Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

26, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 33; H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 1:11 p.m.

On clause 10 (continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 33, Pension Benefits

Standards Amendment Act, 2023, to order. We are on clause 10.

P. Milobar: I just want to briefly thank the minister and her staff for clarifying which version

we were on. I own that error. I sent off a very quick message to my staff asking for

a copy, thinking I had included my research team in it as well, and I had only included

somebody that just started a week ago in this building. So the

interpretation got

lost on what I was looking for, but we've figured it out.

The good news is, I guess, that in the 2012 version I was reading, I did find the

same and/or that the ministry found in 2014 had changed. So that's a good thing, I

guess. Also, fundamentally — just so the minister knows — there wasn't a whole lot

of difference between the two bills where I had questions So it really wasn't too

bad over lunchtime to make sure I was back up to speed on the correct version.

That's all I have for 10.

Clauses 10 and 11 approved.

On clause 12.

P. Milobar: Clause 12 is adding the variable life benefits to the act, if I read this correctly.

My understanding is that UBC might have the only variable life act currently — a pension

currently in B.C. that was a holdover from 1988 when the rules changed federally.

Is that the case? And is this enabling others to have the same type of pension that

exists at UBC?

Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, the University of Victoria also has a combination plan. So it's UBC and

University of Victoria, and yes, this will allow other pension plans to follow suit.

P. Milobar: Typically, annuities can run the risk of inflation, obviously. Presumably variable

life benefits run the same risk of losing value in an economic downturn.

What safeguards, if any, are in place to protect people's retirement funds?

Hon. K. Conroy: The plan can offer up to a 2 percent indexing if they choose. It is up to the plan

to determine if they're going to choose to do that.

P. Milobar: Okay. So I guess…. There are a lot of economists that are forecasting an economic

downturn in B.C., including the B.C. Business Council. Would that downturn impact

those that opt in, or is the minister saying that the 2 percent is kind of the floor

of the opt in?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The 2 percent is the maximum permitted under the federal income tax legislation. So

it's not up to the province.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

P. Milobar: As I read it, this clause is clarifying the existing requirements for spousal waivers,

including that waivers can be signed outside of the presence of the member.

Is there a notification process if that, indeed, happens — where a spouse is signing

and the member is not present?

Hon. K. Conroy: This already exists in the act. It's not being changed. It says that the spouse must

confirm that the spouse has the right to receive the member's benefits and the pension

plan after the member's death unless the spouse waives the right by signing the form.

The form must be signed and witnessed in the absence of the member and before the

member's death.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

P. Milobar: This appears to be amending

section 79 but referring back to 89 — this is where sometimes

these bills get a little confusing — "subject to

section 89 (1) or (2)."

I'm just confirming…. Later on, there's talk of

section 89(2), in particular, in clause

20 and then

section 89(1) and (2) in clause 21.

So any changes made there would also be the changes that are now referred to in 14(a).

Does that make sense?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the member is correct.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

P. Milobar: Just a general question around the use of a waiver versus a statement, I guess. It

seems that it's changed a couple of places in this new bill.

Why the change from a statement to a waiver? What's the significance of needing to

make that change?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is a technical correction that results in consistent wording, consistent terminology,

throughout the entire act and regulation.

Clauses 15 and 16 approved.

On clause 17.

P. Milobar: If I read this correctly, it's stating that variable life benefits are non-transferable

once payments start. What is the scenario, then, if the payment started and then there's

a death? Does the decision on the transfer of the payments have to be done in advance

of that? What happens if it's an unexpected death — or am I reading this wrong, which

is entirely possible?

Hon. K. Conroy: This clause is if you're working and you leave your job, you can take your pension

and lock it into an RRSP. This is before variable life benefits take effect.

Clauses 17 and 18 approved.

On clause 19.

P. Milobar: I just want to confirm that this clause does include surviving spouses in the annuity

purchase procedures for defined benefit pension members.

Hon. K. Conroy:

Section 89 is about defined contribution provisions and is limited to that.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

P. Milobar: Just a couple of questions. It's kind of difficult to do without involving clause

21 as well. Clause 20 is amending 89(2) by striking out a

section and substituting

in language, which I get. But then immediately after, in 21, you're repealing all

of 89.1(1) and (2) and resubstituting in.

[1:25 p.m.]

