driving course?

Does that now mean that we have to police the schools? We’ll have to have some way

of knowing that whoever the instructor is, is actually competent. It’s not like, you

know: “My uncle twice removed — with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge — just gave me the

ability to get the ticket.” How are we going to make sure that it’s fair and that

those that are in there are competent and that it’s transparent?

The amendments allow for a regulatory power regarding driver’s education courses that

shorten wait times for novice drivers to get their full licence. Okay, I can see how

that could be an advantage. But with most families a couple hundred bucks away from

being able to pay their bills every month, how much is the course going to cost? Is

it going to put some of us at a disadvantage, and are we going to create a dual system

for the haves and the have-nots?

How are we going to apply this? I go back to maybe a discount on the insurance if

you do complete that. That can somehow, perhaps, level that playing field a bit. How

is that going to look? What’s it going to be in the recommendations?

Should we be shortening that time at all? One of the things, when it talks about the

N driver’s licence, is it’s based on…. I wrote this down. It is now subject to “the

length of time a person has held a valid driver’s licence issued under this act or

in another jurisdiction.”

[1:55 p.m.]

All right, so let’s just play this out. I’m in another jurisdiction, or here, for

that matter. I pass my driver’s test, and I don’t own a car, or mom and dad won’t

let me drive the car, or I don’t want to drive. I talk to a lot of youth. They don’t

want to drive. They take transit almost everywhere, but they want to get the driver’s

licence.

It absolutely says nothing in here about whether or not you’ve actually been behind

the wheel of a vehicle. How would you measure that? I get that it’s difficult to measure,

but the length of time a person has held a valid driver’s licence isn’t really the

same as the length of time someone has actually sat in the seat and driven a car.

There’s a huge stopgap there as to whether or not someone is safe. It’s like any other

motor skill, like learning how to dribble a basketball or play golf or anything else

where there is eye-hand coordination. It’s a skill, and you get rusty.

I can tell you from my own personal experience, when I get behind…. I’ve got an old

Triumph that I restored that I bought when I was in my 20s. It takes me a few minutes

to remember how to drive that thing. It’s not like hopping in the Hyundai with automatic.

It’s got an electric overdrive. It doesn’t have power steering. It doesn’t have ABS

brakes. It’s kind of primitive.

For the first little bit, you’ve got to go: “Oh yeah, that’s right. I forgot. There’s

no synchro in first gear.” For those at home, that’s that thing so you don’t smash

the gears going into first gear. That’s what synchronized gears do. There’s no grinding

of the gears in first gear. You have to remember all of those things, especially if

you are coming to a stop. You can’t just put it in first.

With regards to this, if you have just held a driver’s licence, that really does not

correlate to how safe you are or how much time you have actually been on the road.

I don’t think it’s the gold standard of measurement for this. I’m sure that some of

this will get pounded out throughout as we go through the committee stage. I hope.

Some of the concerns that this side of the House has are: has this become excessive

delegation of power? Are we now allowing ICBC and/or the government too much power

to be able to make simple changes?

Section 23 and 25 actually hand over a significant

regulatory authority to ICBC and the cabinet without any legislative oversight in

this House.

Now, from a government’s perspective, it’s way easier if you don’t have to talk to

the House. But if you’re going to make some changes, there are some times that it

should require debate within this House.

There is vagueness and uncertainty. We’ve got terms in here such as “prescribed classes”

and “prescribed considerations.” They’re not well defined. Worse than that, they could

just be arbitrarily applied depending on who’s the one that’s deciding what they mean.

Then, as I was mentioning, there’s competency. I think the gold standard should be

competency. When you get behind the wheel….

For those that get their licence late in life or come from an area at a later stage

in life where they’ve never really been behind the wheel of a vehicle or sat in a

passenger seat much, you learn things from the other drivers, such as simple courtesies,

which often are not part of a test. Simple courtesies like letting someone merge properly,

pulling over into the right-hand lane when you’re not passing — you don’t just blindly

sit in that lane and drive forever — and letting people go ahead when a yield is really

not necessary and is just common courtesy.

Look at the fights people get into at Christmastime trying to find a parking spot,

as an example of the loss of common courtesy.

[2:00 p.m.]

Competency versus convenience. It shouldn’t just be because, you know what, we built

this system, and now we don’t know how we’ve got so many wait-lists because we’re

not managing it properly. We’re going to have to change the system just because we

can’t manage it.

Maybe there are better ways of managing the system. Maybe the problem isn’t the process

that’s in place but the fact that we never made accommodations to figure out how to

manage it.

Then what we’re going to do is: “Well, we don’t know how to manage it properly, so

we’re going to remove mandatory testing.” What’s that going to do? Potentially, drastically

reduce and lower standards. We’re actually going to end up with, potentially, more

dangerous drivers on the road than less, because what we’re looking for is expedience

versus competence.

The impact on young drivers…. You know what? Lowering the self-application age from

19 to 18 — that’s okay. But part of that, in return for that…. I believe it should

come with stronger training and monitoring if you’re going to do that.

Again, as I said, my wife often talks about this man, the guilt that was on him because

he bought his son a car. The car had actually too much horsepower for a brand-new

driver. He did what kids do, which is to push a limit, and it cost this child, this

young man, his life. That father has to carry that burden.

We don’t want to lower standards. The goal is to actually make the roads safer. I

believe that the focus should actually be on the competence of the person behind the

wheel, not making it faster. If the system is too slow, and it’s not helping standards

at all, then maybe we need to look at the entire system of that.

It shouldn’t just be time served, because who says you got behind the wheel of a car

at all since you’ve had your driver’s licence and/or a completion of a course? The

course may or may not be an effective course. They’re looking at figuring out what

these driving schools are, what’s going to be included in the course. I believe that’s

all good, but we need to figure out exactly what that means.

Now, then, you get into what’s fair and what’s equitable. All right. You have exemptions

for those holding licences before this bill takes effect. Should we be looking at

retroactivity in this bill? Now based on a dateline, you could all of a sudden have

two classes of numbers.

You could have two children in the same family — because we have many, many blended

families or twins even — one has taken the course prior to and has their licence,

and one does not. That’s going to create some problems. Should we be looking at making

this fair and retroactive so it’s not just a cold dateline? You end up with two classes

underneath this law.

Then this government, I think, also has an obligation to explain why some drivers,

which it mentions in the legislation, are going to be subject to stricter rules while

others are just going to be grandfathered in. Again, it potentially could create two

classes of drivers. If the goal is to make our roads safer, which this side of the

House agrees with, is this really the proper way to do that?

This government has a history of not being the most transparent and lacking the ability

to put in oversight. Let’s face it. That’s just pesky. That’s troublesome when you’re

government. You don’t want that. You don’t want somebody peeking in your drawer to

see how clean it is and what’s going on in there. “Hey, hey. Nothing to see here.

Just move along. Just do what we tell you.”

It doesn’t work well for a lot of us. This bill leaves too many decisions to future

regulations which are unknown, which, as we say, can be done by cabinet or by ICBC

without any input from this House. Worse, there’s no requirement for any public consultation

either.

[2:05 p.m.]

So you’ve got no public consultation. You’ve got no legislative overview. We’re just

going to do it because: “Trust us. It’s going to work.”

How did that drug thing work out for everybody? We thought for sure that was going

to solve all our problems. By handing out drugs to everybody, that was going to work

out well.

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

Then I go back to: what the heck does prescribed classes mean? Will that result in

unequal treatment? That really doesn’t go by what we stand for in this House, to create

unequal treatment. There needs to be fairness and equality for all.

One of those things could be: why are existing licence holders exempt from new distracting

driving laws? I agree that you should not be using your phone while you are driving.

It’s distracted driving. Now we’ve got a whole class that are going to be exempt from

that, from the new stricter penalties.

Why is it only the new drivers that should do this? Should it not be for all drivers?

There are exemptions now for certain professions, such as police officers and firefighters,

who as part of their daily uses do those things. But for a new driver, I think we’re

all in agreement. “Hey, put your cell phone down. You shouldn’t be using it. Put your

electronic device down. You shouldn’t be using it.” Shouldn’t that be a standard that

applies to everybody, not just new drivers?

On safety standards, where is the evidence that supports the claim that eliminating

the mandatory tests will not reduce road safety? It seems counterintuitive.

Maybe what we should be looking at, like I said before, is that maybe we need to change

the type of driving tests that we have. It should be based on some competency skills

of what to do when things go wrong. When you really, really need to know what to do,

one simple rule: the car is going where your eyes are looking.

You watch that on Canada’s Worst Driver all the time. It’s one of those things. Don’t look at what you don’t want to hit.

Look at where you want to go, and your eyes will actually take you there. I don’t

think that that’s actually part of a standard driving test right now, but it sure

as heck should be if it’s about safety. And that’s what this bill professes to be

about, safety, improving road safety.

The other thing is that if you’re going to change the rules, is the government now

going to publish the annual safety data showing whether or not what they’re doing

is actually working, or am I just going to have some spin doctor in the back room?

Hopefully, we don’t include a six-figure joke writer to be able to go in with that,

to help the Premier deliver that news. What are we going to do for that so that we

know that what we’re doing is actually working?

At the end of the day, it should be evidence-based, especially something as simple

as safety. If we’re trying to make our roads safer, are we actually going to publish

the data so that experts can say, “You know what? What you’re doing here is working”

or “What you do is…. You need to change this; you need to tweak A, B and C”?