I'm just wondering the relevance of clause 20, I guess on more the legalese side —

why you need to amend and substitute language in a clause that you're literally repealing

and redoing completely in the very next step.

Hon. K. Conroy: Now I'm going to get really technical. This clause amends

section 89, and in 21, which

you referred to, it amends clause 89.1.

Clauses 20 and 21 approved.

On clause 22.

P. Milobar: Okay. This is where it gets very complicated, just because it's amending

section 116, which

deals with

section 110 but also

section 113, from

section 118. So bear with me.

I guess I'm wondering how, in

section 110(3)(b), there's…. How is it any different,

I guess, given that there's no timeline stipulated in terms of "within the period

stipulated in a notice served under

section 110 (3) (b)." There's no actual indication

of what that period is that would be stipulated in a notice being served under there.

Hon. K. Conroy: It's

section 110(3)(b). It provides that an authorized person may demand, by written

notice served on a person, that the person provide records of information within a

reasonable period stipulated in the notice. So that person that is the authorized

person would stipulate what the reasonable period of time would be.

P. Milobar: So there's no current regulation or hard-and-fast timeline of what a reasonable period

of time is?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

P. Milobar: This is for

section 118(1)(a). It's amended by striking out "section 113 (1),

(2) or (3)" and substituting "section 113 (1) or (2)."

That's how it's referring back to…. When you read

section 118, it's referring you

back to

section 113. So when you go back to 113, (3) is still in existence and hasn't

been removed by this bill in front of us today.

[1:30 p.m.]

I'm wondering why the amendment no longer refers to (3), yet (3) is still within the

existing legislation.

Hon. K. Conroy: It's a technical correction of a drafting area, and the reference to

section 113(3)

is redundant. So if

section 113(1) and 113(2) apply,

section 113(3) also applies,

but it's redundant.

P. Milobar: I appreciate it gets technical. It's going to get real confusing here now. I'm going

to try my best to walk through this slowly.

So this would amend

section 118(1)(a), which right now says: "This

section applies

if, as a result of an inspection under

section 110, the superintendent (

a) takes an

action under

section 113 (1), (2) or (3)."

So then you go: "Okay, so this applies to

section 110." You go to

section 110. I won't

read all of

section 110, but it's around inspection and production of documents.

Then you go to

section 113, which gets triggered by this as well — the amendment,

in terms of (1), (2) or (3).

There's also a (4), though, on

section 113, and

section 113(4) is: "On an application

under subsection (3), the court may make any order it considers appropriate."

It just seems by not including section (3) as in the previous language by specifically

removing it, (4) is the only connection around "a court may order anything it considers

appropriate." It doesn't say that on an application under subsection (2) or subsection

(1). It's only under subsection (3).

So does this not create an unintended consequence where it effectively removes an

avenue in terms of engaging the courts, if one side or the other would choose to?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy:

Section 118 provides that if, as a result of an inspection, the superintendent issues

a direction for compliance or an administrative penalty, the superintendent may, by

order, require the person on whom an action is taken to pay part or all of the costs

associated with the inspection that led to the direction or the penalty.

It ensures that people pay what they're supposed to pay. And once that's done, if

it doesn't happen, then (4) has the ability to take people to court.

P. Milobar: I understand that (4) has the ability to take somebody to court. But (4) only actually

refers to subsection (3), and subsection (3) has now been removed from 118. That's

why I'm just wondering, does that not create a gap because (4) doesn't refer to

(1) or (2), which is left in the amended bill?

It's (3) that's actually being removed. That's the only thing that (4) actually refers

to.

Hon. K. Conroy: No, it doesn't create a gap.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

P. Milobar: In (

a) of this, where it's repealing section (2)(

a) and substituting it with the following,

I'm just wondering what is the substantive difference between the existing…?

I recognize this is the federal tax act, income tax regulations. But it currently

has a referencing subsection 8500(3) of the Income Tax Act, and it's inserting in

85154 (

a) or (

b) or both of the income tax regulations.

What would be the substantive difference between those acts that the federal government

has changed?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: So 8500(3) defines what a connected person is within the income tax regulations of

Canada. These are a category of specified individuals within the meaning of

section

8515(4) of the regulation.

So for instance, a connected person. Plans are typically small plans where the members

are significant shareholders in the company or that sponsor the plan. The second one

is like high-earning employees, who are employees who earn 2.5 times the year's maximum

pensionable earnings.

So in 2023, 2.5 times $63,600, so that's there, and also under 8515(4).

Clauses 24 to 30 inclusive approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move the amendment to add clauses 30.1 and 30.2 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[ CLAUSES 30.1 AND 30.2, by adding the following heading and clauses before the “Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act” heading:

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act

30.1 Sections 15 (9), 16 (10) and 24 (10) of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 127, are amended in the definition of “benefit”

(

a) in paragraph (

b) by striking out “ or ”,

(

b) by adding the following paragraph:

(b.1) a variable life payment under the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act , or ,

(

c) in paragraph (

c) by striking out “ a pooled registered pension plan account withdrawn under ”,

(

d) in paragraph (c) (

i) by adding “ a pooled registered pension plan account withdrawn under ” before “ a provision ”, and

(

e) in paragraph (c) (ii) by adding “ a pooled registered pension plan withdrawn under ” before “ the regulations ”.

30.2

Section 25 is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) in the definition of “ money ” by adding the following paragraph:

(a.21) a variable life payment under the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act , ,

(

b) in subsection (1) in the definition of “ money ” by repealing paragraph (a.3) and substituting the following:

(a.3) funds from a pooled registered pension plan account withdrawn under a provision,

authorized by

section 47 (2) of the applied Act, of a pooled registered pension plan,

(a.4) funds from a pooled registered pension plan withdrawn under the regulations

under the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act , or , and

(

c) in subsection (2) (

b) by adding “ , variable life payment ” after “ or any variable payment ”. ]

The Chair: We will call a recess to distribute the amendment, and we will be back in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1:43 p.m. to 1:44 p.m.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

The Chair: I now call the committee back to order.

Amendment approved.

Clauses 30.1 and 30.2 approved.

Clauses 31 and 32 approved.

On clause 33.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I move the amendments to clause 33 standing in my name on the order paper be moved.

[ CLAUSE 33, by deleting clause 33 (

e) and substituting the following:

(

e) in subsection (4) by striking out “ subsection (1) (b), (

c) and (e) ” and substituting “ subsection (1) (b), (b.1), (

c) and (e) ”,

(e.1) in subsection (4) by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) a variable life payment, ,

(e.2) in subsection (4) (

c) by striking out “account”, and . ]

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: I just want to make sure that there wasn't an accidental reversing on the wording

in the amendment.

The amendment says for (e), in subsection (4), by striking out subsection (1)(b),

(c), (

d) and (

e) and substituting subsection (1)(b), (b.1), (

c) and (e). But when

I read Bill 33, the wording in Bill 33 that this is supposed to be amending of the

amendment is subsection 1(b), (b.1), (

c) and (e).

The wording in (4) appears to be already what you're saying you're substituting in

with this amendment. I'm just making sure it's not reversed on the amendment paper

or the Orders of the Day — that in fact, it should be amending by striking out subsections 1(b), (b.1), (

c) and (

e) and adding in subsection 1(b), (

c) and (e).

If not, I don't see why we need this amendment, given that the wording is the exact

same as what's in the bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: The amendments to clause 33 don't represent a change in policy. After the amendments,

clause 33 will make the same change to

section 9(4) of the Pooled Registered Pension

Plans Act to add variable life payments to the list of payments or withdrawals in

that provision.

The amendments to clause 33 are needed because clause 33 doesn't reflect a previous

amendment to

section 9(4) of the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act that was made

by Bill 4, 2023, in this session of the Legislative Assembly.

P. Milobar: Well, I'm still a little confused because when I'm reading Bill 33, which is amending

existing legislation, and I get that, Bill 33 says: "subsection 1(b), (b.1), (

c) and

(e)…." So that's what the government originally wanted to do with Bill 33.

Then the government brought in an amendment on the order paper saying that they needed

to correct what's in Bill 33. They said what's in Bill 33 is reading subsection 1(b),

(

c) and (e), and it should actually read subsection 1(b), (b.1), (

c) and (e). But

what the government is saying they want to amend is actually how it's worded in Bill

I don't see why either we need this amendment, because it's already taken care of

in clause 33 if it's worded properly, or the amendment is actually in reverse of what

it should be getting amended.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Bill 33 replaces and repeals sub 9(4), which leaves out wording added by Bill 4 in

this session. The amendment to clause 33 ensures the amendment made by Bill 4 is retained.