This House will support this legislation. We believe that this legislation has the

potential to make our roads safer. As I’ve said before, we want to make sure that

it’s safer, but there are an awful lot of questions that this side of the House has

that need to be fleshed out during the committee stage.

I hope that on something as simple as this, trying to protect novice drivers, new

drivers, politics does not get in the way and we actually put our heads together and

come up with good legislation that’s actually going to make our roads safer. In this

case, lives will depend upon it.

[2:10 p.m.]

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar : The member for Surrey–White Rock apologizes. He’s stuck in a committee meeting, but

he asked me to introduce and say hello to a group of students from White Rock Christian

Academy. There are 26 grade 5 students and eight chaperones with them.

Right now we are debating Bill 12, which is changes to driver licensing rules which

will impact, if you’re in grade 5, yourselves in just a few years. So things that

we do in this chamber actually do have a direct impact even to the youth in our communities

in a very real way.

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

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

Debate Continued

Hon. Randene Neill : Hello to the White Rock Christian Academy students, grade 5 and 8, and your teacher,

Lorraine Whitmarsh. Thanks so much for coming. I’m so interested to hear what you

have to say about this piece of legislation that we’re debating today.

It is called Bill 12, and, as the member opposite suggested, it’s the Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025. This government is making a commitment to make all of our roads

safer for current drivers and all of our future drivers for the decades and years

licence programs. The first is called the graduated licensing program, known as the

GLP. The second is the motorcyclist licensing program, known as the MLP.

As we know, B.C.’s population has grown incredibly, and we have not updated this legislation

in the past 17 and 26 years respectively. That’s an entire generation of new drivers

on the roads and an entire generation of increased road congestion, and we really

need to keep up with the times.

The graduated licensing program is a multi-stage driver’s licensing system designed

to reduce the exposure of new, inexperienced drivers to higher-risk situations, and

it’s a cornerstone of safety in B.C. It’s proven to reduce crashes for new drivers.

We’re hearing also about increased barriers to accessing a driver’s licence, especially

for Indigenous people, immigrants and people living in rural and remote areas.

A perfect example of that, and we hear it time and time again, is somebody living

on the southern Gulf Islands, for example, or the Kwadacha Nation. You have to book

an appointment, and then you have to go to the ferry terminal, get someone to drive

you, take a ferry to Sidney and then travel from the ferry terminal to the driver

licensing office. After the appointment, you have to get that person to drive you

back to the ferry terminal and then take the ferry home.

If a driver does not pass their road test, they may need to wait 24 hours before doing

it all over again. This is not a fair burden for a lot of rural youngsters who would

love to be able to get their licences early.

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

Canada as well as internationally.

Let’s talk about the second major change, to introduce a streamlined GLP for mature

drivers aged 25 and over. Crash risk — we know this — is closely tied to age. While

all new drivers start with a higher crash risk due to inexperience, ICBC insurance

data indicates that new drivers aged 25 and older have an initial crash risk that

is 20 percent lower than drivers aged 16 to 24. And given that lower crash risk, reducing

the duration of learner and novice periods for mature drivers will help support this

age group who are often juggling employment and family responsibilities as well.

This also creates a good pathway for smaller rural communities, Indigenous communities

and new immigrants who may face multiple barriers to obtaining a driver’s licence.

Another really important thing is this will reduce the age of parental consent to

access a licence to 18 years old. That aligns with the age of consent for getting

automobile insurance and is consistent with most other jurisdictions in Canada.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is a fairness issue as well as a safety issue. We’ve heard that requiring parental

consent up until age 19 may be a barrier to accessing a licence for youth in care

and for Indigenous communities.

Motorcyclists — the safety of new and inexperienced motorcyclists is a long outstanding

concern for this government. When I was a kid, I desperately, desperately wanted a

horse. My dad who grew up on a farm with a horse suggested it was way too much work,

so instead I had a little Yamaha YZ80 and spent the next ten years of my life, until

I was 16, using that as a vehicle.

I went and got my motorcycle licence when I was 16 after driving on the dirt roads

for ten years. I borrowed my friend’s bike, and I crashed. That was the last time

that I ever rode a motorcycle.

We know motorcycle crashes are incredibly deadly compared to those vehicle drivers.

Crash risks for motorcyclists are also closely tied to age, and while all new drivers

start with a higher crash risk, ICBC insurance data indicates that new drivers, as

well, aged 25 years and older, have a lower risk of crashing.

The proposed changes also recognize that safety riding a motorcycle is a skill set

distinct from driving a passenger vehicle and that motorcycle riders are largely unprotected

in the event of a crash. Riders sustain more severe injuries and are more than three

times likely to be injured or killed in a crash in B.C. compared to those in passenger

vehicles. The sad truth of it is 65 percent of motorcycle riders in crashes are injured

and killed, and 34 percent of motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle crashes.

Under this current licensing program, 95 percent of people wanting to get a motorcycle

licence can do so in 30 days. It’s difficult to learn these distinct and safe riding

skills in just 30 days. So this proposed change will give riders more time to build

the skills to ride safely and to support safer outcomes for new motorcyclists on our

roads. I dare to say, had I had these new proposed changes, I would still be riding

my motorcycle today.

Amelia Boultbee : This is, I think, a really interesting and important piece of legislation, as has

been noted in this House already. Road safety, especially for young people, is a really

important issue in British Columbia, and road injuries and fatalities, whether it’s

in cars or motorcycles, is one of the leading causes of injury and death.

As well, I want to note that it’s great that the government is trying to streamline

a process that, admittedly, is very backlogged. In fact, my constituency office has

received many complaints from individuals who are trying to obtain a road test, whether

it’s a first or second test, and have been waiting for upwards of six months, which

can have a big impact on a person’s mobility, insurance prices, life. Even employability,

in some cases, requires you to have a certain level of driver’s licence. So streamlining

a backlogged system is very important.

However, there are some concerns about the way this legislation is drafted. In proposing

to eliminate the second class 5 road test, which historically has been a critical

safety checkpoint for new drivers, it’s unclear how to confirm that new drivers are

expected to navigate complex driving situations without formal education, which could

put themselves and others at risk. The impact on road safety, in the government’s

claim that removing the second road test will not impact road safety, doesn’t seem

to be, as of this stage, backed by sufficient data or evidence.

Driver education has been shown to reduce crash rates by 13 percent, yet only 4 percent

of B.C.’s new drivers receive formal training, compared to 40 to 60 percent in other

provinces.

[2:20 p.m.]

So when we’re talking about policy or legislation that could improve road safety,

in my opinion, I would have done that first before I removed the second test just

because it’s hard for people to access that second test. We will address this in committee,

but questions remain for the minister related to policies that could incentivize such

driver training.

In terms of cyclist safety, the removal of that formal driver education checkpoint

in the form of the second test could also put cyclists at risk. As we’ve seen, more

and more cyclists are on the road at all times. There are bike lanes and other forms

of designated areas to create safety for them, but nonetheless it’s increasingly important

for drivers to be aware of cyclists. That doesn’t seem to be addressed but could be

through actual formal driver training.

Eighty percent of cyclist crashes happen at intersections, often due to driver distraction

or failure to yield, and new drivers must be adequately trained to share the roads

safely with cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

My understanding of the government’s position is that experience is one of the most

important factors for driver safety. It’s hard to argue with that, because the statistics

do bear out that the longer you drive the safer you are, with more experience.

The legislation says that if you go 12 months with a clean driving record, you don’t

have to have the test. The problem that I see with the way that’s drafted is that

we’ve all seen that there are plenty of really bad drivers out there on the road that

aren’t necessarily getting caught every time they do something. It’s easily foreseeable

that a driver of whatever age could go 12 months and engage in risky or inexperienced

driving and actually simply not get caught. That’s why something like an actual test

is an important safeguard.

In terms of the way the legislation is drafted, we have concerns about sweeping powers

without consultation. Bill 12 grants the government sweeping powers to introduce fees

and fines without any consultation with the public or relevant stakeholders. It’s

unclear as to exactly what those fees or fines could look like, but it doesn’t even

need to bear repeating how difficult the economy is on British Columbians today.

Something like expensive tickets, fees and fines, when most British Columbians are

within $200 to $500 of bankruptcy at this point, is very significant. It shows a lack

of transparency and accountability, and it’s not the best example of a democratic

process to have a piece of legislation that imposes such sweeping powers without consultation.

It’s something that we have seen recurring in other pieces of legislation from this

government — that they often leave themselves a regulatory back door to make changes,

either with cabinet powers or in other ways that avoid votes in the House.

There are financial implications associated with Bill 12, as it is expected to generate

additional revenue through fees and fines, but it’s unclear how that revenue will

be used. That’s another question that we would like to explore in committee. As of

this time, it appears that there is no commitment to reinvest that potential revenue

in road safety or driver education programs, which, as I have already said, have been

shown to be one of the most effective ways to improve road safety.

Section 23, the driving experience requirements. This amendment allows the government

to prescribe different amounts of driving experience to different classes of persons.

There are no clear criteria or guidelines as to how this will be applied, which opens

the door to inconsistencies in driver licensing and competence.

It is unclear what is meant by classes of person and whether this will result in arbitrary

rule changes or potential unfair treatment. So that’s something we would like to also

clarify in committee.

Section 25, the testing conditions and education, in eliminating the mandatory road

testing, the secondary road testing, for novice drivers, expands the regulatory authority

for ICBC to shorten or change waiting periods and conditions for new drivers.

[2:25 p.m.]

Section 25 also gives ICBC the authority to approve driver education courses and reduce

wait times for drivers who complete them, which is something that we would support

in order for efficiency. But there doesn’t appear to be any clear oversight, quality

standards or evaluation mechanisms, which risks inconsistency and unfairness in how

novice drivers are assessed or fast-tracked.

I will note that one of the motivations behind this legislation that I do really support

is that…. It’s true that folks in rural areas and, disproportionately, Indigenous

people are having trouble accessing these road tests, which is a problem. So there

are people that we can identify that are disproportionately affected by it, but building

in this same regulatory inconsistency could promote other forms of unfairness in how

novice drivers are assessed or fast-tracked.

Section 25 allows conditions that can be imposed or altered by regulation to classes

of persons, again without transparent

definitions as to what that means, or accountability.

The graduated licensing program, as has been referenced by my friend across the aisle,

is quite an older program. It was introduced in 1998, and I believe that Ontario is

the only other province that currently has the two-step road testing, as British Columbia

does. So it’s true that it is high time that we took a look at this legislation and

we took a look at this policy.

But there was a reason that that second test was implemented in the first place, and

that was not only to enforce that experience helps drivers have safety, but it’s a

verification process. So my concern with the legislation is that it’s not actually

increasing the conditions for road safety. It’s actually just eliminating the checkpoint

that determines whether or not that person is safe on the road.

Some of the questions we would be considering in committee are: what has changed after

25 years, other than the fact that administratively there is a backlog? In my respectful

opinion, that’s not a good reason to change legislation — just because you have an

administrative problem. I mean, if safety is the issue, fix the administrative problem.

Why is it now suddenly safe to drive with less testing and less training? Where would

the data be showing that the original concerns about 16- to 25-year-olds no longer

apply?

Questions that we will be exploring are whether police support the GLP model and the

position of the B.C. RCMP and chiefs of police on removing the key parts. We’ll be

reaching out to those stakeholders so that we can explore that further in committee.

Those are my comments for today.

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

Let me begin by acknowledging the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General

and the Minister of Transportation and all the staff and officials who worked to bring

this bill forward.

The Motor Vehicle Act was last significantly updated in 1996. So after three decades,

this modernization is both timely and necessary. This bill touches nearly every British

Columbian, whether it’s a young person earning their first N, a parent teaching their

child to drive, a tradesperson who depends on their licence to work or a senior that

is renewing their credentials, as transportation connects all of us. Safe, fair and

modern licensing rules are essential for both public safety and economic mobility.

Bill 12 aims to reduce the significant backlogs in our driver testing system. We’ve

all heard the stories — month-long waits for road tests, frustrated families and lost

work opportunities. By allowing ICBC to waive unnecessary testing and focus evaluations

where they’re needed, this bill would help free up resources and shorten those long

delays.

[2:30 p.m.]

These changes benefit all, especially those in rural and remote communities that have

to travel to complete their road tests. This amendment gives cabinet flexibility to

adjust the waiting period for novice drivers to move from an N to a full licence based

on evidence and circumstances, rather than rigid timelines in law.

My concern, though, is: will cabinet establish a committee to determine benchmarks

for said evidence and circumstances? As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility,

competence and accountability. We support the principle that anybody operating a motor

vehicle in British Columbia should be fully qualified and proven capable. So while

streamlining is good, efficiency must never come at the expense of safety. Any exemption

from testing must be grounded in demonstrated ability, not merely in the passage of

time or a course completion.

This bill also grants ICBC and cabinet broader regulatory powers, particularly in

comparing out-of-province licences and offences, approving driver education programs

and defining waiting periods for novice drivers. These powers make sense in principle.

However, we need consistency across jurisdictions.

With expanded power must come expanded accountability. Sections 23 and 25 of this

bill refer repeatedly to prescribed classes of persons, yet there’s no definition

of who those people are and how those classes are formed or what criteria will apply.

That lack of clarity leaves room for unequal treatment and inconsistent regulation.

British Columbians deserve to know in advance how these powers will be used. Transparency

builds trust; secrecy erodes it. So I urge the government to publish clear guidelines

for consultation and regulatory development before these powers take effect.

One

section I agree with is the expansion of the distracted driving prohibitions.

The law will now prohibit electronic device use amongst new vehicle riders, classes

6L, 8 and 8L, joining class 7 and 7L novice drivers under a zero-tolerance rule. This

change is welcome, as distracted driving remains one of the leading causes of preventable

crashes and fatalities. If you’re learning to drive, your hands should be on the wheel,

your eyes should be on the road and your mind should be on the task. No texts. No

calls. No excuses.

However, those already licensed before the amendments will be exempt. That could lead

to confusion. I urge the government to ensure clear communication and public education

to make enforcement fair and consistent.

Bill 12 also empowers cabinet to recognize and approve driver education courses that

can shorten wait times for novice drivers. That’s a good direction if the standards

remain high, consistent and affordable. Driver education must never become a two-tiered

system where safety and opportunity depend on income. Let’s make sure that training

programs are accessible to all British Columbians, not just those who can afford the

premium package.

I want to bring this discussion back to what truly matters, and that’s the human side

of law. Six weeks ago our province was shaken by the death of a young 12-year-old

boy, Xavier. He was struck and killed while roller-blading with his brother in the

Cowichan Valley. The driver, a teenager. Speed was a factor, and a life was lost.

In the aftermath, Xavier’s family discovered that our current legal framework leaves

no immediate protection from reckless drivers, no instant licence suspension, no guarantee

for community safety. Their petition calls for immediate suspensions in extreme cases

and for lifetime driving bans upon conviction for those found guilty of causing such

tragedies. Their message is simple. If you kill someone through reckless driving,

you shouldn’t be on the road — not tomorrow, not ever.

[2:35 p.m.]

Bill 12 begins to work on modernization, but it doesn’t yet close that gap. We can

and must go further to ensure that reckless behaviour on our roads carries swift and

certain consequences. No family should ever have to wonder if the person who killed

their child is still out there driving. We already have immediate suspensions for

suspected impairment even before the court acts, so why not for extreme reckless driving

that causes serious harm or death?

We on this side of the House appreciate modernization. However, we remain cautious

as regulatory power must not become regulatory overreach. Flexibility must not become

ambiguity. Modernization must not come at the cost of public trust.

We will watch closely to ensure implementation is transparent, it is fair, and it

is truly focused on road safety. At the end of the day, this isn’t just about tests

or licences. It’s about keeping our communities safe. It’s about ensuring that every

British Columbian who gets behind the wheel understands the responsibility that comes

with it. It’s about honouring lives, like the young boy we lost, by doing better,

by making our roads safer, our laws stronger and our system more just.

Sunita Dhir : As a parent of two young adult sons and as someone with close friends who ride motorcycles,

I deeply welcome Bill 12 and the proposed updates to the graduated licensing program

and the new motorcyclist licensing program. These changes reflect the realities of

today’s drivers and riders, making the system fairer, more accessible and, above all,

safer.

Learning to drive is one of the biggest milestones in a young person’s life. I still

remember when my sons first got behind the wheel, equal parts excitement and nerves.

Like many parents, I worried about their safety, not because they were careless, but

because driving experience takes time. Experience cannot be rushed, and it can’t always

be tested in one single moment.

That’s why the proposed bill to replace the second road test with the longer supervised

period makes so much sense. It builds in more time for real-world learning and accountability

without adding unnecessary barriers and costs.

British Columbia has long prided itself on high road safety standards, and these changes

keep that commitment intact while aligning with the evidence. We are currently one

of only two provinces in Canada that require a second road test to earn a full licence,

yet there is no clear data showing that this extra test improves safety outcomes.

What does improve safety is consistent, responsible driving over time, and that’s

exactly what this bill emphasizes.

Under the proposed model, new class 5 drivers will continue to operate under restrictions

for a 12-month period, during which they must demonstrate clean, responsible driving.

If they incur a penalty or violation, that clock resets. This approach rewards good

habits and reinforces safe behaviour far better than a one-time test ever could.

It also helps remove barriers for people in rural and remote areas where getting a

road test can mean long drives, missed workdays and expensive travel.

As a parent, I know how much stress the current system can create. My eldest son,

who works full-time and attends school, waited nearly three months for a second road

test appointment. He was confident, capable and had already proven his skills by driving

safely for two years. The delay did not make him a safer driver; it only added frustration.

[2:40 p.m.]

For many young adults juggling school, work or caregiving responsibilities, these

barriers can stand in the way of independence and opportunity. Simplifying this process

while maintaining accountability through a structured 12-month restriction period

is a smart, compassionate move.

Equally important are the changes being proposed for motorcycle licensing. I have

several close friends who are passionate riders. They often talk about how exhilarating

it feels to ride through B.C.’s beautiful landscapes, but they’re also quick to remind

me that motorcycling is unforgiving of mistakes.

One friend, a seasoned rider with over 20 years of experience, still wears full protective

gear every time he rides, no matter how short the trip. He often says it’s not about

looking tough; it’s about coming home safe.

The proposed motorcyclist licensing program with mandatory protective gear and zero

tolerance for drugs and alcohol reflects the same philosophy. These measures aren’t

about restrictions; they are about respect for the power of the machine and the vulnerability

of the rider.

Too many families have been impacted by motorcycle crashes that could have been prevented

with better training, protection or safety awareness. These new standards will help

save lives while preserving the freedom and joy that responsible riders value.

Another important part of this bill is that it recognizes maturity and experience.

Research shows that drivers over 25 are significantly less likely to crash than younger

drivers. By adjusting timelines and requirements for old or new drivers, the legislation

ensures fairness and focuses resources where they are needed most, on high-risk, inexperienced

drivers. It’s a balanced, evidence-based approach that reflects how people actually

learn and grow.

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

from the member for Kamloops Centre.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar : Again, my fellow colleague from Surrey–White Rock apologizes. He’s in a committee

meeting, but he did want to make sure that the students from White Rock Christian

Academy, the second group coming through today, were recognized. Again, another group

of grade 5 students and adults, and this….

Again, to the students…. Sorry, I just lost my track of thinking there, which does

happen when we’re on the floor in this chamber from time to time, even for some of

us.

Anyways, we are debating Bill 12, which is about driver’s licence licensing rules

and how long you do or don’t have to have a learner’s licence and the number of the

tests you would take. So obviously with yourselves in grade 5 and moving forward in

life, this will start impacting you very shortly as you start to dream about getting

your first driver’s licence. I hope you enjoy the debate.

Will the House please make them all welcome.

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

My apologies, Vancouver-Langara. Take it away.

Debate Continued

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

Ultimately these proposed changes are about building confidence, not just for drivers

and riders but for parents, families and communities. They ensure that the path to

a full licence is accessible, fair and rooted in real safety outcomes.

They also give ICBC and its staff the flexibility to manage testing demand, more effectively

reducing backlogs while maintaining strong public safety oversight.

We have all seen how one moment of inexperience on the road can change lives forever.

I have known families who have lost loved ones in crashes that might have been prevented

with better training or more safety gear. Every measure that keeps young people, riders

and all road users safer is a step worth taking.

[2:45 p.m.]

This legislation isn’t about making things easier. It’s about making them smarter.

It modernizes a decades-old system to reflect today’s realities, aligning them with

the best practices across Canada and beyond.

For parents, for riders and for everyone who shares the road, these changes bring

peace of mind and a renewed commitment to safety. I wholeheartedly support Bill 12

and urge others to do the same. It’s practical, data-driven and deeply human, just

like the roads and the people it’s meant to protect.

Hon Chan : I rise today to speak on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, and to share

my questions and concerns about the direction that this government is taking with

our motor vehicle laws, particularly with the changes that will affect every single

new driver, every family and every community across British Columbia, especially when

it comes to road safety.

On the government’s own release, it states the government of B.C. has introduced legislation

to allow ICBC, in partnership with RoadSafetyBC, to modernize B.C.’s graduated licensing

program, GLP, while maintaining a high standard of safety on B.C. roads.

Now, as someone from a younger generation, I fully support modernization. I welcome

innovation, welcome efficiency. But my question is whether the claim “while maintaining

a high standard of safety on B.C. roads” would truly hold up under scrutiny. What

I’ve seen in this bill may actually weaken road safety and not maintain it.

Under the bill, if passed, drivers with a class 7 novice licence and a clean driving

record will no longer need to take a second road test to graduate to a full class

5 licence. Instead, the change will be to a 12-month restriction period, during which

a driver must demonstrate safe driving behaviours.

That sounds good in theory, but what does that actually mean in practice? So my question

to the government is: how exactly is that going to be tested or monitored? What does

demonstrating safe driving behaviour mean after the first and only test? Does that

simply mean having no traffic infractions, no speeding tickets, no distracted driving

tickets? If that’s the case, then the government is assuming no ticket automatically

equals to safe driving. That’s a dangerous assumption.

That needs to be clearly defined and explained by the government because by removing

the second road test, we lose a critical checkpoint, the opportunity to confirm that

new drivers truly have the ability, the judgment and the discipline required to drive

safely on our increasingly complex roads.

While the government framed this change as streamlining licensing and reducing administrative

burden, what it actually does is remove one of the most essential safety safeguards

in the GLP program, the second test that ensures that drivers have developed sufficient

real-world experience and skills behind the wheel. A driver may technically have a

very clean record yet still lack the reflexes, awareness and the split-second decision-making

ability to handle today’s traffic conditions safely.

Let me ask a few questions. What if a person passed their first road test but rarely

drives afterwards? They might barely drive once or twice a month, and after a year

they automatically qualify for a full licence. Do ICBC or this government know how

much that person actually has driven? No. There’s no mechanism to track their mileage,

their experience or their exposure to the challenging conditions. Yet this new bill

would give them the same full class 5 licence as every single person.

Now let’s consider another driver, a young person who drives every day, maybe to work

or to school, logging over 20,000 kilometres in a single year. They have built real

experience on the road. But one day they got a speeding ticket of 10, 15 or 20 kilometres

over the limit on a downhill stretch. Under this new system, that single ticket would

prevent them from graduating to a full licence.

Which of these two drivers do you think is actually safer? The one who barely drives

and never got caught doing anything wrong, or the one who actually drives daily and

made one small speeding ticket mistake? This is what the second road test was originally

meant to assess, not whether somebody got a ticket but whether they have developed

proper driving habits and competence over time.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let’s talk about what the second test actually measures, then. That test is where

instructors and examiners look for fundamentals of safe, competent driving — things

that a record system cannot measure. Do they shoulder-check every time they change

lanes? Do they signal constantly when turning? Do they look ahead far enough to anticipate

danger? Do they understand who has the right-of-way at a four-way stop?

Can they back into a parking stall without going back and forth ten or 20 times, becoming

confused or panicking? Can they merge smoothly onto a highway without crossing two

lanes as one? These are real-world skills that keep our roads safe, and these skills

can only be tested in person, not by assumption or speeding tickets.

Now some may laugh that I’m just fearmongering or exaggerating, that I’m just making

up scenarios. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. If you don’t believe me, I encourage

“Metro Vancouver Learns to Park and Drive” or “Richmond Learns to Park and Drive.”

These pages are filled with daily photos and videos. I have some here. Too bad I cannot

show you the videos, but I can show you some photos. Most of them involve legally

licensed drivers. You will see cars stopped diagonally across intersections, drivers

reversing down exit ramps, turning from the middle lane or driving the wrong way down

a one-way street. These are not isolated incidents. They happen every single day.

Go on the page and take a look. You will know.

These online communities document the realities of our roads. Collisions, near misses,

reckless turns — endless examples of drivers who have technically passed the test

but still lack the fundamentals of road awareness. A clean record does not equate

to safe driving. It just means you haven’t been caught yet.

Let me share a few recent posts from these groups, all within the past few days. Twenty-one

hours ago in downtown Vancouver, a person said: “Right turn from a middle lane, through

a red light and through the crosswalk and bike lane. Must have been urgent business.”

I have the photo here. I don’t know which one because there are too many here.

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

is a new driver with a….

Deputy Speaker : Member.

Hon Chan : Can I show that or not?

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

at all.

Thank you, Member.

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

Yesterday at 9:42 a.m. in Richmond: “A driver made an illegal U-turn and gave me a

middle finger. If there was a collision, he would be 100 percent liable.”

Yesterday at 8:26 a.m. in Vancouver: “The driver probably thinks they have the quickest

car in the world, but it still causes a couple of other drivers, including myself,

to slam on the brakes to avoid a crash.”

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

up on a curb.

Most alarming, two incidents just last month. A driver with a new-driver sign was

caught driving the wrong way on the Sea to Sky Highway — the wrong way on the Sea

to Sky Highway.

I have another photo, a video, of a new driver with a new-driver sign driving on a

bike lane on the wrong way on Lougheed Highway in Burnaby. I think there are some

Burnaby MLAs here. Maybe you want to take a look and make sure our road is safe. Thankfully,

other vehicles on the road reacted quickly, and a major tragedy was avoided.

These aren’t stories that I made up. These are real-world stories right here in our

province, on our streets, every day in your community.

Let me tell you another example.

My own Richmond constituency office is located right beside a bus loop, and every

single day we see more than a dozen cars driving directly into that bus stop, ignoring

multiple do-not-enter or bus-only signs. It has gotten to the point where Richmond

RCMP and Metro Vancouver transit police now station officers there regularly to ticket

drivers who make that mistake. Some might call it a good source of revenue for the

province, but I care far more about safety than about how much money we can collect

from the traffic fines.

The question is: how did these drivers ever get their licence in the first place?

If we remove the second test, how much worse will this problem get?

We’re living in an era of increasingly complex road environment. From a public safety

perspective, the removal of the second road test is particularly concerning in high-density

urban areas. Metro Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, for example, present challenging

traffic conditions where drivers must constantly navigate heavy traffic flows, dense

cyclists and pedestrian activity and unpredictable roadway situations.

[2:55 p.m.]

A single initial road test is unlikely to adequately prepare new drivers for these

realities, especially over a multi-month learner or novice period.

The second road test traditionally served as an essential checkpoint, confirming that

drivers were not only accumulating experience but also applying their knowledge safely

and effectively in real-world scenarios. The removal of this is eliminating this critical

safeguard that helps prevent collisions and incidents involving inexperienced drivers.

We now face more cyclists and pedestrians sharing the road than ever before, more

distracted driving from phones and touch screens and increasingly congested traffic

in cities like Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey. Removing a second road test doesn’t

simplify this complexity. It’s just ignoring it. It assumes that the absence of tickets

is equal to the presence of competence, but as every single experienced driver knows,

that’s simply not true.

What we need is more practical training and stronger verification, not less. We should

be enhancing road safety education, not weakening it.

We all know that ICBC is facing a serious backlog of over six months for the class

5 road tests across much of British Columbia. In some areas, people have to wait for

even longer just to get an appointment, especially in rural and Indigenous areas.

I’ve heard from families, students and workers who are forced to delay jobs, schools

and daily responsibilities because they can’t book a test.

Instead of fixing the backlog problem, the government has chosen the easy way out

to rewrite the rules and removing the second road test altogether. That’s not modernization;

it’s just admitting failure.

The government had many years to improve ICBC’s backlog and capacity. They could have

hired more examiners, opened weekend testing hours, expanding mobile testing units

to rural areas, etc. They could have invested in more efficiency instead of cutting

corners today. Instead, after failing to shorten the backlog they created, they now

use this backlog as an excuse to weaken one of the most important safety guards in

our licensing system.

Convenience cannot come before safety. We cannot allow the government’s incompetence

to become the reason to lower our standards. A six-month delay might be inconvenient,

but a lifetime of regrets caused by preventable crashes is far worse.

Every single MLA in this chamber wants our roads to be more safe. I’m sure about that.

Every parent wants their child to learn to drive with confidence and responsibility.

We heard stories from our colleague yesterday. It’s saddening for police officers

to go to their parents and say: “Your kid is not coming back today.” Every driver

wants to trust the person next to them at the intersection is competent and alert,

not someone who simply didn’t get a ticket for 12 months.

Bill 12 may have good intentions. I don’t disagree with that. But intentions alone

don’t guarantee safety. Removing the second road test may reduce administrative costs

for ICBC, but it risks increasing accidents, confusion in students’ claims down the

road. Modernization should mean improvement, not simplification at the expense of

safety.

Let me start with a simple question, one that I think every member in this chamber

should ask the constituents. Do they feel that our roads have become safer than before?

Many of my colleagues across the aisle are from Metro Vancouver — Burnaby, Vancouver,

Surrey, Coquitlam, Richmond, Delta.

You drive on the same roads as we all do. You see what’s happening. I encourage you

to ask your constituents tonight if they feel safer on the road today than they did

a few years ago.

I asked that question in my riding in Richmond Centre. Do you know what I heard? Zero.

Zero people told me that they believe the roads are safer. Not even one person told

me: “Oh, I feel so safe now.” That’s not an opinion. It’s a reflection of reality.

When I talk to parents, seniors, professional drivers, delivery workers, they all

say the same thing. Aggressive driving has increased. Road rage incidents have gone

up. Basic driving courtesy has declined. And even law-abiding drivers no longer feel

secure.

[3:00 p.m.]

If the government does not want to take the testimony from me, photos or videos from

citizens online, let’s look at something they do trust, the poll and the data. According

to a 2025 BCAA survey, 70 percent of British Columbians admit they have little or

no knowledge of B.C.’s “Slow down and move over” law, the very law meant to protect

roadside workers, emergency responders and tow truck operators.

Even more alarming, 81 percent of the respondents said they regularly see poor driving

behaviour. People fail to slow down or move over when approaching stopped vehicles

with flashing lights.

So if eight out of ten drivers are openly admitting they see unsafe behaviour every

single week or day, what does that say about the state of driver education and awareness

in our province? All of this isn’t only a survey showing a decline in driving skills

and confidence.

In 2024, Ipsos conducted a survey on behalf of ICBC. They’re seeing a widespread lack

of confidence among B.C. drivers, particularly when it comes to navigating multi-lane

roundabouts. Only 29 percent said they feel confident driving through a roundabout

with multiple lanes. That means seven out of ten drivers feel confused or unsure in

these common intersections.

Male drivers reported slightly higher confidence at 34 percent. Female drivers were

at 24 percent. Regardless of gender, the majority admit that they struggle with basic

rules, including who has the right-of-way when entering a roundabout. Now imagine

the same driver merging onto a highway, changing lanes at high speed or reacting to

an emergency vehicle in rush-hour traffic.

Here’s another reality check. October 1 has just passed, the official start of winter-tire

season in B.C. Yet I would bet, and I say this respectfully, that even in this very

chamber, many of our members could not correctly distinguish between a winter tire

and a snow tire or between an all-season and an all-weather tire.

If we, as legislators, struggle to even clearly understand something as basic as tire

classification, what about the thousands of new drivers we license every single month?

This is not a laughing matter, because when roads become slippery, when visibility

drops and when somebody loses control, the outcome can be deadly.

That brings me to the heart of the issue, the removal of the second class 5 road test.

Under the current GLP, a new driver must pass two practical tests. The first one is

a class 7 road test which focuses on basic vehicle controls, traffic rules and awareness.

The class 5 test, which comes about 24 months later, is designed to assess their advanced

driving skills and real-world experience. And the test on the highway is something

that’s not done in the first test.

But under this Bill 12, the second test will be eliminated. The government has yet

to explain whether there will be any changes to the first class 7 test to make up

for that loss. Will it become more challenging, more comprehensive or better at measuring

real-world driving skills? And if so, would that mean more people will fail the first

test? There’s nothing in this bill that clarifies any of these. No detail, no framework,

no assurance.

It raises serious questions about how the government plans to maintain safety standards

when one of the most important checkpoints is being completely removed. So now pause

and think about what that actually means to remove the second road test. This is not

just a bureaucratic change. It’s a removal of the safety checkpoint, a critical moment

that determines whether a driver has truly matured and learned to handle complex,

high-risk driving experiences.

Statistics from ICBC show approximately 33 percent of applicants failed their second

road test, the class 5 test. In case you’re not listening, it’s 33 percent who failed

the second test. That’s not a small number. That’s nearly one-third of the drivers

under the current system are recognized as not ready for a full unrestricted driving

privilege.

These are individuals who are still struggling with lane discipline, merging onto

highways or maintaining awareness in complex traffic environments like intersectional

school zones. Some may not yet have the experience to react properly to cyclists,

pedestrians and suddenly changing obstructions.

By removing this crucial step, the government is essentially saying the extra layer

of verification isn’t necessary anymore. Well, I respectfully ask: how are we ensuring

those 33 percent will not get their full licence under the new bill? I believe most

British Columbians would too.

[3:05 p.m.]

The original class 5 test is to protect all of us — drivers, pedestrians, cyclists

alike — from the risks posed by inexperienced or overconfident drivers who are not

yet ready for the full responsibility of a class 5 licence.

Let me share more important figures that highlight how essential this safeguard is.

In 2021, roughly 25,000 people failed their second road test. In 2022, about 20,000

people failed the second test. That means every single year the original system prevented

20,000 to 25,000 drivers who believed they were ready, who have already been driving

up to two years…. It was found by trained examiners that they’re not yet ready to

meet the standards of full independent driving.

Think about it. Without the second test, these 20,000 individuals have been automatically

upgraded to a full class 5 licence, allowing them to drive anywhere, anytime without

restrictions to be on a road. That’s not modernization. That’s gambling with public

safety.

Under this Bill 12, all of these drivers will pass automatically after time, not after

skill. So when the government claims the reform will streamline the process, we must

ask: at what cost? Are we willing to trade the safety of thousands of British Columbians

for the sake of convenience?

The government argued that extending the 12-month period before full licensing will

give drivers more experience. But experience alone does not equal competence. A driver

can spend two years driving the same quiet residential route, never once encountering

high-speed highway conditions, never once driving in the winter weather, and still

be granted a full licence under this bill.

Without the second test, we don’t know. We have no way to verify that the driver has

gained a well-rounded experience. We don’t know if the driver has correctly previously

observed their weaknesses and developed the confidence and judgment needed for all

complex situations on the road.

In other words, this bill will replace measured accountability with assumed readiness.

The purpose of the licensing system isn’t just to test drivers; it’s to protect the

public. It’s not about bureaucracy or delay. It’s about protection and prevention.

If 33 percent of drivers fail the second test, it’s not a sign of the failure in the

system; it’s a sign that the system is actually working. It means examiners at ICBC

are doing their job, ensuring that only those ones who are fully capable can earn

the full driving privilege.

Let’s look at more statistics of what actually happened on our roads. In 2024, ICBC

reported 303,593 crashes across the province. Out of those, 82,000 occurred in the

Lower Mainland, a 6 percent increase from the previous year. Even under our current

system, our accident rate has actually gone up.

Let’s be honest. The data does not support the claim that our roads are safer and

that reducing the tests will improve the outcome.

All right, let’s talk about consultation. When the government is making changes to

Bill 12, who have they actually consulted? Were the police consulted — the men and

women on the front line who respond to collisions and see the real-world consequences

of unsafe driving every single day?

Were certified driving schools and professional examiners consulted — the instructors

who train new drivers and understand firsthand how essential the second road test

is for developing real-world skills and confidence?

Were road safety researchers or trauma experts from our hospitals? Did you guys ask

for their input, given that they deal directly with the aftermath of preventable crashes?

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

In Bill 12, the government also proposed a shorter period of driving experience for

drivers who are over 25 years old. If that change is approved, these drivers will

need at least nine months of safe driving as a learner, then 12 months as a novice,

removing the driver training incentive for new drivers aged 25 and older.

The government claims the change is justified because older new drivers are less risky,

but again, that’s questionable. According to Transport Canada’s motor vehicle collision

statistics, drivers aged 25 to 34 are among those with the highest rate of fatalities

and serious injuries in collisions across Canada. In fact, that group consistently

ranks alongside 16- to 24-year-olds in the collision data.

[3:10 p.m.]

I heard the minister speaking yesterday, and I don’t disagree that with the same level

of skill, a 25-plus-year-old driver might be safer than a 19-year-old. However, without

a test to confirm that skill and experience, a 40-year-old driver can be just as bad

or even worse than a 20-year-old behind the wheel.

Now I do want to acknowledge one part of the bill that moves in the right direction,

and that’s the new motorcycle licensing program. This portion introduces enhanced

safety measures, including mandatory protective gear and updated training requirements.

As someone who personally holds a motorcycle licence, I can tell you that the motorcycle

test is much more demanding, not because of physical control of the bike but because

it focuses heavily on defensive driving and situational awareness. You’re trained

to constantly assess risk.

I remember my instructor told me: “When you’re on a motorcycle, you have to assume

everybody is trying to kill you.” That saved me from being in a hospital today. I

hope in a new test, in a new system, we will see more comprehensive, more challenging

and a focus on defensive driving, a test that can actually protect all of us.

I wish the same level of defensive training and testing, the class 6, can actually

apply to all new drivers, because awareness, not just skill, saves lives.

I only have four minutes left, so let’s fast-track. There’s another layer to this

issue, and it’s about accountability and legislative transparency.

Bill 12 may appear to focus on simplifying the licensing process, but, in reality,

it does much more than that. It grants broad regulatory authority to ICBC and the

cabinet to shape the future of driver licensing in B.C. That’s not modernization.

That’s the delegation of power without transparency.

section 23, it provides new regulation-making power that allows the government

to prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes of persons.

But nowhere in the bill is there a clear definition of what constitutes a class of

person. Does this mean different standards could be applied to drivers based on age,

region, gender or even occupation? The absence of clear

definitions opens the door

to unequal treatment and policy inconsistency.

Meanwhile,

section 25 goes even further by authorizing cabinet to make regulations

regarding the issuance of a licence to novice drivers, including the power to prescribe

minimum driving periods and training requirements.

Again, these are fundamental components of the GLP, elements that should be determined

by legislation and evidence-based consultation, not by discretionary regulation.

Before, this government claimed it is maintaining a high standard of safety. I urge

them to look again at the evidence, consult driving instructors and listen to the

experience of British Columbians who see these dangers firsthand every day on our

roads.

Go online. Go to the two pages. You’ll be amazed how bad and how dangerous our roads

are right now. Make sure our licensing system doesn’t just produce drivers with clean

records, with no speeding tickets or no distracted driving tickets, but that these

must be safe, capable and responsible drivers who can truly handle the realities of

British Columbia’s roads.

Road safety isn’t about efficiency; it’s about lives. Until we have those answers,

this bill remains deeply flawed.

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

across the aisle.

I’m here to speak today on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, a bill

that aims to modernize British Columbia’s driving licence system. It also wants to

reduce delays and enhance road safety. These are goals that we all share.

I remember when my father taught me how to drive in a four-door Chevy Biscayne. That’s

a big car. I remember my first time going through the tunnel from Vancouver to Ladner.

I gripped that steering wheel like a grim reaper, thinking those walls were closing

in on me. I just cruised right on through, and I was so relieved to get to the other

side. That was my first experience through that tunnel.

[3:15 p.m.]

The first time that my dad allowed me to take the car out by myself after I got my

licence was to pick up my sister at Dairy Queen on Main Street. I pulled in there,

pulled into a parking stall, waited for her. She jumped out of the Dairy Queen and

into the car. I backed up, and I hit a newly installed steel bollard. I dented that

beautiful chrome bumper. That reminded me every time I climbed into that car that

I needed to pay more attention.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia supports reasonable efforts to streamline

the licensing process to ensure that drivers on our roads are competent, that they

are trained and that they are safe. However, while we support the intention, we are

deeply concerned about the execution, specifically the broad and unchecked powers

that this bill hands over to ICBC and cabinet and the lack of clear legislative oversight.

This bill, as currently drafted, risks creating a regulatory framework that is confusing.

It is inconsistent and vulnerable to political manipulation rather than rooted in

fairness, transparency and competence.

Now, I will probably be repeating themes that my colleagues have already raised and

probably the ones that are coming behind me. I just want to thank my colleagues for

their efforts to clarify some of the concerns that we do have.

Let’s start, first of all, with excessive delegation of power. There’s a similar theme

here with previous bills that this government has brought forward in last spring’s

session — excessive delegation of power. Sections 23 and 25 of this bill grant ICBC

and cabinet sweeping authority to determine who must take a driving test, how long

drivers must wait between licensing stages and even which groups of people will face

different requirements — all of that without any clear legislative guidelines.

Cabinet could, for example, prescribe different amounts of driving experience for

different classes of persons. But the bill provides no

definitions. It provides no

limits. It provides no explanation of how or why these differences must be justified.

In essence, the Legislature is being asked to hand over the steering wheel and simply

trust that ICBC and the cabinet will drive us in the right direction.

This is not about opposing modernization; it is about maintaining democratic accountability.

Regulations that affect tens of thousands of British Columbians should not be made

behind closed doors without legislative review and public input. We must ensure that

any changes to licensing standards are debated in this chamber. That’s why we were

all elected, not to ram things through but to openly discuss issues and concerns for

all British Columbians. It should be done in the day, not quietly prescribed by regulation

at some future, arbitrary date.

Two, vagueness and uncertainty. The bill repeatedly refers to prescribed classes and

prescribed considerations, yet nowhere in the bill does it define what these terms

mean. This kind of vagueness leaves too much to the

interpretation. It opens the door

for arbitrary decisions where different groups of drivers could face different rules

without any clear rationale. Regulations could be changed at will, leading to confusion

for drivers, inconsistency across regions and frustration for young people trying

to understand what rules apply to them.

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

tape with another.

[Interruption.]

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

Korky Neufeld : I reserve the right to speak.

Korky Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Calling the House to order.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat :

Section A reports Bill 9 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Lisa Beare : Now, Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

The Speaker : Members, you heard that the question is third reading of Bill 9, Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

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

and has passed.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare : In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, the

AG Statutes Amendment Act.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

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

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

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

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

your protocols.

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

I left off with vagueness and uncertainty. When the goal is to simplify the system,

we cannot afford to replace one kind of red tape with another.

Three, competency and convenience. The government has said that this bill will help

reduce road test blockages, and that’s certainly a good thing. But the solution cannot

be to remove mandatory testing altogether. Testing exists for a reason, and it has

for many, many years.

All of us can attest to our children having to go through these tests and what they

mean. It ensures that every driver on the road has demonstrated their ability to operate

a vehicle safely and competently. If ICBC is now allowed to exempt people from testing

altogether, we risk lowering standards in the name of convenience.

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

always be competence, not convenience.

Four, impact on young and new drivers. This bill also lowers the self-application

age for a full licence from 19 to 18 years old. That change is not necessarily problematic,

but it must be accompanied by stronger training, education and monitoring requirements.

We should not rush new drivers into full licensure without evidence-based driving

education and oversight.

If the government wants to accelerate the licensing pathway, it should first prove

that training programs are rigorous, standardized and effective, not simply approved

by bureaucratic discretion. That is why the Conservative Party calls for clear, evidence-based

driver education standards not regulated by decree.

Five, fairness and equity. Another concern is fairness. This bill allows exemptions

for those who already hold certain licences before the law takes effect, effectively

creating two classes of drivers under the same law. Why should someone who earned

their licence last month face stricter distracted driving rules than someone who earned

it last year? If safety is truly the goal, then the rules should be consistent and

equitable. Government must clearly justify why certain drivers are grandfathered in

while others are not.

Six, transparency and oversight. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Bill 12 is how

dependent it is on future regulations, none of which have been tabled, defined or

even debated. There is no requirement for public consultation, no mandatory legislative

overview and no reporting obligations on how these changes will affect road safety

over time. This is simply not good governance.

The Conservative Party calls for the government to commit to tabling all major regulations

in the Legislature for review before they take effect and to publish annual safety

reports showing the real-world impact of these changes on collisions, on violations

and on road safety outcomes. If this bill truly improves safety, that evidence should

be transparent and available for all British Columbians to see.

I have a series of questions. I’m sure these questions will also be asked during committee

stage, but let me entertain you with some of them.

[3:35 p.m.]

Why is the government granting ICBC and cabinet such sweeping and unrestrained regulatory

powers without any requirement for legislative scrutiny or public accountability?

Specifically, what justification can a minister offer for removing oversight from

this House and concentrating so much decision-making authority in the hands of unelected

bureaucrats and cabinet appointees?

None of us got elected to abdicate our responsibilities to someone else. We have to

be accountable. We have to answer to the public, and this does not allow that. Under

this bill, ICBC and cabinet will be able to create and modify and exempt entire classes

of drivers from licensing requirements, including determining who must take a test,

how long waiting periods last and what constitutes an acceptable driver education,

all by regulation, without debate or approval by elected representatives.

How does the government reconcile this approach with the principles of democratic

transparency, equality before the law and responsible governance? Shouldn’t the people

of British Columbia and their elected MLAs have a direct say in the rules that affect

every driver in this province?

Question 2. Will the minister commit to ensure that all new regulations made under

Bill 12 will be brought before this House for review, debate before they come into

force? Given that this bill delegates broad powers to cabinet and to ICBC to determine

licensing standards, testing requirements and driver education criteria without direct

legislative approval, will the minister agree that such far-reaching decisions must

not be made behind closed doors?

British Columbians deserve to know what rules are being changed, why they are being

changed and who they will affect. Will the minister therefore commit to a process

of transparency and accountability, tabling all proposed regulations in this Legislature,

allowing members to scrutinize them and giving the public an opportunity to provide

input before they are implemented? Does the government intend to move forward with

major regulatory changes that affect every driver in this province without any legislative

or public oversight?

Question 3. How will the government ensure that the creation of prescribed classes

of drivers under Bill 12 does not lead to unequal, inconsistent or even discriminatory

treatment among British Columbians?

The bill allows cabinet and ICBC to set different licensing rules, different waiting

periods and different testing requirements for various classes of persons. Yet it

provides no clear criteria for how these distinctions will be made or how they will

be justified. Without defined parameters in legislation, what safeguards exist to

prevent arbitrary decision-making or even regional inconsistencies or bias in how

these classes are applied?

For example, could two drivers with identical experience and safety records be treated

differently simply because they fall into different prescribed classes determined

by regulation? Will the government commit to publishing transparent criteria, conducting

equity assessment before implementing any such classifications, so that all drivers

are treated fairly, all drivers are treated consistently, all drivers are treated

without prejudice under the law?

Question 4. Why is the government exempting existing licence holders from the new

distracted driving restrictions under Bill 12, while imposing stricter penalties and

limitations on new drivers? If distracted driving is a proven safety risk, and government

data shows it is one of the leading causes of serious crashes in British Columbia,

then how can the minister justify a two-tier system where some drivers are held to

a lower safety standard simply because they obtained their licence before the new

law took effect?

Just because someone got a licence doesn’t mean they have driven. So a person could

literally get a licence, sit on that licence, not even drive, wait for everything

to change, and they’d be granted their licence without having any road experience

at all.

Does the government believe that longtime drivers are somehow less likely to be distracted

behind the wheel? If not, why is the government creating two unequal classes of drivers

under the same law, one bound by tougher rules, the other grandfathered out of accountability?

[3:40 p.m.]

If road safety is truly the goal, shouldn’t the same distracted driving standards

apply equally to everyone on the road, regardless of when you’ve earned your licence?

Will the minister commit to reviewing this exemption and ensuring that all British

Columbians are held to consistent, evidence-based safety standards?

Question 5. What evidence or data can the minister provide to show that eliminating

mandatory road tests for certain classes of drivers will not compromise road safety

in British Columbia? The road test has long been the objective standard by which driving

competencies are measured. It ensures that every driver, regardless of background

or experience, demonstrates practical skills and adheres to the rules of the road.

By allowing ICBC to waive this requirement at its discretion, Bill 12 effectively

replaces an evidence-based safety measure with an administrative judgment call.

What studies, safety analysis or pilot programs has the government reviewed to confirm

that removing mandatory testing will not result in higher collision rates, more violations

or increased risk on the road? If the goal is efficiency, that must not come at the

expense of safety. It cannot and it must not.

Will the minister commit to publishing all supportive evidence, including comparative

data from other jurisdictions, before implementing these changes? Will the government

track and report collision and infraction data annually to ensure that this policy

does not lead to a measurable decline in road safety outcomes?

Question 6. Will this government commit to publishing annual publicly accessible safety

data directly tied to the licensing and regulatory changes introduced under Bill 12?

If the intent of this legislation is truly to improve efficiency without compromising

safety, then the government should have no hesitation in demonstrating that thorough,

transparent, evidence-based reporting is required.

British Columbians deserve to see clear year-over-year data on how these reforms affect

key indicators such as collision rates, serious injuries, fatalities and distracted

driving incidents, particularly among new and novice drivers.

Will the minister, therefore, commit to an annual safety report tabled in this Legislature

that tracks and evaluates the real-world outcomes of these policy changes? And will

that report include comparisons between drivers subject to the new licensing rules

and those grandfathered under the old system so the public can clearly see whether

these reforms are making our roads safer or more dangerous? Without such accountability,

this bill asks British Columbians to take the government’s word on faith. That is

not good enough when public safety is at stake. Transparency must not be optional.

It must be built into the policy right from the start.

Question 7. What objective standards or measurable criteria will the government and

ICBC use to approve driver education programs that allow participants to shorten their

licensing wait times under Bill 12? The bill grants cabinet and ICBC broad authority

to recognize certain driver education courses as substitutes for traditional experience

or testing requirements, but it does not define what qualifies a program for approval.

Without clear evidence-based benchmarks, this could result in a patchwork of courses

with varying quality, varying standards, varying effectiveness, potentially undermining

consistency and credibility of B.C.’s licensing system.

Will the minister commit to establishing uniform, transparent criteria developed in

consultation with industry experts, driving instructors and safety researchers to

ensure that any approved program demonstratively improves driver competency and safety

outcomes?

Further, how will ICBC verify these programs are delivered with measurable results,

such as a lower collision rate or improved road test performance among graduates?

Will the government require regular audits, regular performance reviews, regular public

reporting to ensure accountability and prevent private training providers from being

approved based on convenience or political favour rather than proven quality? British

Columbians deserve confidence that these accelerated pathways are based on rigorous,

data-driven standards, not discretion or administrative expediency.

[3:45 p.m.]

across all driver education and training programs approved by Bill 12? If ICBC is

being granted the authority to approve courses that can shorten licensing wait times

or replace certain testing requirements, then British Columbians need assurances that

every program, regardless of where it is offered in this province, meets the same

high standards of quality and effectiveness.

What mechanisms will ICBC put in place to guarantee that driver education programs

in rural and smaller communities are as accessible and comprehensive as those offered

in larger urban centres? How will the corporation ensure that all approved programs

are evaluated by consistent criteria based on objective safety data, not subjective,

inconsistent

interpretations by regional administrators?

Further, will ICBC commit to conducting regular performance audits, publishing publicly

available reports comparing outcomes across approved programs, such as collision rates,

violation frequencies or success rates among graduates, to prove that these courses

actually produce safer, more competent drivers?

so that accelerated licensing opportunities are available to all British Columbians,

not just those who can afford premium private training?

Consistency, transparency, measurable outcomes must be the foundation of any credible

driver education system. Otherwise, we risk replacing one form of inequity with another.

Question 9. Why does this bill rely so heavily on future regulations to be determined

later by cabinet or ICBC, rather than setting out clear, logistic criteria today in

this House? If the government already knows the policy intent behind these changes,

why not define those standards openly and transparently in legislation, where they

can be debated, scrutinized and amended by elected representatives?

Instead, Bill 12 delegates critical decisions, such as how long novice drivers must

wait for their full licences, what constitutes acceptable driver education and how

licensing exemptions will be applied to future regulations that have not been drafted,

disclosed or debated. This approach effectively asks British Columbians to approve

a blank cheque, trusting the ICBC and cabinet will fill in the details later behind

closed doors. This is not how transparent democracy should function.

What assurances can the minister provide that these future regulations will not be

politically influenced, unevenly applied or quietly changed without any public input?

Will the government commit to publishing draft regulations for public consultation,

legislative review, before they are enacted so that British Columbians can have confidence

in how these powers will be used? Does this government believe that decisions affecting

every driver in the province are best made by regulation and discretion rather than

open debate in this Legislature?

Final question, question 10. Who will be consulted when future regulations under Bill

12 are drafted? Will the government engage drivers? Will the government engage industry

experts? Will the government engage safety professionals, or will these critical decisions

be left solely to bureaucrats behind closed doors?

The bill delegates broad powers to ICBC and cabinet to establish licensing requirements,

set waiting periods and approve driver education programs yet provides no guidance

or mandate on who must have input during the regulatory process. If these regulations

are to affect tens of thousands of British Columbians, particularly novice and young

drivers, then it’s essential that the process be inclusive, transparent and evidence-based.

Will the government commit to a formal consultation process that actively seeks input

from (1) driving instructors and accredited training schools; (2) road safety and

public health experts; (3) drivers themselves, particularly young and new drivers

who will be directly affected, so that the regulations are informed by practical experience

research, not simply administrative convenience? Does the government intend for these

future rules to be drafted without meaningful public or expert input, leaving critical

safety and licence decisions to a small group of unelected officials?

Our party, the B.C. Conservative Party, believes there’s a better and more balanced

path forward. We support structured, evidence-based training programs that raise,

not lower, driving competencies.

[3:50 p.m.]

We believe in mandatory testing requirements unless clear data proves that alternative

methods are equally rigorous. We believe in legislative oversight for all major regulatory

changes. And we believe, above all, in transparency and fairness for every class of

driver in British Columbia. These principles ensure that modernization does not come

at the cost of accountability or safety.

I remember the first time, at about 1:30 in the morning, when I got a call. My son

called. “Dad, I had an accident. I went off the road.” I got my clothes on, drove

the car. He had just taken a beautiful young lady on his first date with the family

car, and he went off the road into a ditch.

I drove down there, and I could see what happened. I could see clearly what he did.

He went around the corner and hit the gas. There was just a little bit of sprinkle

of gravel, and he spun out. Luckily, there was a big boulder. That big boulder saved

his car from rolling over. Well, the father of that young lady was there. Needless

to say, that was the first and last date he ever went on with her.

I have helped my wife raise four children. Each of them went through a process to

be allowed to drive. It’s not easy giving your child the car for the first time. “Here

are the keys. Go out.” We need this to be rigorous so that young people are prepared

and parents have confidence.

In closing, the Conservative Party will cautiously support the intent of the bill,

but we do so with serious reservations. We support efficiency, safety and modernization,

but we cannot support the erosion of legislative authority or the creation of a system

where critical decisions are made without scrutiny or transparency. This bill could

be an opportunity to make licensing more efficient and fair, but unless these oversight

and fairness issues are addressed, it risks becoming a step backward in public trust.

We urge the government to amend this legislation, restore accountability, define key

terms and ensure that every change to our driver licensing system is guided by evidence,

by fairness and by the safety for all British Columbians.

We look forward to the committee stage where we will look for answers to these questions

and more so that British Columbians can continue to have confidence in the process

in this House for the safety of every graduated licensing of their children in British

Columbia.

Larry Neufeld : I’m here today to address Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025. As my colleagues

before me have stated, the Conservative Party of British Columbia does support the

goal of modernizing our driver licensing framework and easing the backlogs faced by

ordinary British Columbians.

That being said, we cannot ignore the serious risks posed by granting unlimited regulatory

powers to the insurer and to cabinet. Efficiency must never come at the expense of

fairness, competence or accountability. The bill in its current form risks creating

a system that is confusing, inconsistent and creates a potential for political manipulation.

Road safety is the result of driver competence, not convenience. I know. I have three

adult children. I believe I’ve spoken of it in this House before, but I do have a

vacation property in the Pine Pass in northern British Columbia.

Interjections.

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

Where I’m going with that story, though, is I taught all three of my children to drive

through the Pine Pass. When I tell other parents that, they shudder. Many adults are

fearful to drive through that pass in the wintertime. I forced my children to drive

in that pass when they were learning, for the simple fact that I was beside them and

I was able to correct things by grabbing the steering wheel, etc.

I’m very proud of the skill set that all three of my children have succeeded in. I

will admit that I have had to grab that wheel when they were learning. I had to grab

it more than once.

[3:55 p.m.]

The competency…. Again, when they received their licences, I was — maybe my children

will hear this — exceedingly proud that they all received their drivers’ licences

on the first try, their motorcycle licences on the first try. I will admit I didn’t

take my motorcycle licence until I was in my 40s, and I did not pass on my first try.

I will say that I do believe that the competence was there, and it was much more important

than the training that was provided by the program that they went through.

I’ll also say that streamlining is definitely welcome. Removing testing requirements

without clear performance standards risks eroding confidence in the integrity of our

driver licensing system. That’s something that is quite important to me.

I will say that the official opposition believes in efficient government and also

in responsible government. Every driver who earns a licence in British Columbia must

be qualified beyond doubt. That qualification must be proven through skill, structured

training and measurable performance.

This bill, in my mind, introduces troubling ambiguity. Repeated references within

the text to prescribed classes and prescribed considerations appear throughout sections

23 and 25. Yet nowhere are these terms clearly defined. The lack of definition means

future regulations potentially could apply differently to different groups of British

Columbians. This has the potential for creating a two-tiered system of drivers under

this law.

A licensing system must rest on clear, objective criteria. Without question, anything

less undermines safety and fairness.

Section 23 empowers cabinet to prescribe different amounts of driving experience for

different categories of drivers.

Section 25 extends that authority even further, allowing

the insurer to determine when and for whom testing or waiting periods apply.

In my estimation, this is a sweeping transfer of power from the Legislature to the

bureaucracy. I know that I spoke of this on previous bills, and that’s something that

I think British Columbians should be concerned about. Without oversight, such authority

could easily lead to inconsistency, favouritism or politically motivated adjustments

to regulatory classes.

The official opposition does not oppose flexibility, certainly and without question.

What we do oppose is a blank-cheque authority that lacks transparency and accountability.

Laws should be made in this House, in this place of honour, by those of us who are

responsible to the electorate of this province, not by unelected bureaucrats.

We also must, without question, address the issue of fairness. Under this bill, the

existing drivers are exempt from certain new distracted driving restrictions while

new drivers face stricter penalties. This, in essence, creates two classes of drivers

under one law. I would ask: why should a young motorcyclist or novice driver be held

to a stricter standard than someone who obtained a licence under an older regime?

I’ll give an example here as well. I did mention that I do have a motorcycle licence.

My wife does, my children do, and yes, we formed our own motorcycle gang. It was actually

quite cute. We were quite pathetic. No one feared us whatsoever.

What I will say, though, through that experience, the existing motorcycle program….

I think my colleague who is no longer in the chamber did speak to this earlier. The

existing regime under which motorcycle licensing is accomplished in this province

is very onerous already. That, honestly, where I live, results in many people riding

without a licence.

I can understand why. My wife and I went to the neighbouring province to take the

40-hour Canadian motorcycle safety training course. At the end of that weekend, every

person with a driver’s licence from the province we were in had their motorcycle licence.

When we came back to British Columbia, it didn’t count for anything. That being said,

we had the skills under us, and we had 40 hours of training, which was at our own

behest.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, that is my concern with this portion of the bill. We already have a disproportionate

number of people — young people, potentially; I wouldn’t necessarily say all young

people — who are, in fact, riding without licences. That’s because it is quite difficult….

In my part of the world, it’s very difficult to get an appointment, and it’s a very

onerous course. It’s a very onerous test. If we do increase that further, I’m very

fearful that we’re going to find people that are going to continue down that path

of not taking any training whatsoever.

Having waited until my midlife crisis to get a motorcycle, obviously I was responsible

enough not to do something incredibly silly, because I’m standing here today. Or maybe

I was incredibly lucky. I won’t admit that I did something incredibly silly more than

once.

That said, with 30-some years of driving experience under my belt, it’s perhaps something

that I did get away with. Allow a 16- or 17-year-old to do the same thing without

that level of experience with a motor vehicle…. I think it has been noted in this

House earlier what the rates of fatalities and serious incidents are.

I would like to address that as well. Yes, these statistics don’t lie. Motorcycles,

statistically, are more dangerous. I have no question. I still ride one. What I will

say, though, is that in my experience, by far, the danger comes from motorists. I

have had multiple times where motorists have pulled out left in front of me. In fact,

I lost a colleague to that. He was killed.

Again, through the motorcycle safety training course, the 40-hour course, as I recall….

This was quite a few years ago, but my memory is pretty good. I want to say that 67

percent of motorcycle fatalities at that time were reported to be from motorists turning

left in front of a motorcycle. I have had it happen.

In fact, I had it happen last year, with my wife on the bike with me. That’s not the

cyclist’s fault, but as my colleague, who’s not here, mentioned, it made me a better

vehicle driver. It actually did. You learn to look further ahead, and you simply ride

with the attitude that everyone is trying to kill you. That is how it actually feels.

Well, I’m not trying to scare off any of the young ones that are looking at motorcycle

licences. It’s still an amazing experience. But absolutely, the extra training and

the need for the competency is not necessarily just a test. The competency embraces

so much more than just a test.

We talked about the two classes of drivers under one law. Again, I’ve already gone

into probably more detail than I should have around my experiences with motorcycles.

Nonetheless, what I would suggest is that the law, in general, demands equality before

the law, not arbitrary exemptions based on when one happened to be licensed.

I would restate the experience with my children. It’s their level of competency with

a vehicle driving through winter and mountain road conditions that created skill.

If they’re listening, don’t let it go to your heads. Obviously, we want you to still

be here.

I’m very proud of my kids; they’re excellent drivers. I believe it’s because, as I’ve

done with everything in my life and in my career, I kicked them off the end of the

dock, and then I had a life preserver there to help them out if they did get a little

over their heads.

On Bill 12, the impact on young and new drivers, lowering the self-application age

from 19 to 18 is a reasonable modernization, but it must be paired with rigorous and

high-quality training, which I’ve already spoken of. The official opposition supports

expanding access for responsible young drivers, provided that competency standards

remain strong and consistent across the province.

[4:05 p.m.]

An example I would like to use here is that, growing up in the North, in high school

there were a number of students that actually had pilot licences before they had driver

licences, through the Air Cadets program. The Air Cadets pilot’s licence is based

on competency; it’s not based on age. I had several classmates who could fly a plane

but could not drive a car. That is very real.

I would go on to say that accelerated licensing pathways can be valuable if and only

if they are backed by evidence-based driver education and ongoing evaluation. I recognize

the intent of Bill 12 to authorize cabinet to approve driver education programs in

order to shorten waiting times. That makes a lot of sense. This could indeed assist

in clearing the backlog.

That said, British Columbians deserve assurance that such programs will be independent,

standardized and outcome-measured. I therefore call on the government to publish criteria

for course approval, instructor certification and evaluation metrics before these

provisions come into force. I think it’s very important that this is done beforehand.

Public confidence, as we all know, is the foundation of any regulatory system. In

my opinion, Bill 12 leaves too many essential decisions to future regulation, with

no requirement for legislative review or public consultation. I’ve already spoken

to that. The fear is that we are downloading the legislative component to unelected

bureaucrats who are not accountable to the public, at least not directly accountable.

That, I think, is a slippery slope.

If this government is confident in the merit of these reforms, they should welcome

scrutiny, absolutely. That’s the power of democracy — checks and balances, 100 percent.

The official opposition therefore calls for mandatory tabling of all regulations under

Bill 12 in the Legislature before they take effect and, secondly, for annual reporting

by ICBC, the insurer, regarding safety outcomes and licensing fairness.

Now, we all know that ICBC has long struggled with efficiency, the level of bureaucracy

and, certainly, a lack of public confidence. I would question if granting additional

broad regulatory authority over who tests, who waits and who qualifies could expand

these problems rather than solve them.

The official opposition urges the government to focus ICBC’s mandate on service delivery,

not policy-making. That is the concern with Bill 12, in my estimation. The public

insurer should implement regulations, not write them.

I’d also suggest that there is a question of balance. Streamlining licensing is necessary,

without question. Efficiency — I live for it. I love it, but balance is essential.

We can reduce red tape without reducing accountability. I truly believe that we can

do that. We can modernize without centralizing power.

I would suggest that a good bill empowers people; a dangerous bill empowers institutions.

With Bill 12 in its current form, I am concerned that it does, again, move down that

slippery sl