P. Milobar: Well, again, that…. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense. Bill 33, I agree, is changing

section 9 of the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, in clause 33. We all agree on

that.

The submission to make that change in Bill 33 says: "Despite subsection (1) (b), (b.1),

(

c) and (e), any of the following may be…." And then it goes on.

The government, the minister then put on the order paper, after tabling Bill 33, an

amendment to that clause. The amendment the government is proposing results in the

exact same wording as what is currently in Bill 33. The amendment says: "…in subsection

(4) by striking out 'subsection (1) (b), (

c) and (e)' and substituting 'subsection

(1) (b), (b.1), (

c) and (e).'" That's exactly what the language is in clause 33 of

Bill 33.

I'm simply wanting to clarify and make sure that the government didn't accidentally,

by way of cut and paste or some other error like that, actually mean to be amending

subsection (1)(b), (b.1), (

c) and (e) — that's what's supposed to be getting struck

out of Bill 33 — and inserting in subsection (1)(b), (

c) and (e), because that would

actually be an amendment to Bill 33. What is proposed right now is not amending anything

that's actually in Bill 33.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The amendment doesn't change the list — that's correct — of (1)(b), (b.1), (

c) and

(e). The amendment to clause 33 corrects an error where the list of Securities Act

orders that are currently in

section 9(4) remain in the provision. It was an error.

So the amendment corrects the amendment.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

P. Milobar: Can the minister point me to the difference in wording in the amendment in (

e) versus

the difference in wording in Bill 33?

Hon. K. Conroy: Referring to what the member has, which is in (e)(4)(c), there's a change there where

the word "account" is going to be crossed out.

So it will say, "funds from a pooled registered pension plan withdrawn" under the

regulations. You take out the word "account" And: ".…may be attached by a notice of

attachment under

section 15…of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act , an order of garnishment under

section 18 (2)…of that Act or an attachment order

under

section 24…of that Act" a preservation order or a forfeiture order under

part

18.1 of the Securities Act or in furtherance of any process to enforce an order under the Securities Act.

We didn't want to lose that out of the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

P. Milobar: So the minister is saying then, essentially, all of what is pretty much written in

(

e) on Bill 33 is no longer relevant. That has been taken off the table because now

it's just deleting that clause 33 completely with this amendment 33(e).

Interjection.

P. Milobar: No, no. When I read the amendment, the amendment is to clause 33, by deleting clause

33(e).

[2:05 p.m.]

This would mean all of (

e) gets removed, which I then understand — just making simple

substitutions into the existing areas of the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act,

section 9, versus the wholesale wording changes that are currently in Bill 33. Is

that correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

Amendment approved.

Clause 33 as amended approved.

Clause 31 approved.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

P. Milobar: I always love asking questions around the commencement chart.

Just wondering. The vast majority of this bill is being left to take effect by regulation,

OICs and the like. Is there a rough timeline that the minister is targeting to have

any of the regulatory changes that this bill will require done and through the orders-in-council?

Hon. K. Conroy: The provisions that are to come into force by regulation require time for one or more

of the following to take place before commencement: we need for regulations to be

made; for pension plans to prepare for compliance with the amendments, such as registering

amendments to plan text documents; and for the B.C. Financial Services Authority to

prepare for the administration and enforcement of the PBSA as amended.

For the variable life benefits to be implemented, they'll be implemented in jurisdictions

that enact enabling legislation after regulations have been developed. To date, enabling

legislation has been enacted in Quebec, Saskatchewan and the federal government and

is being considered by Ontario and Alberta as well.

Regulations will be developed in 2024, in consultation with Finance Canada and provinces

that participate in the development of a harmonized policy framework for variable

life benefits.

Clause 35 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:08 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 28; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2023 to order.

Minister, would you like to say a few words?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can begin. I know that the member opposite has identified a number of sections

that we will focus on, and then the others we'll be able to move through in blocks.

I know that we'll be looking, in particular, at sections 1, 3, 36 to 42 and 47. The

rest can move.

The Chair: Very nice; thank you.

T. Halford: Just to start, a couple of general questions. If we can talk about who was consulted

in preparation for the amendments to the bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Consultations took place with representative

associations, major leasing and financing companies and other lessors, Autoplan brokers,

the Insurance Bureau of Canada, other insurance stakeholders, taxi companies, the

B.C. Trucking Association and the motion picture industry.

T. Halford: The minister indicated — I think it was during second reading — that we are the last

jurisdiction in Canada to make this change. So just a comment from the minister on

what the timing was for that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This has been a long-standing issue, and it's something that ICBC had been working

on with enhanced care in place. This was one of those issues that…. "Hey, let's get

this up and get it moving."

When I took over, this was identified as a priority for us. That's why it's coming

forward now.

T. Halford: In clause 1, the definition of a "leased vehicle" is added. It's to mean "a vehicle

that is leased or rented under a written agreement for a period of not less than one

month."

[2:40 p.m.]

It was during the second reading that the minister clarified this: "The proposed changes

apply only to leased vehicles. At this time, there are no changes proposed for rented

vehicles. Owners of rented vehicles continue to have the obligation to license and

insure the vehicles."

I'm just going to ask if the minister can clarify the difference between a leased

vehicle and a rented vehicle and if both under a written agreement for more than a

month.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The difference is that the lessee is named in the registration. Under short-term rentals,

they're not named. That's the difference.

T. Halford: Would these amendments, basically, apply to a contractor that rents a cube van for

work for, let's say, six months, for example? Would that apply?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the scenario the member just outlined…. If I was the individual who was renting

it from you, I should be named. If I'm not, there's no penalty. The owner is, then,

the one who is responsible for all the paperwork and everything that goes along with

that.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that. How will it work for a leased vehicle? How will

it be treated if it's a leased vehicle rented for less than a month, then?

Hon. M. Farnworth: For less than a month, the owner has the obligation to license, register and insure.

T. Halford: Is the minister at all concerned…? If you did a lease…. I guess it would be primarily

a rental for less than a month. That could open up a possible loophole.

Does the minister have any concerns? Have staff looked at that, potentially, being

a loophole in this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. It doesn't become a loophole. It is the status quo right now. It is, in fact,

a practice right across the country.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

T. Halford: With the addition of the new subsection (4.01), there's a reference…. It's a reference

to the prescribed fees that the lessee would have to pay. These fees would remain

the same for a lessee as what they are currently for an….

Basically, would the fees remain the same for a lessee as what they are currently

for an owner?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The prescribed fees don't change. The insurance premium doesn't change. But the taxes

are the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle.

[2:45 p.m.]

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that. The lessee should not expect any additional expenses

or fees as a result of these amendments whatsoever.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There should be no change. What they pay today is what they will pay tomorrow.

Clauses 3 to 35 inclusive approved.

On clause 36.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: A division has been called. We are in recess until three o'clock, please.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023,

back to order.

We are on clause 36.

On clause 36 (continued) .

T. Halford: Do any of the amendments made to

part 9, specifically the motor vehicle impoundment,

make it easier in any way to impound a leased vehicle or trailer that could be used

to, say, for example, commit a crime?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no.

Clauses 36 to 46 inclusive approved.

On clause 47.

T. Halford: With the addition of the new subsection (4.1), there's a reference to prescribed fees

that the lessee would have to pay. So would these fees remain the same for the lessee

as they are currently for an owner?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Everything is the same.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I'm assuming I'm going to know what the answer is, but I'll ask it anyway, because

it's similar to a previous

section that I asked on. It's: can the lessees expect any

additional expenses, fees, as a result of these amendments that they didn't have before,

specific to (4.1)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If you take the 14th letter of the alphabet and the 15th letter of the alphabet, that

is your answer. It is no.

Clauses 47 to 74 inclusive approved.

On clause 75.

T. Halford: I think the minister just made another contribution to No Context BC, but we'll wait

for that to come out.

So just in general, when does the minister anticipate this act will come into force?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We anticipate the act will come into force with the regulations in the summer of 2024.

T. Halford: With the changes in this bill, how…? I think the minister talked about consultation

and the lists that had been done prior to tabling this legislation. But how will this

be communicated to individuals, companies, industries?

[3:15 p.m.]

Specifically, is it done through an awareness campaign? If the minister can list how

that work will occur, that would be helpful.

Hon. M. Farnworth: After royal assent has been given, ICBC will be re-engaging with the stakeholders

in terms of the change management and the implementation. So the people who are consulted….

We'll be going back in terms of "Okay, we're going to roll it out," and make sure

that they're consulted and they know how it's going to roll out.

Clause 75 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:16 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada